George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Rutgers RW 1NC

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution

Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum Army Career College 13 12 Punctuation -- The Colon and Semicolon United States Army Warrant Officer Career College Last Reviewed December 19 2013 httpusacacarmymilcac2woccColonSemicolonasp

The colon introduces the following 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 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) 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 A second independent clause which explains the first Potters motive is clear (colon) he wants the assignment

After the introduction of a business letter Dear Sirs (colon)Dear Madam (colon) The details following an announcement For sale (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock A formal resolution after the word resolved Resolved (colon) That this council petition the mayor

Should expresses an obligation Nieto 9 Judge Henry Nieto Colorado Court of Appeals 8-20-2009 People v Munoz 240 P3d 311 Colo Ct App 2009

Should is used to express duty obligation propriety or expediency Websters Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002) Courts [15] interpreting the

word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting should in an imperative obligatory sense HN7A number of courts confronted with the question of whether using the word should in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment

protections governing the reasonable doubt standard have upheld instructions using the word In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word should in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial the courts have squarely rejected

the argument They reasoned that the word conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury See State v

McCloud 257 Kan 1 891 P2d 324 335 (Kan 1995) see also Tyson v State 217 Ga App 428 457 SE2d 690 691-92 (Ga Ct App 1995) (finding argument that should is directional but

not instructional to be without merit) Commonwealth v Hammond 350 Pa Super 477 504 A2d 940 941-42 (Pa Super Ct 1986) Notably courts interpreting the word should in other types of jury instructions [16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not

discretion In Little v State 261 Ark 859 554 SW2d 312 324 (Ark 1977) the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word should in an instruction

on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word must and rejected the defendants argument that the jury may have been misled by the courts use of the word in

the instruction Similarly the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendants argument that the court erred by not using the word should in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word must because the two words have the same meaning State v Rack

318 SW2d 211 215 (Mo 1958) [318] In applying a child support statute the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislatures or commissions use of the word should is meant to convey duty or obligation McNutt v McNutt 203 Ariz 28 49 P3d 300 306 (Ariz Ct App 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures should be allocated for the purpose of parents federal tax exemption to be mandatory)

The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governmentsAndrew Power 13 et al Active Citizenship and Disability Implementing the Personalisation of Support Cambridge University Press Jan 14 2013 Page 88

The United States has a unique political and geographical landscape which provides a complex territorial system of administration of disability support

policy It has an intricate federal-state level relationship with different institutions and actors who can shape disability support policy in many different

ways and at various different scales At the federal level the U nited S tates is a constitutional republic in which the president Congressional and

judiciary share powers reserved for the national government and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments

Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful Blackrsquos Law Dictionary 95 ldquoWhat is LEGALIZErdquo [httpthelawdictionaryorglegalize]

To make legal or lawful to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful to add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against law

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

This promotes a model of debate as dialogue- normative restrictions are key to its potential

Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas would preserve the affi rmative team rsquos obligation to

uphold the debate resolution At the same time this approach licenses debaters to argue both discursive and performative advantages

While this view is broader than many policy teams would like and certainly more limited than many critical teams would prefer this approach captures the advantages of

both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis point of argumentation for a full clash of ideas around these values Here I

begin with an introduction to the dialogic model which I will relate to the history of switch-side debate and the current controversy Then I will defend my conception of debate as a dialogical exchange Finally I will answer potential criticisms to the debate as a dialogue construct Setting the Argumentative Table Conceptualizing Debate as a Dialogue 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 amp Lindeman 2000) As dialogue the aff irmative 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

monologuemdashbut as an invitation to dialogue our attention must move from the ontology of the aff irmative 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 affirmativersquos goal in creating a ldquogerm of a responserdquo (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 neg ative 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 affi rmative speech act be it policy oriented critical or

performative in nature must adhere to normative restrictions to achieve its maximum competitive and ontological potential

Two net benefits-

First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy

This is a pre-condition to debateShively 00 Partisan Politics and Political Theory Ruth Lessl Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AampM p 181-2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

The requirements given thus far are primarily negative The ambiguists must say ldquonordquo tomdashthey must reject and limitmdashsome ideas and actions In what

follows we will also find that they must say ldquoyesrdquo to some things In particular they must say ldquoyesrdquo to the idea of rational per- suasion 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 mdashthat consen- sus kills debate But this is true only if the agreement is perfectmdashif 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 com- municating 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 onersquos 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 andor the terms of their disagree- ments The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an under- standing of the complaint at

hand And a demonstratorrsquos 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

Second nb decision-making skills-

Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities

Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy A Sirenrsquos 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 sirenrsquos call a belief that certain critical ideals and concepts are axiological existing beyond doubt without scrutiny Bakhtin

contends that in dialogical exchanges ldquothe greater the number and weightrdquo 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 ldquodebate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of informationrdquo (1993 p 285) He continues ldquo[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 arenardquo (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

ldquoThe theory holds that antithesis ultimately produces a better consensus that the clash of differing even opposing interests and ideas in the process of decision makingcreates decisions that are better for having been subjected to this trial by fire rdquo (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

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue Bile 00 REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS BEYOND PERSUASION TOWARD COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION Jeffery Thomas Bile PhD candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio Contemporary Argumentation and Debate httpwwwcedadebateorgCADindexphpCADarticleviewFile254238

In our contentious culture we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against anotherrdquo (Griffin 101) If we took this approach we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues what their implications are who might be affected and in what ways and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself So I think the issue of the resolution needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well (Griffin 101) l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals Certainly contemporary social problems

are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply Before discarding binary topics too quickly however we should consider their contextual effects When combined with the requirement of switching sides two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all Empathic learning is encouraged then when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments A related issue deserving much further exploration is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching l

sympathize with the view that students should not be forced to advocate a position that they do not believe As a practical matter I believe that most topics are ambiguous

enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort But more fundamentally Im not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic

counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable The counter-attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into

anothers world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do This convention may yield invitational dividends Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider ˜perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to validate those

perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own (5) It seems to me that counter-attitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness empathy and personal validation of multiple views No one should be forced

to debate but for those making the choice agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of ones own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things

Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makersWilliam J Kinsella 2 is Associate Professor of Communication North Carolina State University ldquoProblematizing the Distinction between Expert and Lay Knowledgerdquo httpswwwacademiaedu297063Kinsella_W_J_2002__Proble-matizing_the_Distinction_Between_Expert_and_Lay_Knowledge_New_Jersey_Journal_of_Communication_10_2_191-207 DOA 3-3-14 y2k

As active and equal participants in policy discourse with an undeniable technical dimension members of the public must

listen to evaluate and contribute to conversations with substantial technical content Here Frank Fischer‟s analysis complements that of Walter Fisher Fischer (2000)

maintains that public participation is valuable in three ways it cultivates democratic politics and thereby counters the trend toward technocratic control and

individual alienation it provides legitimation for particular decisions as well as for public institutions and it enhances the relevance and validity of technical analysis at all levels

of decision making It is the third of these motives that Fischer examines most closely and most effectively focusing on citizens‟ abilities to contribute as well as on the usefulness of their contributions in particular policy decisions

Drawing on examples from Europe Asia and the United States Fischer argues that ldquomany citizens are much more capable of grappling with

complex technical and normative issues than the conventional wisdom would have us believerdquo (p 260) His examples include cases of ldquopopular epidemiologyrdquo

(Brown amp Mikkelsen 1990) successful citizen panels and juries (Crosby 1995) the widely-acclaimed European ldquoconsensus conferencesrdquo (Joss amp Durant 1995) and the ldquoparticipatory researchrdquo movement ( Cancian amp Armstead 1992 Laird 1993 Reason 1994) His goal is to identify viable mechanisms for substantive public participation in environmental decisions as a step toward what Dryzek (1990 1996) calls ldquodiscursive democracyrdquo As a leader in the ldquoargumentative turnrdquo or ldquocommunicative turnrdquo in the

public policy discipline (Fischer amp Forester 1993 Healey 1993) Fischer maintains that successful policy flows from a broad and comprehensive dialog in which citizens articulate interrogate and transform each others‟ perspectives Within this dialog the local knowledge of ordinary citizens and the abstract knowledge of technical experts interact synergistically

to provide more complete analyses and more effective decisions Fischer provides considerable evidence that citizens are capable of direct participation and that such participation is essential both

to democratic politics and to successful decision making Nevertheless reviews of existing approaches to public participation especially as practiced in the United States suggest that these often fall far

short of Fischer‟s ideal (Chess amp Purcell 1999 Fiorino 1990 1996 Laird 1993 McComas 2001 Rowe amp Frewer 2000) In the realm of environmental policy making Fiorino (1996) has described this deficit as a ldquoparticipation gaprdquo Acknowledging the limits of technocratic decision making and responding to calls for more openness US federal and state agencies have developed a variety of public involvement methods including public meetings and hearings citizen advisory boards and citizen panels and juries Meanwhile ballot initiatives and referenda have become increasingly influential in state and local environmental politics These approaches are certainly valuable and represent progress toward a more dialogic model Nevertheless they all have significant limitations related to real or perceived limits on the abilities of ordinary citizens to participate in debates with substantial technical dimensions Public meetings widely utilized by many government agencies are attempts at direct democracy but typically provide only limited opportunities for citizen engagement with issues and decision makers In many cases this engagement is brief and comes only after the issues have been framed and a narrow menu of policy choices has been developed In the worst cases meetings provide ldquohollow participation in which citizens merely make noise in some political ritualrdquo rather than ldquoreal influence over outcomesrdquo (Laird 1993 p 348) As Fiorino (1996) notes in most public hearings the agency defines the agenda and establishes the format The hearing itself provides limited time for citizens to understand the technical or policy issues and to take a substantive part in the discussion Indeed the reliance on public hearings as a mainstay of public participation is one of the weaknesses of the administrative process in the United States in part because of the unequal relationship of citizens to government officialsPublic hearings typically do not give citizens a share in decision making Although they provide mechanisms for public views to come to the attention of administrators they do not directly engage citizens in the process of making policy choices or cede to citizens any control over the decision process itself (p 202) Panels juries and advisory boards provide small numbers of citizens with opportunities for more extended engagement but these more highly involved individuals do not necessarily represent the larger public that remains distanced from the issues Appointments to such bodies often emphasize interest group politics over direct democracy (Fiorino 1996 Laird 1993 Williams amp Matheny 1995) Additionally public interest representatives who serve in these bodies for extended time periods run the risk of ldquogoing nativerdquo by becoming specialized experts themselves As these individuals increasingly identify with their formal roles they may lose contact with the communities and values that they are presumed to represent In Fischer‟s view [i]nterest group politics are not to be misconstrued with citizen involvement in the sense at issue here Although they speak in the name of large numbers of people such groups are typically run by a small group of people at the top of their organizations Indeed interest group politics has seldom proven to be participatory democracy in actionMany grassroots environmentalists in the United States especially those identified with the environmental justice movement strongly complain that the big environmental Washington-oriented organizations have lost touch with the local citizenry Having become caught up in so-called ldquoBeltwayrdquo politics such organizations increasingly represent their followers only on paper (Fischer 2000 pp 33-34) Similarly ballot initiatives are often developed by interest groups and brought to the polls based on popular support of their perceived or claimed purposes rather than close scrutiny and broad substantive participation Understanding the full implications of a ballot measure often requires a substantial familiarity with the underlying technical and policy issues as a result voters rely heavily on opinion leaders and media representations to interpret the meanings of ballot measures Furthermore in this mode of action ldquothe influence that any one person can have is small One of the many weaknesses of initiatives is that they force people to make dichotomous choices which offers them a very limited kind of decision authorityrdquo (Fiorino 1996 p 202) The participation gap manifested in these practices has multiple roots One of these is the sheer complexity pace and breadth of contemporary society which seems to offer individuals no alternative to reliance on specialists in myriad technical fields (Beck 1992 Giddens 1990) Apathy political alienation and the many distractions of the consumer society are additional and related factors although democratic theorists argue that these are products of a thin political culture as much as they are causes of it (Barber 1984) As Williams and Matheny (1995) have pointed out prevailing notions of liberal politics offer few conceptual alternatives to a 8 dichotomous choice between technocratic or ldquomanagerialrdquo approaches and ldquopluralistrdquo or interest group models Both of these paradigms assumendashwhether correctly or incorrectlyndashthat ordinary citizens lack the competencies required for deep engagement with policy issues The

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution

Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum Army Career College 13 12 Punctuation -- The Colon and Semicolon United States Army Warrant Officer Career College Last Reviewed December 19 2013 httpusacacarmymilcac2woccColonSemicolonasp

The colon introduces the following 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 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) 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 A second independent clause which explains the first Potters motive is clear (colon) he wants the assignment

After the introduction of a business letter Dear Sirs (colon)Dear Madam (colon) The details following an announcement For sale (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock A formal resolution after the word resolved Resolved (colon) That this council petition the mayor

Should expresses an obligation Nieto 9 Judge Henry Nieto Colorado Court of Appeals 8-20-2009 People v Munoz 240 P3d 311 Colo Ct App 2009

Should is used to express duty obligation propriety or expediency Websters Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002) Courts [15] interpreting the

word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting should in an imperative obligatory sense HN7A number of courts confronted with the question of whether using the word should in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment

protections governing the reasonable doubt standard have upheld instructions using the word In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word should in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial the courts have squarely rejected

the argument They reasoned that the word conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury See State v

McCloud 257 Kan 1 891 P2d 324 335 (Kan 1995) see also Tyson v State 217 Ga App 428 457 SE2d 690 691-92 (Ga Ct App 1995) (finding argument that should is directional but

not instructional to be without merit) Commonwealth v Hammond 350 Pa Super 477 504 A2d 940 941-42 (Pa Super Ct 1986) Notably courts interpreting the word should in other types of jury instructions [16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not

discretion In Little v State 261 Ark 859 554 SW2d 312 324 (Ark 1977) the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word should in an instruction

on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word must and rejected the defendants argument that the jury may have been misled by the courts use of the word in

the instruction Similarly the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendants argument that the court erred by not using the word should in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word must because the two words have the same meaning State v Rack

318 SW2d 211 215 (Mo 1958) [318] In applying a child support statute the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislatures or commissions use of the word should is meant to convey duty or obligation McNutt v McNutt 203 Ariz 28 49 P3d 300 306 (Ariz Ct App 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures should be allocated for the purpose of parents federal tax exemption to be mandatory)

The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governmentsAndrew Power 13 et al Active Citizenship and Disability Implementing the Personalisation of Support Cambridge University Press Jan 14 2013 Page 88

The United States has a unique political and geographical landscape which provides a complex territorial system of administration of disability support

policy It has an intricate federal-state level relationship with different institutions and actors who can shape disability support policy in many different

ways and at various different scales At the federal level the U nited S tates is a constitutional republic in which the president Congressional and

judiciary share powers reserved for the national government and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments

Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful Blackrsquos Law Dictionary 95 ldquoWhat is LEGALIZErdquo [httpthelawdictionaryorglegalize]

To make legal or lawful to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful to add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against law

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

This promotes a model of debate as dialogue- normative restrictions are key to its potential

Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas would preserve the affi rmative team rsquos obligation to

uphold the debate resolution At the same time this approach licenses debaters to argue both discursive and performative advantages

While this view is broader than many policy teams would like and certainly more limited than many critical teams would prefer this approach captures the advantages of

both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis point of argumentation for a full clash of ideas around these values Here I

begin with an introduction to the dialogic model which I will relate to the history of switch-side debate and the current controversy Then I will defend my conception of debate as a dialogical exchange Finally I will answer potential criticisms to the debate as a dialogue construct Setting the Argumentative Table Conceptualizing Debate as a Dialogue 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 amp Lindeman 2000) As dialogue the aff irmative 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

monologuemdashbut as an invitation to dialogue our attention must move from the ontology of the aff irmative 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 affirmativersquos goal in creating a ldquogerm of a responserdquo (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 neg ative 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 affi rmative speech act be it policy oriented critical or

performative in nature must adhere to normative restrictions to achieve its maximum competitive and ontological potential

Two net benefits-

First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy

This is a pre-condition to debateShively 00 Partisan Politics and Political Theory Ruth Lessl Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AampM p 181-2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

The requirements given thus far are primarily negative The ambiguists must say ldquonordquo tomdashthey must reject and limitmdashsome ideas and actions In what

follows we will also find that they must say ldquoyesrdquo to some things In particular they must say ldquoyesrdquo to the idea of rational per- suasion 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 mdashthat consen- sus kills debate But this is true only if the agreement is perfectmdashif 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 com- municating 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 onersquos 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 andor the terms of their disagree- ments The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an under- standing of the complaint at

hand And a demonstratorrsquos 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

Second nb decision-making skills-

Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities

Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy A Sirenrsquos 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 sirenrsquos call a belief that certain critical ideals and concepts are axiological existing beyond doubt without scrutiny Bakhtin

contends that in dialogical exchanges ldquothe greater the number and weightrdquo 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 ldquodebate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of informationrdquo (1993 p 285) He continues ldquo[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 arenardquo (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

ldquoThe theory holds that antithesis ultimately produces a better consensus that the clash of differing even opposing interests and ideas in the process of decision makingcreates decisions that are better for having been subjected to this trial by fire rdquo (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

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue Bile 00 REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS BEYOND PERSUASION TOWARD COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION Jeffery Thomas Bile PhD candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio Contemporary Argumentation and Debate httpwwwcedadebateorgCADindexphpCADarticleviewFile254238

In our contentious culture we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against anotherrdquo (Griffin 101) If we took this approach we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues what their implications are who might be affected and in what ways and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself So I think the issue of the resolution needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well (Griffin 101) l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals Certainly contemporary social problems

are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply Before discarding binary topics too quickly however we should consider their contextual effects When combined with the requirement of switching sides two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all Empathic learning is encouraged then when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments A related issue deserving much further exploration is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching l

sympathize with the view that students should not be forced to advocate a position that they do not believe As a practical matter I believe that most topics are ambiguous

enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort But more fundamentally Im not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic

counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable The counter-attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into

anothers world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do This convention may yield invitational dividends Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider ˜perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to validate those

perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own (5) It seems to me that counter-attitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness empathy and personal validation of multiple views No one should be forced

to debate but for those making the choice agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of ones own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things

Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makersWilliam J Kinsella 2 is Associate Professor of Communication North Carolina State University ldquoProblematizing the Distinction between Expert and Lay Knowledgerdquo httpswwwacademiaedu297063Kinsella_W_J_2002__Proble-matizing_the_Distinction_Between_Expert_and_Lay_Knowledge_New_Jersey_Journal_of_Communication_10_2_191-207 DOA 3-3-14 y2k

As active and equal participants in policy discourse with an undeniable technical dimension members of the public must

listen to evaluate and contribute to conversations with substantial technical content Here Frank Fischer‟s analysis complements that of Walter Fisher Fischer (2000)

maintains that public participation is valuable in three ways it cultivates democratic politics and thereby counters the trend toward technocratic control and

individual alienation it provides legitimation for particular decisions as well as for public institutions and it enhances the relevance and validity of technical analysis at all levels

of decision making It is the third of these motives that Fischer examines most closely and most effectively focusing on citizens‟ abilities to contribute as well as on the usefulness of their contributions in particular policy decisions

Drawing on examples from Europe Asia and the United States Fischer argues that ldquomany citizens are much more capable of grappling with

complex technical and normative issues than the conventional wisdom would have us believerdquo (p 260) His examples include cases of ldquopopular epidemiologyrdquo

(Brown amp Mikkelsen 1990) successful citizen panels and juries (Crosby 1995) the widely-acclaimed European ldquoconsensus conferencesrdquo (Joss amp Durant 1995) and the ldquoparticipatory researchrdquo movement ( Cancian amp Armstead 1992 Laird 1993 Reason 1994) His goal is to identify viable mechanisms for substantive public participation in environmental decisions as a step toward what Dryzek (1990 1996) calls ldquodiscursive democracyrdquo As a leader in the ldquoargumentative turnrdquo or ldquocommunicative turnrdquo in the

public policy discipline (Fischer amp Forester 1993 Healey 1993) Fischer maintains that successful policy flows from a broad and comprehensive dialog in which citizens articulate interrogate and transform each others‟ perspectives Within this dialog the local knowledge of ordinary citizens and the abstract knowledge of technical experts interact synergistically

to provide more complete analyses and more effective decisions Fischer provides considerable evidence that citizens are capable of direct participation and that such participation is essential both

to democratic politics and to successful decision making Nevertheless reviews of existing approaches to public participation especially as practiced in the United States suggest that these often fall far

short of Fischer‟s ideal (Chess amp Purcell 1999 Fiorino 1990 1996 Laird 1993 McComas 2001 Rowe amp Frewer 2000) In the realm of environmental policy making Fiorino (1996) has described this deficit as a ldquoparticipation gaprdquo Acknowledging the limits of technocratic decision making and responding to calls for more openness US federal and state agencies have developed a variety of public involvement methods including public meetings and hearings citizen advisory boards and citizen panels and juries Meanwhile ballot initiatives and referenda have become increasingly influential in state and local environmental politics These approaches are certainly valuable and represent progress toward a more dialogic model Nevertheless they all have significant limitations related to real or perceived limits on the abilities of ordinary citizens to participate in debates with substantial technical dimensions Public meetings widely utilized by many government agencies are attempts at direct democracy but typically provide only limited opportunities for citizen engagement with issues and decision makers In many cases this engagement is brief and comes only after the issues have been framed and a narrow menu of policy choices has been developed In the worst cases meetings provide ldquohollow participation in which citizens merely make noise in some political ritualrdquo rather than ldquoreal influence over outcomesrdquo (Laird 1993 p 348) As Fiorino (1996) notes in most public hearings the agency defines the agenda and establishes the format The hearing itself provides limited time for citizens to understand the technical or policy issues and to take a substantive part in the discussion Indeed the reliance on public hearings as a mainstay of public participation is one of the weaknesses of the administrative process in the United States in part because of the unequal relationship of citizens to government officialsPublic hearings typically do not give citizens a share in decision making Although they provide mechanisms for public views to come to the attention of administrators they do not directly engage citizens in the process of making policy choices or cede to citizens any control over the decision process itself (p 202) Panels juries and advisory boards provide small numbers of citizens with opportunities for more extended engagement but these more highly involved individuals do not necessarily represent the larger public that remains distanced from the issues Appointments to such bodies often emphasize interest group politics over direct democracy (Fiorino 1996 Laird 1993 Williams amp Matheny 1995) Additionally public interest representatives who serve in these bodies for extended time periods run the risk of ldquogoing nativerdquo by becoming specialized experts themselves As these individuals increasingly identify with their formal roles they may lose contact with the communities and values that they are presumed to represent In Fischer‟s view [i]nterest group politics are not to be misconstrued with citizen involvement in the sense at issue here Although they speak in the name of large numbers of people such groups are typically run by a small group of people at the top of their organizations Indeed interest group politics has seldom proven to be participatory democracy in actionMany grassroots environmentalists in the United States especially those identified with the environmental justice movement strongly complain that the big environmental Washington-oriented organizations have lost touch with the local citizenry Having become caught up in so-called ldquoBeltwayrdquo politics such organizations increasingly represent their followers only on paper (Fischer 2000 pp 33-34) Similarly ballot initiatives are often developed by interest groups and brought to the polls based on popular support of their perceived or claimed purposes rather than close scrutiny and broad substantive participation Understanding the full implications of a ballot measure often requires a substantial familiarity with the underlying technical and policy issues as a result voters rely heavily on opinion leaders and media representations to interpret the meanings of ballot measures Furthermore in this mode of action ldquothe influence that any one person can have is small One of the many weaknesses of initiatives is that they force people to make dichotomous choices which offers them a very limited kind of decision authorityrdquo (Fiorino 1996 p 202) The participation gap manifested in these practices has multiple roots One of these is the sheer complexity pace and breadth of contemporary society which seems to offer individuals no alternative to reliance on specialists in myriad technical fields (Beck 1992 Giddens 1990) Apathy political alienation and the many distractions of the consumer society are additional and related factors although democratic theorists argue that these are products of a thin political culture as much as they are causes of it (Barber 1984) As Williams and Matheny (1995) have pointed out prevailing notions of liberal politics offer few conceptual alternatives to a 8 dichotomous choice between technocratic or ldquomanagerialrdquo approaches and ldquopluralistrdquo or interest group models Both of these paradigms assumendashwhether correctly or incorrectlyndashthat ordinary citizens lack the competencies required for deep engagement with policy issues The

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

This promotes a model of debate as dialogue- normative restrictions are key to its potential

Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas would preserve the affi rmative team rsquos obligation to

uphold the debate resolution At the same time this approach licenses debaters to argue both discursive and performative advantages

While this view is broader than many policy teams would like and certainly more limited than many critical teams would prefer this approach captures the advantages of

both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis point of argumentation for a full clash of ideas around these values Here I

begin with an introduction to the dialogic model which I will relate to the history of switch-side debate and the current controversy Then I will defend my conception of debate as a dialogical exchange Finally I will answer potential criticisms to the debate as a dialogue construct Setting the Argumentative Table Conceptualizing Debate as a Dialogue 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 amp Lindeman 2000) As dialogue the aff irmative 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

monologuemdashbut as an invitation to dialogue our attention must move from the ontology of the aff irmative 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 affirmativersquos goal in creating a ldquogerm of a responserdquo (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 neg ative 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 affi rmative speech act be it policy oriented critical or

performative in nature must adhere to normative restrictions to achieve its maximum competitive and ontological potential

Two net benefits-

First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy

This is a pre-condition to debateShively 00 Partisan Politics and Political Theory Ruth Lessl Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AampM p 181-2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

The requirements given thus far are primarily negative The ambiguists must say ldquonordquo tomdashthey must reject and limitmdashsome ideas and actions In what

follows we will also find that they must say ldquoyesrdquo to some things In particular they must say ldquoyesrdquo to the idea of rational per- suasion 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 mdashthat consen- sus kills debate But this is true only if the agreement is perfectmdashif 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 com- municating 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 onersquos 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 andor the terms of their disagree- ments The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an under- standing of the complaint at

hand And a demonstratorrsquos 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

Second nb decision-making skills-

Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities

Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy A Sirenrsquos 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 sirenrsquos call a belief that certain critical ideals and concepts are axiological existing beyond doubt without scrutiny Bakhtin

contends that in dialogical exchanges ldquothe greater the number and weightrdquo 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 ldquodebate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of informationrdquo (1993 p 285) He continues ldquo[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 arenardquo (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

ldquoThe theory holds that antithesis ultimately produces a better consensus that the clash of differing even opposing interests and ideas in the process of decision makingcreates decisions that are better for having been subjected to this trial by fire rdquo (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

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue Bile 00 REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS BEYOND PERSUASION TOWARD COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION Jeffery Thomas Bile PhD candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio Contemporary Argumentation and Debate httpwwwcedadebateorgCADindexphpCADarticleviewFile254238

In our contentious culture we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against anotherrdquo (Griffin 101) If we took this approach we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues what their implications are who might be affected and in what ways and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself So I think the issue of the resolution needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well (Griffin 101) l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals Certainly contemporary social problems

are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply Before discarding binary topics too quickly however we should consider their contextual effects When combined with the requirement of switching sides two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all Empathic learning is encouraged then when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments A related issue deserving much further exploration is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching l

sympathize with the view that students should not be forced to advocate a position that they do not believe As a practical matter I believe that most topics are ambiguous

enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort But more fundamentally Im not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic

counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable The counter-attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into

anothers world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do This convention may yield invitational dividends Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider ˜perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to validate those

perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own (5) It seems to me that counter-attitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness empathy and personal validation of multiple views No one should be forced

to debate but for those making the choice agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of ones own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things

Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makersWilliam J Kinsella 2 is Associate Professor of Communication North Carolina State University ldquoProblematizing the Distinction between Expert and Lay Knowledgerdquo httpswwwacademiaedu297063Kinsella_W_J_2002__Proble-matizing_the_Distinction_Between_Expert_and_Lay_Knowledge_New_Jersey_Journal_of_Communication_10_2_191-207 DOA 3-3-14 y2k

As active and equal participants in policy discourse with an undeniable technical dimension members of the public must

listen to evaluate and contribute to conversations with substantial technical content Here Frank Fischer‟s analysis complements that of Walter Fisher Fischer (2000)

maintains that public participation is valuable in three ways it cultivates democratic politics and thereby counters the trend toward technocratic control and

individual alienation it provides legitimation for particular decisions as well as for public institutions and it enhances the relevance and validity of technical analysis at all levels

of decision making It is the third of these motives that Fischer examines most closely and most effectively focusing on citizens‟ abilities to contribute as well as on the usefulness of their contributions in particular policy decisions

Drawing on examples from Europe Asia and the United States Fischer argues that ldquomany citizens are much more capable of grappling with

complex technical and normative issues than the conventional wisdom would have us believerdquo (p 260) His examples include cases of ldquopopular epidemiologyrdquo

(Brown amp Mikkelsen 1990) successful citizen panels and juries (Crosby 1995) the widely-acclaimed European ldquoconsensus conferencesrdquo (Joss amp Durant 1995) and the ldquoparticipatory researchrdquo movement ( Cancian amp Armstead 1992 Laird 1993 Reason 1994) His goal is to identify viable mechanisms for substantive public participation in environmental decisions as a step toward what Dryzek (1990 1996) calls ldquodiscursive democracyrdquo As a leader in the ldquoargumentative turnrdquo or ldquocommunicative turnrdquo in the

public policy discipline (Fischer amp Forester 1993 Healey 1993) Fischer maintains that successful policy flows from a broad and comprehensive dialog in which citizens articulate interrogate and transform each others‟ perspectives Within this dialog the local knowledge of ordinary citizens and the abstract knowledge of technical experts interact synergistically

to provide more complete analyses and more effective decisions Fischer provides considerable evidence that citizens are capable of direct participation and that such participation is essential both

to democratic politics and to successful decision making Nevertheless reviews of existing approaches to public participation especially as practiced in the United States suggest that these often fall far

short of Fischer‟s ideal (Chess amp Purcell 1999 Fiorino 1990 1996 Laird 1993 McComas 2001 Rowe amp Frewer 2000) In the realm of environmental policy making Fiorino (1996) has described this deficit as a ldquoparticipation gaprdquo Acknowledging the limits of technocratic decision making and responding to calls for more openness US federal and state agencies have developed a variety of public involvement methods including public meetings and hearings citizen advisory boards and citizen panels and juries Meanwhile ballot initiatives and referenda have become increasingly influential in state and local environmental politics These approaches are certainly valuable and represent progress toward a more dialogic model Nevertheless they all have significant limitations related to real or perceived limits on the abilities of ordinary citizens to participate in debates with substantial technical dimensions Public meetings widely utilized by many government agencies are attempts at direct democracy but typically provide only limited opportunities for citizen engagement with issues and decision makers In many cases this engagement is brief and comes only after the issues have been framed and a narrow menu of policy choices has been developed In the worst cases meetings provide ldquohollow participation in which citizens merely make noise in some political ritualrdquo rather than ldquoreal influence over outcomesrdquo (Laird 1993 p 348) As Fiorino (1996) notes in most public hearings the agency defines the agenda and establishes the format The hearing itself provides limited time for citizens to understand the technical or policy issues and to take a substantive part in the discussion Indeed the reliance on public hearings as a mainstay of public participation is one of the weaknesses of the administrative process in the United States in part because of the unequal relationship of citizens to government officialsPublic hearings typically do not give citizens a share in decision making Although they provide mechanisms for public views to come to the attention of administrators they do not directly engage citizens in the process of making policy choices or cede to citizens any control over the decision process itself (p 202) Panels juries and advisory boards provide small numbers of citizens with opportunities for more extended engagement but these more highly involved individuals do not necessarily represent the larger public that remains distanced from the issues Appointments to such bodies often emphasize interest group politics over direct democracy (Fiorino 1996 Laird 1993 Williams amp Matheny 1995) Additionally public interest representatives who serve in these bodies for extended time periods run the risk of ldquogoing nativerdquo by becoming specialized experts themselves As these individuals increasingly identify with their formal roles they may lose contact with the communities and values that they are presumed to represent In Fischer‟s view [i]nterest group politics are not to be misconstrued with citizen involvement in the sense at issue here Although they speak in the name of large numbers of people such groups are typically run by a small group of people at the top of their organizations Indeed interest group politics has seldom proven to be participatory democracy in actionMany grassroots environmentalists in the United States especially those identified with the environmental justice movement strongly complain that the big environmental Washington-oriented organizations have lost touch with the local citizenry Having become caught up in so-called ldquoBeltwayrdquo politics such organizations increasingly represent their followers only on paper (Fischer 2000 pp 33-34) Similarly ballot initiatives are often developed by interest groups and brought to the polls based on popular support of their perceived or claimed purposes rather than close scrutiny and broad substantive participation Understanding the full implications of a ballot measure often requires a substantial familiarity with the underlying technical and policy issues as a result voters rely heavily on opinion leaders and media representations to interpret the meanings of ballot measures Furthermore in this mode of action ldquothe influence that any one person can have is small One of the many weaknesses of initiatives is that they force people to make dichotomous choices which offers them a very limited kind of decision authorityrdquo (Fiorino 1996 p 202) The participation gap manifested in these practices has multiple roots One of these is the sheer complexity pace and breadth of contemporary society which seems to offer individuals no alternative to reliance on specialists in myriad technical fields (Beck 1992 Giddens 1990) Apathy political alienation and the many distractions of the consumer society are additional and related factors although democratic theorists argue that these are products of a thin political culture as much as they are causes of it (Barber 1984) As Williams and Matheny (1995) have pointed out prevailing notions of liberal politics offer few conceptual alternatives to a 8 dichotomous choice between technocratic or ldquomanagerialrdquo approaches and ldquopluralistrdquo or interest group models Both of these paradigms assumendashwhether correctly or incorrectlyndashthat ordinary citizens lack the competencies required for deep engagement with policy issues The

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

The requirements given thus far are primarily negative The ambiguists must say ldquonordquo tomdashthey must reject and limitmdashsome ideas and actions In what

follows we will also find that they must say ldquoyesrdquo to some things In particular they must say ldquoyesrdquo to the idea of rational per- suasion 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 mdashthat consen- sus kills debate But this is true only if the agreement is perfectmdashif 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 com- municating 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 onersquos 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 andor the terms of their disagree- ments The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an under- standing of the complaint at

hand And a demonstratorrsquos 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

Second nb decision-making skills-

Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities

Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions Galloway 7 DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE RE- CONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE Ryan Galloway Assistant Professor and the Director of Debate at Samford University Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Vol 28 (2007)

Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy A Sirenrsquos 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 sirenrsquos call a belief that certain critical ideals and concepts are axiological existing beyond doubt without scrutiny Bakhtin

contends that in dialogical exchanges ldquothe greater the number and weightrdquo 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 ldquodebate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of informationrdquo (1993 p 285) He continues ldquo[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 arenardquo (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

ldquoThe theory holds that antithesis ultimately produces a better consensus that the clash of differing even opposing interests and ideas in the process of decision makingcreates decisions that are better for having been subjected to this trial by fire rdquo (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

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue Bile 00 REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS BEYOND PERSUASION TOWARD COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION Jeffery Thomas Bile PhD candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio Contemporary Argumentation and Debate httpwwwcedadebateorgCADindexphpCADarticleviewFile254238

In our contentious culture we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against anotherrdquo (Griffin 101) If we took this approach we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues what their implications are who might be affected and in what ways and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself So I think the issue of the resolution needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well (Griffin 101) l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals Certainly contemporary social problems

are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply Before discarding binary topics too quickly however we should consider their contextual effects When combined with the requirement of switching sides two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all Empathic learning is encouraged then when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments A related issue deserving much further exploration is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching l

sympathize with the view that students should not be forced to advocate a position that they do not believe As a practical matter I believe that most topics are ambiguous

enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort But more fundamentally Im not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic

counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable The counter-attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into

anothers world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do This convention may yield invitational dividends Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider ˜perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to validate those

perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own (5) It seems to me that counter-attitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness empathy and personal validation of multiple views No one should be forced

to debate but for those making the choice agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of ones own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things

Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makersWilliam J Kinsella 2 is Associate Professor of Communication North Carolina State University ldquoProblematizing the Distinction between Expert and Lay Knowledgerdquo httpswwwacademiaedu297063Kinsella_W_J_2002__Proble-matizing_the_Distinction_Between_Expert_and_Lay_Knowledge_New_Jersey_Journal_of_Communication_10_2_191-207 DOA 3-3-14 y2k

As active and equal participants in policy discourse with an undeniable technical dimension members of the public must

listen to evaluate and contribute to conversations with substantial technical content Here Frank Fischer‟s analysis complements that of Walter Fisher Fischer (2000)

maintains that public participation is valuable in three ways it cultivates democratic politics and thereby counters the trend toward technocratic control and

individual alienation it provides legitimation for particular decisions as well as for public institutions and it enhances the relevance and validity of technical analysis at all levels

of decision making It is the third of these motives that Fischer examines most closely and most effectively focusing on citizens‟ abilities to contribute as well as on the usefulness of their contributions in particular policy decisions

Drawing on examples from Europe Asia and the United States Fischer argues that ldquomany citizens are much more capable of grappling with

complex technical and normative issues than the conventional wisdom would have us believerdquo (p 260) His examples include cases of ldquopopular epidemiologyrdquo

(Brown amp Mikkelsen 1990) successful citizen panels and juries (Crosby 1995) the widely-acclaimed European ldquoconsensus conferencesrdquo (Joss amp Durant 1995) and the ldquoparticipatory researchrdquo movement ( Cancian amp Armstead 1992 Laird 1993 Reason 1994) His goal is to identify viable mechanisms for substantive public participation in environmental decisions as a step toward what Dryzek (1990 1996) calls ldquodiscursive democracyrdquo As a leader in the ldquoargumentative turnrdquo or ldquocommunicative turnrdquo in the

public policy discipline (Fischer amp Forester 1993 Healey 1993) Fischer maintains that successful policy flows from a broad and comprehensive dialog in which citizens articulate interrogate and transform each others‟ perspectives Within this dialog the local knowledge of ordinary citizens and the abstract knowledge of technical experts interact synergistically

to provide more complete analyses and more effective decisions Fischer provides considerable evidence that citizens are capable of direct participation and that such participation is essential both

to democratic politics and to successful decision making Nevertheless reviews of existing approaches to public participation especially as practiced in the United States suggest that these often fall far

short of Fischer‟s ideal (Chess amp Purcell 1999 Fiorino 1990 1996 Laird 1993 McComas 2001 Rowe amp Frewer 2000) In the realm of environmental policy making Fiorino (1996) has described this deficit as a ldquoparticipation gaprdquo Acknowledging the limits of technocratic decision making and responding to calls for more openness US federal and state agencies have developed a variety of public involvement methods including public meetings and hearings citizen advisory boards and citizen panels and juries Meanwhile ballot initiatives and referenda have become increasingly influential in state and local environmental politics These approaches are certainly valuable and represent progress toward a more dialogic model Nevertheless they all have significant limitations related to real or perceived limits on the abilities of ordinary citizens to participate in debates with substantial technical dimensions Public meetings widely utilized by many government agencies are attempts at direct democracy but typically provide only limited opportunities for citizen engagement with issues and decision makers In many cases this engagement is brief and comes only after the issues have been framed and a narrow menu of policy choices has been developed In the worst cases meetings provide ldquohollow participation in which citizens merely make noise in some political ritualrdquo rather than ldquoreal influence over outcomesrdquo (Laird 1993 p 348) As Fiorino (1996) notes in most public hearings the agency defines the agenda and establishes the format The hearing itself provides limited time for citizens to understand the technical or policy issues and to take a substantive part in the discussion Indeed the reliance on public hearings as a mainstay of public participation is one of the weaknesses of the administrative process in the United States in part because of the unequal relationship of citizens to government officialsPublic hearings typically do not give citizens a share in decision making Although they provide mechanisms for public views to come to the attention of administrators they do not directly engage citizens in the process of making policy choices or cede to citizens any control over the decision process itself (p 202) Panels juries and advisory boards provide small numbers of citizens with opportunities for more extended engagement but these more highly involved individuals do not necessarily represent the larger public that remains distanced from the issues Appointments to such bodies often emphasize interest group politics over direct democracy (Fiorino 1996 Laird 1993 Williams amp Matheny 1995) Additionally public interest representatives who serve in these bodies for extended time periods run the risk of ldquogoing nativerdquo by becoming specialized experts themselves As these individuals increasingly identify with their formal roles they may lose contact with the communities and values that they are presumed to represent In Fischer‟s view [i]nterest group politics are not to be misconstrued with citizen involvement in the sense at issue here Although they speak in the name of large numbers of people such groups are typically run by a small group of people at the top of their organizations Indeed interest group politics has seldom proven to be participatory democracy in actionMany grassroots environmentalists in the United States especially those identified with the environmental justice movement strongly complain that the big environmental Washington-oriented organizations have lost touch with the local citizenry Having become caught up in so-called ldquoBeltwayrdquo politics such organizations increasingly represent their followers only on paper (Fischer 2000 pp 33-34) Similarly ballot initiatives are often developed by interest groups and brought to the polls based on popular support of their perceived or claimed purposes rather than close scrutiny and broad substantive participation Understanding the full implications of a ballot measure often requires a substantial familiarity with the underlying technical and policy issues as a result voters rely heavily on opinion leaders and media representations to interpret the meanings of ballot measures Furthermore in this mode of action ldquothe influence that any one person can have is small One of the many weaknesses of initiatives is that they force people to make dichotomous choices which offers them a very limited kind of decision authorityrdquo (Fiorino 1996 p 202) The participation gap manifested in these practices has multiple roots One of these is the sheer complexity pace and breadth of contemporary society which seems to offer individuals no alternative to reliance on specialists in myriad technical fields (Beck 1992 Giddens 1990) Apathy political alienation and the many distractions of the consumer society are additional and related factors although democratic theorists argue that these are products of a thin political culture as much as they are causes of it (Barber 1984) As Williams and Matheny (1995) have pointed out prevailing notions of liberal politics offer few conceptual alternatives to a 8 dichotomous choice between technocratic or ldquomanagerialrdquo approaches and ldquopluralistrdquo or interest group models Both of these paradigms assumendashwhether correctly or incorrectlyndashthat ordinary citizens lack the competencies required for deep engagement with policy issues The

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue Bile 00 REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS BEYOND PERSUASION TOWARD COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION Jeffery Thomas Bile PhD candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio Contemporary Argumentation and Debate httpwwwcedadebateorgCADindexphpCADarticleviewFile254238

In our contentious culture we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against anotherrdquo (Griffin 101) If we took this approach we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues what their implications are who might be affected and in what ways and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself So I think the issue of the resolution needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well (Griffin 101) l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals Certainly contemporary social problems

are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply Before discarding binary topics too quickly however we should consider their contextual effects When combined with the requirement of switching sides two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all Empathic learning is encouraged then when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments A related issue deserving much further exploration is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching l

sympathize with the view that students should not be forced to advocate a position that they do not believe As a practical matter I believe that most topics are ambiguous

enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort But more fundamentally Im not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic

counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable The counter-attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into

anothers world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do This convention may yield invitational dividends Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider ˜perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to validate those

perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own (5) It seems to me that counter-attitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness empathy and personal validation of multiple views No one should be forced

to debate but for those making the choice agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of ones own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things

Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makersWilliam J Kinsella 2 is Associate Professor of Communication North Carolina State University ldquoProblematizing the Distinction between Expert and Lay Knowledgerdquo httpswwwacademiaedu297063Kinsella_W_J_2002__Proble-matizing_the_Distinction_Between_Expert_and_Lay_Knowledge_New_Jersey_Journal_of_Communication_10_2_191-207 DOA 3-3-14 y2k

As active and equal participants in policy discourse with an undeniable technical dimension members of the public must

listen to evaluate and contribute to conversations with substantial technical content Here Frank Fischer‟s analysis complements that of Walter Fisher Fischer (2000)

maintains that public participation is valuable in three ways it cultivates democratic politics and thereby counters the trend toward technocratic control and

individual alienation it provides legitimation for particular decisions as well as for public institutions and it enhances the relevance and validity of technical analysis at all levels

of decision making It is the third of these motives that Fischer examines most closely and most effectively focusing on citizens‟ abilities to contribute as well as on the usefulness of their contributions in particular policy decisions

Drawing on examples from Europe Asia and the United States Fischer argues that ldquomany citizens are much more capable of grappling with

complex technical and normative issues than the conventional wisdom would have us believerdquo (p 260) His examples include cases of ldquopopular epidemiologyrdquo

(Brown amp Mikkelsen 1990) successful citizen panels and juries (Crosby 1995) the widely-acclaimed European ldquoconsensus conferencesrdquo (Joss amp Durant 1995) and the ldquoparticipatory researchrdquo movement ( Cancian amp Armstead 1992 Laird 1993 Reason 1994) His goal is to identify viable mechanisms for substantive public participation in environmental decisions as a step toward what Dryzek (1990 1996) calls ldquodiscursive democracyrdquo As a leader in the ldquoargumentative turnrdquo or ldquocommunicative turnrdquo in the

public policy discipline (Fischer amp Forester 1993 Healey 1993) Fischer maintains that successful policy flows from a broad and comprehensive dialog in which citizens articulate interrogate and transform each others‟ perspectives Within this dialog the local knowledge of ordinary citizens and the abstract knowledge of technical experts interact synergistically

to provide more complete analyses and more effective decisions Fischer provides considerable evidence that citizens are capable of direct participation and that such participation is essential both

to democratic politics and to successful decision making Nevertheless reviews of existing approaches to public participation especially as practiced in the United States suggest that these often fall far

short of Fischer‟s ideal (Chess amp Purcell 1999 Fiorino 1990 1996 Laird 1993 McComas 2001 Rowe amp Frewer 2000) In the realm of environmental policy making Fiorino (1996) has described this deficit as a ldquoparticipation gaprdquo Acknowledging the limits of technocratic decision making and responding to calls for more openness US federal and state agencies have developed a variety of public involvement methods including public meetings and hearings citizen advisory boards and citizen panels and juries Meanwhile ballot initiatives and referenda have become increasingly influential in state and local environmental politics These approaches are certainly valuable and represent progress toward a more dialogic model Nevertheless they all have significant limitations related to real or perceived limits on the abilities of ordinary citizens to participate in debates with substantial technical dimensions Public meetings widely utilized by many government agencies are attempts at direct democracy but typically provide only limited opportunities for citizen engagement with issues and decision makers In many cases this engagement is brief and comes only after the issues have been framed and a narrow menu of policy choices has been developed In the worst cases meetings provide ldquohollow participation in which citizens merely make noise in some political ritualrdquo rather than ldquoreal influence over outcomesrdquo (Laird 1993 p 348) As Fiorino (1996) notes in most public hearings the agency defines the agenda and establishes the format The hearing itself provides limited time for citizens to understand the technical or policy issues and to take a substantive part in the discussion Indeed the reliance on public hearings as a mainstay of public participation is one of the weaknesses of the administrative process in the United States in part because of the unequal relationship of citizens to government officialsPublic hearings typically do not give citizens a share in decision making Although they provide mechanisms for public views to come to the attention of administrators they do not directly engage citizens in the process of making policy choices or cede to citizens any control over the decision process itself (p 202) Panels juries and advisory boards provide small numbers of citizens with opportunities for more extended engagement but these more highly involved individuals do not necessarily represent the larger public that remains distanced from the issues Appointments to such bodies often emphasize interest group politics over direct democracy (Fiorino 1996 Laird 1993 Williams amp Matheny 1995) Additionally public interest representatives who serve in these bodies for extended time periods run the risk of ldquogoing nativerdquo by becoming specialized experts themselves As these individuals increasingly identify with their formal roles they may lose contact with the communities and values that they are presumed to represent In Fischer‟s view [i]nterest group politics are not to be misconstrued with citizen involvement in the sense at issue here Although they speak in the name of large numbers of people such groups are typically run by a small group of people at the top of their organizations Indeed interest group politics has seldom proven to be participatory democracy in actionMany grassroots environmentalists in the United States especially those identified with the environmental justice movement strongly complain that the big environmental Washington-oriented organizations have lost touch with the local citizenry Having become caught up in so-called ldquoBeltwayrdquo politics such organizations increasingly represent their followers only on paper (Fischer 2000 pp 33-34) Similarly ballot initiatives are often developed by interest groups and brought to the polls based on popular support of their perceived or claimed purposes rather than close scrutiny and broad substantive participation Understanding the full implications of a ballot measure often requires a substantial familiarity with the underlying technical and policy issues as a result voters rely heavily on opinion leaders and media representations to interpret the meanings of ballot measures Furthermore in this mode of action ldquothe influence that any one person can have is small One of the many weaknesses of initiatives is that they force people to make dichotomous choices which offers them a very limited kind of decision authorityrdquo (Fiorino 1996 p 202) The participation gap manifested in these practices has multiple roots One of these is the sheer complexity pace and breadth of contemporary society which seems to offer individuals no alternative to reliance on specialists in myriad technical fields (Beck 1992 Giddens 1990) Apathy political alienation and the many distractions of the consumer society are additional and related factors although democratic theorists argue that these are products of a thin political culture as much as they are causes of it (Barber 1984) As Williams and Matheny (1995) have pointed out prevailing notions of liberal politics offer few conceptual alternatives to a 8 dichotomous choice between technocratic or ldquomanagerialrdquo approaches and ldquopluralistrdquo or interest group models Both of these paradigms assumendashwhether correctly or incorrectlyndashthat ordinary citizens lack the competencies required for deep engagement with policy issues The

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

managerial approach objectivist in its premises seeks to solve this problem by delegating decision making to experts who can use objective analytical methods to identify optimum solutions The pluralist model relativist in its premises seeks to do so by facilitating competition and compromise among affected interest groups Neither approach allows for the broad public dialog that would characterize the ldquocommunitarianrdquo alternative suggested by Williams and Matheny a form of ldquostrong democracyrdquo (Barber 1984) in which ordinary citizens participate directly and have substantial influence In this practical and discursive context Fischer (2000) acknowledges that ldquoparticipation is a challenging and often frustrating endeavorcollective citizen participation is not something that just happens It has to be organized facilitated and even nurturedrdquo (p 260) In support of that goal Fischer and others (Kleinmann 2000 Sclove 1995 Williams amp Matheny 1995) seek to enlarge the repertoire of available participation methods drawing in part on Western European models These scholars are primarily concerned with institutionalizing new approaches that allow for participation by greater numbers of citizens over longer periods of time in greater depth and with increased authority

Ordinary citizens need not acquire the same depth of technical knowledge as specialists indeed their doing so would entail becoming specialists themselves and would impair

their status as representative members of the public In this regard Fiorino (1996) emphasizes the importance of ldquodirect participation of amateurs as citizens engaged

in governance rather than professionals doing a jobrdquo (p 200) Nevertheless to succeed as amateur experts members of the public must possess basic technical competencies At the

most general level these include a working vocabulary of scientific terms and concepts and an overall understanding of how technical

reasoning operates Understood as ldquo technical literacy rdquo these competencies are among the recognized goals of formal education but the

rapid changes characteristic of contemporary society require that they be strengthened and continually refined Basic technical knowledge of this sort enables citizens to follow evolving

policy issues increases the likelihood that they will take an active interest in these issues and prepares them for more successful

involvement with particular issues If lay citizens are to participate more fully in public technical decisions then their relationships with specialists must become

more dialogical Technical professionals must not only be providers of prepackaged information and analysis such ldquofinished productsrdquo lack the contributions of the broader public while providing a misleading appearance of argumentative closure Instead specialists must serve as

advisors counselors or educators helping rather than supplanting laypeople in the interpretation and use of technical findings Laird (1993) remarks [P]articipation must be meaningful Part of that requirement is that citizens be educated about the issues at hand and what they can do to influence policy decisionsIn part this criterion means that relevant information must be provided to citizens but information is not enough Inundating the people with mountains of raw data is not a democratic exercise Rather citizens

must be given information and analysis that are genuinely educative Citizen understanding must improve (pp 347-348) As Laird recognizes information facts and data are now more available than ever before However to make use of these citizens must understand them in both their technical and their policy contexts [I]t is not

enough that participants simply acquire new facts They must begin at some level to be able to analyze the problem at hand At the simplest level

this means understanding the different interpretations that one can draw from the facts and trying to think about ways to choose among those interpretations At a more sophisticated level it means beginning to learn how and when to challenge the validity of the asserted facts where new data would be useful and how the kinds of policy questions being asked influence the type of data they seek Perhaps more important analyzing a problem means being able to challenge the formulation of the problem itself that is for people to decide for themselves what the most important questions are (Laird 1993 pp 353-354) Here Laird is calling for a type of citizen competency which extends beyond basic technical literacy To

participate effectively and to integrate the results of technical analysis with their own local knowledge and evaluative criteria citizens also require a broader and more critical understanding of the rhetoric and sociology of technical discourse Fischer (2000) and others have assembled substantial evidence that this kind of citizen understanding is possible but

to achieve this goal citizens technical specialists and policy specialists must collaborate closely Fischer like Laird emphasizes the educational role that specialists must play as part of that collaboration

These skills solve a laundry list of problems Lundberg 10 Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity Policy Debate in the 21st Century Christian O Lundberg Professor of Communications University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 2010 p311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities But the democratic capacities

built by debate are not limited to speechmdashas indicated earlier debate builds capacity for critical thinking analysis of public claims informed decision

making and better public judgment If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative

politics rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics it is a puzzling solution at best to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate If democracy is open to rearticulation it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate the citizenrys capacities can change

which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 198863 154) Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them to son rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy John Larkin (2005 HO) argues that one of the primary

failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context but perhaps more important argues Larkin for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-) Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings looking jointly at the effect of instmctionno instruction and debate topic that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate) These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases There was an unintended effect however After doing the project instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching not just in academic

databases (Larkin 2005 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Packs (1992 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering

the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity Though their essay

was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium Worthcn and Packs framing of the issue was prescient the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials There are without a doubt a number of important

criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation But cumulatively the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities The unique combination of critical thinking skills research and information processing skills oral communication skills and capacities for listening and thoughtful open engagement with hotly

contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving

the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful engaged open-minded and self-critical

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life Expanding this practice is crucial if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process the more likely we are to produce revisions of

democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive but to thrive Democracy faces a myriad of challenges including

domestic and international issues of class gender and racial justice wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change

emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure More than any specific policy or proposal an informed

and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective

democratic governance and by extension one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly complex world

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2

Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution

Legalizing marijuana is bad

Legalization leads to corporate market controlHumphreys psych prof at Stanford lsquo11

(Keith public policy advisor Mis-imagining Marijuana Inc 7-24-11 httpwwwsamefactscom201107drug-policymis-imagining-marijuana-inc accessed 9-13-14) PM

I was recently on Nevada Public Radio with Allen St Pierre who is a leading marijuana legalization activist We had similar views on the likely shape of a legal marijuana industry namely that it would be corporate dominated employ armies of lobbyists and fight to keep taxes and health and safety regulations as minimal as possible Mr St Pierre said that the food industry would be the best place to look for a parallel About 90 of food is produced by mega-corporations and a few small players cut up the remaining scraps of business I tend to think that a legalized marijuana industry would look like Big Tobacco mdash indeed marijuana production companies may simply be divisions of tobacco companies mdash but St Pierre may have the better analogy Our predictions arenrsquot particularly insightful Indeed they donrsquot rise much above common sense The shape of corporate America isnrsquot hard to discern I was therefore intrigued to hear Mr St Pierre say that as he travels around the country he spends a great deal of time disabusing legalization advocates of the idea that a legalized marijuana industry wouldnrsquot be well an industry The likely form of a legalized marijuana industry isnrsquot appreciated by many people who oppose marijuana legalization either Misimaginings of legalized cannabis in both camps are likely a consequence of the cultural meaning cannabis has for a significant portion

of the US population For millions of Americans the word marijuana is hard-wired to the part of their brain that divides the human population into those

who went to Woodstock and those who went to Viet Nam The peculiar result is a largely left-wing movement fighting hard (alongside some

corporate billionaires) to create a multinational corporation and a largely conservative movement fighting to stop the advance of capitalism and the private sector Some people on both sides misimagine a legalized marijuana industry made up of bucolic co-op farms run by hippies in tie dye t-shirts

selling pot at the lowest possible profit to friendly independent business folk in the towns who set aside 10 of their profits to save the whales This image is

pleasant to some and revolting to others but thatrsquos as may be because itrsquos not what would happen under legalization This will be tough for baby boomers to hear but the current generation of Americans doesnrsquot know Woodstock from chicken stock and understands the Viet Nam War about as much as they do military action

in the Crimea If the US legalized marijuana today those now fading cultural meanings would not rule the day capitalism would Cannabis would be seen as a product to be marketed and sold just as is tobacco People in the marijuana industry would wear suits work in offices donate to the Club for Growth and ally with the tobacco industry to lobby against clean air restrictions The plant would be grown on big corporate farms perhaps supported with unneeded federal subsidies and occasionally marred by scandals regarding exploitation of undocumented immigrant farm workers The liberal grandchildren of legalization advocates will grumble about the soulless marijuana corporations and the conservative grandchildren of anti-legalization activists will play golf at the country club with marijuana inc executives toast George Soros at the 19th hole afterwards and discuss how they can get the damn liberals in Congress to stop blocking capital gains tax cuts

Corporate cannabis collapses the environment Hughes MS in Environmental Studies from Montana lsquo13

(Gary Graham Unsustainable Cannabis Agriculture Practices Must Come to an End 9-3-13 httpwwwwildcaliforniaorgblogunsustainable-cannabis-agriculture-practices-must-come-to-an-end accessed 9-13-14) PM

An undeniable point of fact is that industrial cannabis agriculture is having an increasingly quantifiable affect on local and global environments EPIC is committed to contributing to a level headed engagement on this complex and important human economic activity on the North Coast with the goal of contributing to the design and

implementation of solutions that respect civil liberties as well as protect human and natural communities from the environmental degradation that can be associated with industrial grows EPIC is engaging on this issue under the fundamental premise that the development of policy regarding marijuana on both a national and local level must take environmental ramifications into consideration in order that a sane healthy and ecologically sustainable marijuana agriculture paradigm be established As a part of this effort the following letter from EPIC was published this week in the Southern Humboldt and Northern Mendocino weekly

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

newspaperspara To the Editorpara This letter is intended to serve as a public statement about marijuana agriculture in Northern California on behalf of EPIC -the Environmental Protection Information Center Our organization wants to be clear about unsustainable and destructive practices associated with the marijuana industry Cannabis obviously has the potential to contribute in a positive way to a viable and diversified local economy that does not degrade the natural qualities and authentic rural culture of our bioregion Due to the egregious behavior of an

increasing number of irresponsible cannabis growers the positive potential of this industry is being squanderedpara Based upon the information we have seen in media

reports the enforcement actions on Tuesday Aug 27 on Mattole Canyon Creek near Ettersburg exemplified the position of several conservation groups in our area that authorities must focus their marijuana enforcement actions on those operations that result in environmental crimes such as this one The scale of the operation and the audacity of the water withdrawal a result of what seems to be an absence of winter water storage is very worrisome in that it must be only one example of environmentally degrading operations under way in watersheds around the region The apparent absolute abuse of scarce water resources is

the type of practice that merits legal and media attention Clearly pumping water directly from a watercourse at this date and in these unprecedented dry climatological

conditions is to cause serious harm to aquatic systems including a variety of endangered species This is completely unsustainabl e and is a violation of the most basic fundaments of a stewardship based land ethicpara Responsible economic activity is a cornerstone to protecting our environment For instance EPIC has never been an organization that was opposed to logging per se EPIC has always advocated for the establishment of a wood products industry that treats the landscape with care that protects irreplaceable

native ecosystems and that democratizes economic opportunity We advocate in the same vein around cannabis agriculture unsustainable practices must come to an end and responsible operations that promote the restoration of our watersheds must become the norm EPIC hopes that a frank and open debate will arise of enforcement actions such as those

carried out on Mattole Canyon Creek last week in order that our community responds in an integrated and responsible manner to these behaviors that are putting our environment our economy and our future generations at risk

Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinctionEhrenfeld Ecology Evolution and Natural Resources prof at Rutgers lsquo5

(David The Environmental Limits to Globalization Conservation Biology 192 April 2005 accessed 9-13-14 Wiley Online) PM

The known effects of globalization on the environment are numerous and highly significant Many others are undoubtedly unknown Given these

circumstances the first question that suggests itself is Will globalization as we see it now remain a permanent state of affairs (Rees 2002 Ehrenfeld 2003a)para The principal environmental side effects of globalizationmdashclimate change resource exhaustion (particularly cheap energy) damage to agroecosystems

and the spread of exotic species including pathogens (plant animal and human)mdashare sufficient to make this economic system unstable and short-lived The socioeconomic consequences of globalization are likely to do the same In my book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981) I claimed that

our ability to manage global systems which depends on our being able to predict the results of the things we do or even to understand the systems we have

created has been greatly exaggerated Much of our alleged control is science fiction it doesnt work because of theoretical limits that we ignore at our peril We live in a dream world in which reality testing is something we must never never do lest we awakepara In 1984 Charles Perrow explored the reasons why we have trouble predicting what so many of our own created systems will do and why they surprise us so unpleasantly while we think we are managing them In his book Normal Accidents which does not concern globalization he listed the critical characteristics of some of todays complex systems They are highly interlinked so a change in

one part can affect many others even those that seem quite distant Results of some processes feed back on themselves in unexpected ways The controls of the system often interact with each other unpredictably We have only indirect ways of finding out what is happening inside the system And we have an incomplete understanding of some of the systems processes His example of such a system is a nuclear power plant and this he explained is why system-wide accidents in nuclear plants cannot be predicted or eliminated by system design I would argue that

globalization is a similar system also subject to catastrophic accidents many of them environmentalmdashevents that we cannot define until after they have occurred and perhaps not even thenpara The comparatively few commentators who have predicted the collapse of globalization have generally given social reasons to support their arguments These deserve some consideration here if only because the environmental and social consequences of globalization interact so strongly with each other In 1998 the British political economist John Gray giving scant attention to environmental factors nevertheless came to the conclusion that globalization is unstable and will be short-lived He said ldquoThere is nothing in todays global market that buffers it against the social strains arising from highly uneven economic development within and between the worlds diverse societiesrdquo The result Gray states is that ldquoThe combination of [an] unceasing stream of new technologies unfettered market competition and weak or fractured social institutionsrdquo has weakened both sovereign states and multinational corporations in their ability to control important events Note that Gray claims that not only nations but also multinational corporations which are widely touted as controlling the world are being

weakened by globalization This idea may come as a surprise considering the growth of multinationals in the past few decades but I believe it is true Neither governments nor giant corporations are even remotely capable of controlling the environment al or social forces released by globalization without first controlling globalization itselfpara Two of the social critics of globalization with the most dire predictions about its doom are themselves masters of the process The late Sir James Goldsmith billionaire financier wrote in 1994para It must surely be a mistake to adopt an economic policy which makes you rich if you eliminate your national workforce and transfer production abroad and which bankrupts you if you continue to employ your own peoplehellip It is the poor in the rich

countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries This will have a serious impact on the social cohesion of nationspara Another free-trade billionaire George Soros said much the same thing in 1995 ldquoThe collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences Yet

I find it easier to imagine than the continuation of the present regimerdquo How much more powerful these statements are if we factor in the environmentpara As globalization collapses what will happen to people biodiversity and ecosystems With respect to people the gift of prophecy is not required to answer this question What will happen depends on where you are and how you live Many citizens of the Third World are still

comparatively self-sufficient an unknown number of these will survive the breakdown of globalization and its attendant chaos In the developed world there are also people with resources of self-sufficiency and a growing understanding of the nature of our social and environmental problems

which may help them bridge the years of crisispara Some species are adaptable some are not For the nonhuman residents of Earth not all news will be bad

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Who would have predicted that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) one of the wiliest and most evasive of woodland birds extinct in New Jersey 50 years ago would now be found in every county of this the most densely populated state and even occasionally in adjacent Manhattan Who would have predicted that black bears (Ursus americanus) also virtually extinct in the state in the mid-twentieth century would now number in the thousands (Ehrenfeld 2001) Of course these recoveries

are unusualmdashrare bright spots in a darker landscapepara Finally a few ecological systems may survive in a comparatively undamaged state most will be stressed to the breaking point directly or indirectly by many environmental and social factors interacting unpredictably Lady Luck as always will have much to saypara In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies the archaeologist Joseph Tainter (1988) notes that collapse which has happened to all past empires inevitably results in human systems of lower complexity and less specialization less centralized control lower economic activity less information flow lower population levels less trade and less redistribution of resources All of these changes are inimical to globalization This less-complex less-globalized condition is probably what human societies will be like when the dust settles I do not think however that we can make such specific predictions about the ultimate state of the environment after

globalization because we have never experienced anything like this exceptionally rapid global environmental damage before History and science have little to tell us in this situation The end of the current economic system and the transition to a postglobalized state is and will be accompanied by a desperate last

raid on resources and a chaotic flurry of environmental destruction whose results cannot possibly be told in advance All one can say is that the surviving species ecosystems and resources will be greatly impoverished compared with what we have now and our descendants will not thank us for having

adopted however briefly an economic system that consumed their inheritance and damaged their planet so wantonly Environment is a true bottom linemdashconcern for its condition must trump all purely economic growth strategies if both the developed and developing nations are to survive and prosperpara Awareness of the environmental limits that globalized industrial society denies or ignores should not however bring us to an extreme position of environmental determinism Those whose preoccupations with modern civilizations very real social problems cause them to reject or minimize the environmental constraints discussed here (Hollander 2003) are guilty of seeing only half the picture Environmental scientists sometimes fall into the same error It is tempting to see the salvation of civilization and environment solely in terms of technological improvements in efficiency of energy extraction and use control of pollution conservation of water and regulation of environmentally harmful activities But such needed developments will not be sufficientmdashor may not even occurmdashwithout corresponding social change including an end to human population growth and the glorification of consumption along with the elimination of economic mechanisms that increase the gap between rich and poor The environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelatedmdashany attempt to treat them as separate entities is

unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a postglobalized world Integrated change that combines environmental awareness technological innovation and an altered world view is the only answer to the life-threatening problems exacerbated by globalization (Ehrenfeld 2003b)para If such integrated change occurs in time it will likely happen partly by our own design and partly as an unplanned response to the constraints imposed by social unrest disease and the economics of scarcity With respect to the planned component of change we are facing as eloquently described by Rees (2002) ldquothe ultimate challenge to human intelligence and self-awareness those vital qualities we humans claim as uniquely our own Homo sapiens will eitherhellipbecome fully human or wink out ignominiously a guttering candle in a violent storm of our own makingrdquo If change does not come quickly our global civilization will join Tainters (1988) list as the latest and most dramatic example of collapsed complex societiespara Is there anything that could slow globalization quickly before it collapses disastrously of its own

environmental and social weight It is still not too late to curtail the use of energy reinvigorate local and regional communities while restoring a culture of concern for each other reduce nonessential global trade and especially global finance (Daly amp Cobb 1989) do more to control introductions of exotic species (including pathogens) and accelerate the growth of sustainable agriculture Many of the needed technologies are already in place It is true that some of the damage to our environmentmdashspecies extinctions loss of crop and domestic animal varieties many exotic species introductions and some climatic changemdashwill be beyond repair Nevertheless the opportunity to help our society move past globalization in an orderly way while

there is time is worth our most creative and passionate effortspara The citizens of the United States and other nations have to understand that our global economic system has placed both our environment and our society in peril a peril as great as that posed by any war of the twentieth century This

understanding and the actions that follow must come not only from enlightened leadership but also from grassroots consciousness raising It is still possible to reclaim the planet from a self-destructive economic system that is bringing us all down together and this can be a task that bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals The crisis is here now What we have to do has become obvious Globalization can be scaled back to manageable proportions only in the context of an altered world view that rejects materialism even as it restores a sense of communal obligation In this way alone can we achieve real homeland security not just in the United States but also in other nations whose fates have become so thoroughly entwined with ours within the global environment we share

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case

Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other

The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation Chamsy Ojeili 3 Senior Lecturer School of Social and Cultural Studies Victoria University of Wellington Post-modernism the Return to Ethics and the Crisis of Socialist Values wwwdemocracynatureorgvol8ojeili_ethicshtm_edn9

Notably anarchists have often been charged with this failing by Marxian thinkers[157] Anarchism does include those suspicious of the demands of association those who fear the tyranny of the majority and who emphasise instead the uniqueness and liberty of the individual Here the freedom of the creative individual unhindered by the limitations of sociality is essential This second strand shows clearly the influence of liberal ideas It is also in its bohemian and nihilistic incarnation a child to the malevolent trio of De Sade Stirner Nietzsche that is those who reject coercive community mores and who recoil from herdish conformist pressures The free individual must create his or her own guiding set of values exploring the hitherto untapped and perhaps darker aspects of him or herself through an art which chaffs against the standards of beauty and taste of the ordinary mortal Given that freedom cannot endure limitations and that all idols have been driven from the world and the mind for these revolutionaries ldquoall is permittedrdquo[158] This emphasis on individual sovereignty is clear in Godwin and Stirner[159] but also in Goldmanrsquos suspicion of collective life in her elevation of the role of heroic individuals in history and in the work of situationist Raoul Vaneigem[160]para This accent within non-orthodox socialism has been much criticised For instance Murray Bookchin has contrasted ldquosocialrdquo with ldquolifestylerdquo anarchism rejecting the elevation the self-rule of the individual in the latter to the highest goal of anarchist thinking

[161] One might consider here the consequences in the case of Emma Goldman of the substitution of collective revolutionary change for boheme and for an intellectualist contempt for the masses Goldman turned more and more to purely self-expressive activity and increasingly appealed to intellectuals and middle

class audiences who felt amused and flattered by her individualism and exotic iconoclasm[162] This egoistic and personalistic turn ignores the essential social anarchist aspiration to freedom the commitment to an end to domination in society the comprehension of the social premises of the individualist urge itself and the necessity of

moving beyond a purely negative conception of liberty to a thicker positive conception of freedom[163] Perhaps as Bookchin has rather trenchantly asserted the recent individualist and neo- situationist concern with subjectivity expression and desire is all too much like middle class narcissism and the self-centred therapeutics of New Age culture Perhaps also as Barrot has said the kind of revolutionary life advocated by Vaneigem cannot be lived[164] Further total freedom for any one individual necessarily

means diminished freedom for others As La Banquise argue ldquoRepression and sublimation prevent people from sliding into a refusal of othernessrdquo[165] For socialists freedom must be an ineradicably social as well as an

individual matter The whole thrust of libertarian politics is towards a collective project that reconstructs those freedom-limiting structures of economy power and ideology[166] It seems unlikely that such ambitions could be achieved by those motivated solely by a Sadean ambition to seek satisfaction of their own improperly understood

desires para On this question Castoriadis is again useful ndash accenting autonomy as a property of the collective and of each individual within society and rejecting the opposition between community and humanity between the ldquoinner man [sic] and the public man [sic]rdquo[167] Castoriadis ridiculed abstract individualism ldquoWe are not lsquoindividualsrsquo freely floating above society and history who are capable of deciding sovereignly and in the absolute about

what we shall do about how we shall do it and about the meaning our doing will have once it is done hellip Above all qua individuals we choose neither the questions to which we will have to respond nor the terms in which

they will be posed nor especially the ultimate meaning of our response once givenrdquo[168] Rejecting the contemporary tendency to posit others as limitations on our freedom

Castoriadis argued that others were in fact premises of liberty ldquopossibilities of action rdquo and ldquosources of facilitationrdquo[169] Freedom is the most vital object of politics and this freedom ndash always a process and never an achieved state ndash is equated with the ldquoeffective humanly feasible lucid and reflective positing of the rules of individual and collective activityrdquo[170] An autonomous society ndash one without alienation ndash explicitly and democratically creates and recreates the institutions of its own world formulating and reformulating its own rules rather than simply accepting them as given from above and outside The resulting institutions Castoriadis hoped would facilitate high levels of responsibility and activity among all people in respect of all questions about society[171]para Castoriadisrsquo notion of social transformation holds to the

goals of integrated human communities the unification of peoplersquos lives and culture and the collective domination of people over their own lives[172] He was also committed to the free deployment of the personrsquos creative forces Just as Castoriadis enthused over the capacity of human collectivities for immense works of creativity and responsibility[173] so he insisted on the radical creativity of the

individual and the importance of individual freedom Congruent with the notion of social autonomy Castoriadis posited the autonomous individual as most essentially one who legislates for and thus regulates him or herself

[174] Turning to psychoanalysis he designated this autonomy as the emergence of a more balanced and productive relationship between the ego and the unconscious For Castoriadis these goals were not guaranteed by anything outside of the collective activity of people towards such goals and he insisted that individual autonomy could only arise ldquounder heavily instituted conditions hellip through the instauration of a regime that is genuinely hellip democratic rdquo

[175] Such an outcome could not be solved in theory but only by a re-awakening of politics Only in the clash of opinions ndash dependent on a restructured social formation ndash not determined in advance by naturalistic or religious postulates could a true ethics emerge[176] This I

believe is the highpoint of libertarian thinking about ethics and politics Conclusion para I have argued that socialist orthodoxy has been eclipsed as a programme for the good life On the one hand it devolves into a project of pragmatic expediency bereft of a political and ethical dimension where statist administration submerges both individual freedom and democratic decision-making On the other hand as social democracy the orthodox tradition coalesces into a variety of more or less straightforward liberalism Liberalism tends to overstate the conception of humans as choosers under-theorising and under-valuing the necessity of political community and the social dimension of individuality and the necessity of a positive conception of freedom The communitarian critique however too readily diminishes the freedoms of the individual subordinating people entirely to the horizons of community life and reducing politics to something like a ldquogeneral willrdquo para Possessed of both liberal and communitarian features post-modernism has been skeptical about the idea of a unitary human essence It has jettisoned the notion of humans as unencumbered choosers and it has

underscored the constructedness of all our values In so doing post-modernism signals a renewed interest in ethics in questions of responsibility evaluation

and difference within contemporary social thinking Post-modernism offers a valuable critique of the tendency of socialist orthodoxy to bury the socialist insight as

to the sociality and historicity of values Nevertheless advancing as it does on orthodox socialism post-modernismrsquos radical constructivism and its horror at the disasters of confident and unreflective modernity can issue in an ironic hesitancy indicated in particular by an uncritical emphasis on

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Who would have predicted that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) one of the wiliest and most evasive of woodland birds extinct in New Jersey 50 years ago would now be found in every county of this the most densely populated state and even occasionally in adjacent Manhattan Who would have predicted that black bears (Ursus americanus) also virtually extinct in the state in the mid-twentieth century would now number in the thousands (Ehrenfeld 2001) Of course these recoveries

are unusualmdashrare bright spots in a darker landscapepara Finally a few ecological systems may survive in a comparatively undamaged state most will be stressed to the breaking point directly or indirectly by many environmental and social factors interacting unpredictably Lady Luck as always will have much to saypara In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies the archaeologist Joseph Tainter (1988) notes that collapse which has happened to all past empires inevitably results in human systems of lower complexity and less specialization less centralized control lower economic activity less information flow lower population levels less trade and less redistribution of resources All of these changes are inimical to globalization This less-complex less-globalized condition is probably what human societies will be like when the dust settles I do not think however that we can make such specific predictions about the ultimate state of the environment after

globalization because we have never experienced anything like this exceptionally rapid global environmental damage before History and science have little to tell us in this situation The end of the current economic system and the transition to a postglobalized state is and will be accompanied by a desperate last

raid on resources and a chaotic flurry of environmental destruction whose results cannot possibly be told in advance All one can say is that the surviving species ecosystems and resources will be greatly impoverished compared with what we have now and our descendants will not thank us for having

adopted however briefly an economic system that consumed their inheritance and damaged their planet so wantonly Environment is a true bottom linemdashconcern for its condition must trump all purely economic growth strategies if both the developed and developing nations are to survive and prosperpara Awareness of the environmental limits that globalized industrial society denies or ignores should not however bring us to an extreme position of environmental determinism Those whose preoccupations with modern civilizations very real social problems cause them to reject or minimize the environmental constraints discussed here (Hollander 2003) are guilty of seeing only half the picture Environmental scientists sometimes fall into the same error It is tempting to see the salvation of civilization and environment solely in terms of technological improvements in efficiency of energy extraction and use control of pollution conservation of water and regulation of environmentally harmful activities But such needed developments will not be sufficientmdashor may not even occurmdashwithout corresponding social change including an end to human population growth and the glorification of consumption along with the elimination of economic mechanisms that increase the gap between rich and poor The environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelatedmdashany attempt to treat them as separate entities is

unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a postglobalized world Integrated change that combines environmental awareness technological innovation and an altered world view is the only answer to the life-threatening problems exacerbated by globalization (Ehrenfeld 2003b)para If such integrated change occurs in time it will likely happen partly by our own design and partly as an unplanned response to the constraints imposed by social unrest disease and the economics of scarcity With respect to the planned component of change we are facing as eloquently described by Rees (2002) ldquothe ultimate challenge to human intelligence and self-awareness those vital qualities we humans claim as uniquely our own Homo sapiens will eitherhellipbecome fully human or wink out ignominiously a guttering candle in a violent storm of our own makingrdquo If change does not come quickly our global civilization will join Tainters (1988) list as the latest and most dramatic example of collapsed complex societiespara Is there anything that could slow globalization quickly before it collapses disastrously of its own

environmental and social weight It is still not too late to curtail the use of energy reinvigorate local and regional communities while restoring a culture of concern for each other reduce nonessential global trade and especially global finance (Daly amp Cobb 1989) do more to control introductions of exotic species (including pathogens) and accelerate the growth of sustainable agriculture Many of the needed technologies are already in place It is true that some of the damage to our environmentmdashspecies extinctions loss of crop and domestic animal varieties many exotic species introductions and some climatic changemdashwill be beyond repair Nevertheless the opportunity to help our society move past globalization in an orderly way while

there is time is worth our most creative and passionate effortspara The citizens of the United States and other nations have to understand that our global economic system has placed both our environment and our society in peril a peril as great as that posed by any war of the twentieth century This

understanding and the actions that follow must come not only from enlightened leadership but also from grassroots consciousness raising It is still possible to reclaim the planet from a self-destructive economic system that is bringing us all down together and this can be a task that bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals The crisis is here now What we have to do has become obvious Globalization can be scaled back to manageable proportions only in the context of an altered world view that rejects materialism even as it restores a sense of communal obligation In this way alone can we achieve real homeland security not just in the United States but also in other nations whose fates have become so thoroughly entwined with ours within the global environment we share

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case

Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other

The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation Chamsy Ojeili 3 Senior Lecturer School of Social and Cultural Studies Victoria University of Wellington Post-modernism the Return to Ethics and the Crisis of Socialist Values wwwdemocracynatureorgvol8ojeili_ethicshtm_edn9

Notably anarchists have often been charged with this failing by Marxian thinkers[157] Anarchism does include those suspicious of the demands of association those who fear the tyranny of the majority and who emphasise instead the uniqueness and liberty of the individual Here the freedom of the creative individual unhindered by the limitations of sociality is essential This second strand shows clearly the influence of liberal ideas It is also in its bohemian and nihilistic incarnation a child to the malevolent trio of De Sade Stirner Nietzsche that is those who reject coercive community mores and who recoil from herdish conformist pressures The free individual must create his or her own guiding set of values exploring the hitherto untapped and perhaps darker aspects of him or herself through an art which chaffs against the standards of beauty and taste of the ordinary mortal Given that freedom cannot endure limitations and that all idols have been driven from the world and the mind for these revolutionaries ldquoall is permittedrdquo[158] This emphasis on individual sovereignty is clear in Godwin and Stirner[159] but also in Goldmanrsquos suspicion of collective life in her elevation of the role of heroic individuals in history and in the work of situationist Raoul Vaneigem[160]para This accent within non-orthodox socialism has been much criticised For instance Murray Bookchin has contrasted ldquosocialrdquo with ldquolifestylerdquo anarchism rejecting the elevation the self-rule of the individual in the latter to the highest goal of anarchist thinking

[161] One might consider here the consequences in the case of Emma Goldman of the substitution of collective revolutionary change for boheme and for an intellectualist contempt for the masses Goldman turned more and more to purely self-expressive activity and increasingly appealed to intellectuals and middle

class audiences who felt amused and flattered by her individualism and exotic iconoclasm[162] This egoistic and personalistic turn ignores the essential social anarchist aspiration to freedom the commitment to an end to domination in society the comprehension of the social premises of the individualist urge itself and the necessity of

moving beyond a purely negative conception of liberty to a thicker positive conception of freedom[163] Perhaps as Bookchin has rather trenchantly asserted the recent individualist and neo- situationist concern with subjectivity expression and desire is all too much like middle class narcissism and the self-centred therapeutics of New Age culture Perhaps also as Barrot has said the kind of revolutionary life advocated by Vaneigem cannot be lived[164] Further total freedom for any one individual necessarily

means diminished freedom for others As La Banquise argue ldquoRepression and sublimation prevent people from sliding into a refusal of othernessrdquo[165] For socialists freedom must be an ineradicably social as well as an

individual matter The whole thrust of libertarian politics is towards a collective project that reconstructs those freedom-limiting structures of economy power and ideology[166] It seems unlikely that such ambitions could be achieved by those motivated solely by a Sadean ambition to seek satisfaction of their own improperly understood

desires para On this question Castoriadis is again useful ndash accenting autonomy as a property of the collective and of each individual within society and rejecting the opposition between community and humanity between the ldquoinner man [sic] and the public man [sic]rdquo[167] Castoriadis ridiculed abstract individualism ldquoWe are not lsquoindividualsrsquo freely floating above society and history who are capable of deciding sovereignly and in the absolute about

what we shall do about how we shall do it and about the meaning our doing will have once it is done hellip Above all qua individuals we choose neither the questions to which we will have to respond nor the terms in which

they will be posed nor especially the ultimate meaning of our response once givenrdquo[168] Rejecting the contemporary tendency to posit others as limitations on our freedom

Castoriadis argued that others were in fact premises of liberty ldquopossibilities of action rdquo and ldquosources of facilitationrdquo[169] Freedom is the most vital object of politics and this freedom ndash always a process and never an achieved state ndash is equated with the ldquoeffective humanly feasible lucid and reflective positing of the rules of individual and collective activityrdquo[170] An autonomous society ndash one without alienation ndash explicitly and democratically creates and recreates the institutions of its own world formulating and reformulating its own rules rather than simply accepting them as given from above and outside The resulting institutions Castoriadis hoped would facilitate high levels of responsibility and activity among all people in respect of all questions about society[171]para Castoriadisrsquo notion of social transformation holds to the

goals of integrated human communities the unification of peoplersquos lives and culture and the collective domination of people over their own lives[172] He was also committed to the free deployment of the personrsquos creative forces Just as Castoriadis enthused over the capacity of human collectivities for immense works of creativity and responsibility[173] so he insisted on the radical creativity of the

individual and the importance of individual freedom Congruent with the notion of social autonomy Castoriadis posited the autonomous individual as most essentially one who legislates for and thus regulates him or herself

[174] Turning to psychoanalysis he designated this autonomy as the emergence of a more balanced and productive relationship between the ego and the unconscious For Castoriadis these goals were not guaranteed by anything outside of the collective activity of people towards such goals and he insisted that individual autonomy could only arise ldquounder heavily instituted conditions hellip through the instauration of a regime that is genuinely hellip democratic rdquo

[175] Such an outcome could not be solved in theory but only by a re-awakening of politics Only in the clash of opinions ndash dependent on a restructured social formation ndash not determined in advance by naturalistic or religious postulates could a true ethics emerge[176] This I

believe is the highpoint of libertarian thinking about ethics and politics Conclusion para I have argued that socialist orthodoxy has been eclipsed as a programme for the good life On the one hand it devolves into a project of pragmatic expediency bereft of a political and ethical dimension where statist administration submerges both individual freedom and democratic decision-making On the other hand as social democracy the orthodox tradition coalesces into a variety of more or less straightforward liberalism Liberalism tends to overstate the conception of humans as choosers under-theorising and under-valuing the necessity of political community and the social dimension of individuality and the necessity of a positive conception of freedom The communitarian critique however too readily diminishes the freedoms of the individual subordinating people entirely to the horizons of community life and reducing politics to something like a ldquogeneral willrdquo para Possessed of both liberal and communitarian features post-modernism has been skeptical about the idea of a unitary human essence It has jettisoned the notion of humans as unencumbered choosers and it has

underscored the constructedness of all our values In so doing post-modernism signals a renewed interest in ethics in questions of responsibility evaluation

and difference within contemporary social thinking Post-modernism offers a valuable critique of the tendency of socialist orthodoxy to bury the socialist insight as

to the sociality and historicity of values Nevertheless advancing as it does on orthodox socialism post-modernismrsquos radical constructivism and its horror at the disasters of confident and unreflective modernity can issue in an ironic hesitancy indicated in particular by an uncritical emphasis on

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case

Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other

The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation Chamsy Ojeili 3 Senior Lecturer School of Social and Cultural Studies Victoria University of Wellington Post-modernism the Return to Ethics and the Crisis of Socialist Values wwwdemocracynatureorgvol8ojeili_ethicshtm_edn9

Notably anarchists have often been charged with this failing by Marxian thinkers[157] Anarchism does include those suspicious of the demands of association those who fear the tyranny of the majority and who emphasise instead the uniqueness and liberty of the individual Here the freedom of the creative individual unhindered by the limitations of sociality is essential This second strand shows clearly the influence of liberal ideas It is also in its bohemian and nihilistic incarnation a child to the malevolent trio of De Sade Stirner Nietzsche that is those who reject coercive community mores and who recoil from herdish conformist pressures The free individual must create his or her own guiding set of values exploring the hitherto untapped and perhaps darker aspects of him or herself through an art which chaffs against the standards of beauty and taste of the ordinary mortal Given that freedom cannot endure limitations and that all idols have been driven from the world and the mind for these revolutionaries ldquoall is permittedrdquo[158] This emphasis on individual sovereignty is clear in Godwin and Stirner[159] but also in Goldmanrsquos suspicion of collective life in her elevation of the role of heroic individuals in history and in the work of situationist Raoul Vaneigem[160]para This accent within non-orthodox socialism has been much criticised For instance Murray Bookchin has contrasted ldquosocialrdquo with ldquolifestylerdquo anarchism rejecting the elevation the self-rule of the individual in the latter to the highest goal of anarchist thinking

[161] One might consider here the consequences in the case of Emma Goldman of the substitution of collective revolutionary change for boheme and for an intellectualist contempt for the masses Goldman turned more and more to purely self-expressive activity and increasingly appealed to intellectuals and middle

class audiences who felt amused and flattered by her individualism and exotic iconoclasm[162] This egoistic and personalistic turn ignores the essential social anarchist aspiration to freedom the commitment to an end to domination in society the comprehension of the social premises of the individualist urge itself and the necessity of

moving beyond a purely negative conception of liberty to a thicker positive conception of freedom[163] Perhaps as Bookchin has rather trenchantly asserted the recent individualist and neo- situationist concern with subjectivity expression and desire is all too much like middle class narcissism and the self-centred therapeutics of New Age culture Perhaps also as Barrot has said the kind of revolutionary life advocated by Vaneigem cannot be lived[164] Further total freedom for any one individual necessarily

means diminished freedom for others As La Banquise argue ldquoRepression and sublimation prevent people from sliding into a refusal of othernessrdquo[165] For socialists freedom must be an ineradicably social as well as an

individual matter The whole thrust of libertarian politics is towards a collective project that reconstructs those freedom-limiting structures of economy power and ideology[166] It seems unlikely that such ambitions could be achieved by those motivated solely by a Sadean ambition to seek satisfaction of their own improperly understood

desires para On this question Castoriadis is again useful ndash accenting autonomy as a property of the collective and of each individual within society and rejecting the opposition between community and humanity between the ldquoinner man [sic] and the public man [sic]rdquo[167] Castoriadis ridiculed abstract individualism ldquoWe are not lsquoindividualsrsquo freely floating above society and history who are capable of deciding sovereignly and in the absolute about

what we shall do about how we shall do it and about the meaning our doing will have once it is done hellip Above all qua individuals we choose neither the questions to which we will have to respond nor the terms in which

they will be posed nor especially the ultimate meaning of our response once givenrdquo[168] Rejecting the contemporary tendency to posit others as limitations on our freedom

Castoriadis argued that others were in fact premises of liberty ldquopossibilities of action rdquo and ldquosources of facilitationrdquo[169] Freedom is the most vital object of politics and this freedom ndash always a process and never an achieved state ndash is equated with the ldquoeffective humanly feasible lucid and reflective positing of the rules of individual and collective activityrdquo[170] An autonomous society ndash one without alienation ndash explicitly and democratically creates and recreates the institutions of its own world formulating and reformulating its own rules rather than simply accepting them as given from above and outside The resulting institutions Castoriadis hoped would facilitate high levels of responsibility and activity among all people in respect of all questions about society[171]para Castoriadisrsquo notion of social transformation holds to the

goals of integrated human communities the unification of peoplersquos lives and culture and the collective domination of people over their own lives[172] He was also committed to the free deployment of the personrsquos creative forces Just as Castoriadis enthused over the capacity of human collectivities for immense works of creativity and responsibility[173] so he insisted on the radical creativity of the

individual and the importance of individual freedom Congruent with the notion of social autonomy Castoriadis posited the autonomous individual as most essentially one who legislates for and thus regulates him or herself

[174] Turning to psychoanalysis he designated this autonomy as the emergence of a more balanced and productive relationship between the ego and the unconscious For Castoriadis these goals were not guaranteed by anything outside of the collective activity of people towards such goals and he insisted that individual autonomy could only arise ldquounder heavily instituted conditions hellip through the instauration of a regime that is genuinely hellip democratic rdquo

[175] Such an outcome could not be solved in theory but only by a re-awakening of politics Only in the clash of opinions ndash dependent on a restructured social formation ndash not determined in advance by naturalistic or religious postulates could a true ethics emerge[176] This I

believe is the highpoint of libertarian thinking about ethics and politics Conclusion para I have argued that socialist orthodoxy has been eclipsed as a programme for the good life On the one hand it devolves into a project of pragmatic expediency bereft of a political and ethical dimension where statist administration submerges both individual freedom and democratic decision-making On the other hand as social democracy the orthodox tradition coalesces into a variety of more or less straightforward liberalism Liberalism tends to overstate the conception of humans as choosers under-theorising and under-valuing the necessity of political community and the social dimension of individuality and the necessity of a positive conception of freedom The communitarian critique however too readily diminishes the freedoms of the individual subordinating people entirely to the horizons of community life and reducing politics to something like a ldquogeneral willrdquo para Possessed of both liberal and communitarian features post-modernism has been skeptical about the idea of a unitary human essence It has jettisoned the notion of humans as unencumbered choosers and it has

underscored the constructedness of all our values In so doing post-modernism signals a renewed interest in ethics in questions of responsibility evaluation

and difference within contemporary social thinking Post-modernism offers a valuable critique of the tendency of socialist orthodoxy to bury the socialist insight as

to the sociality and historicity of values Nevertheless advancing as it does on orthodox socialism post-modernismrsquos radical constructivism and its horror at the disasters of confident and unreflective modernity can issue in an ironic hesitancy indicated in particular by an uncritical emphasis on

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

pluralism and incommensurability that threatens to forever suspend evaluation [177] One signal of this is the cautious and

depoliticised obsession with Otherness and the subject as victim of the return to ethics[178] Further post-modernism all too often

withdraws from universals and emancipation towards particularist ndash either individualist or community-based ndash answers to questions of justice and the content of the valuable life In contrast those seeking a radical inclusive democracy must remain engaged and universalist in orientation para A number of libertarians have not hesitated in committing themselves most importantly to the emancipation of humanity without

exception[179] In fact politics and ethics seem unthinkable without such universalistic aspirations Post-modernists themselves have

often had to submit to this truth smuggling into their analyses universally-binding ethico-political principles and attempting to theorise the potential linkages between progressive political struggles However such linkages do not amount to a coherent anti-systemic movement that addresses the power of state and capital In contrast the universalist commitments of the ethics of emancipation held to

by many libertarians accents both freedom and equality and the establishment of a true political community against the dominations

and distortions of state and capital Against the contemporary obsession with ethics which is so often sloganistic depoliticised defensive

privatised and trivial we should with Castoriadis accent politics as primary and as the condition of proper ethical engagement I have argued that in line with Castoriadisrsquo strictures such a political community and the aspiration to truly ethical and political deliberation can only be attained when socialists free themselves from belief in the possibility of extra social guarantees ldquoother than the free play of passions and needsrdquo[180] and from the expectation of an end to tensions and dilemmas around questions of social ordering On these terms libertarian goals are not ndash contra liberal strictures ndash the negation of aspirations for freedom and democracy but are rather a collective pressing of these aspirations to the very far limits of popular sovereignty It is for this reason that the stubborn durability of these goals may against all expectations be an auspicious sign for libertarian utopianism

Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal

London Fetish Scene lsquo06[Httpwwwlondonfetishscenecomwipiindexphpsubspace]

Subspace(also sub space) in the context ofaBDSMsceneis the psychological state of the submissive partnerSubspace is a metaphor forthe state the submissives minds and bodies are in during a deeply involving play scene Many types of BDSM play invoke strong physical responses such as extended adrenaline surges that can cause exhaustionThe mental aspect of BDSM also causes many submissives to mentally separate themselves from their environment as they process the experience Deep subspace is often characterized as a state of deep recession and incoherenceMany submissives require aftercare

Consent solvency turns

1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consentsMarilyn Golden 14 a senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund The danger of assisted suicide laws 10-14-2014 CNN httpwwwcnncom20141013opiniongolden-assisted-suicide DOA 10-21-2014 y2k

My heart goes out to Brittany Maynard who is dying of brain cancer and who wrote last week about her desire for what is often referred to as death with dignity Yet while I have every sympathy for her situation it is

important to remember that for every case such as this there are hundreds -- or thousands -- more people who could be significantly harmed if assisted suicide is legal The legalization of assisted suicide always appears acceptable when the focus is solely on an individual But it is important to remember that doing so would have repercussions across all of society and would put many people at risk of immense harm After all not every terminal prognosis is correct and not everyone has a loving husband family or support system As an advocate working on behalf of disability rights for 37 years and as someone who uses a wheelchair I am all too familiar with the explicit and implicit pressures faced by people living with chronic or serious disability or disease But the reality is that legalizing assisted suicide is a deadly mix with the broken profit-driven health care system we have in the United States At less than $300 assisted suicide is to put it bluntly the cheapest treatment for a terminal illness This means that in places where assisted suicide is legal coercion is not even necessary If life-sustaining expensive treatment

is denied or even merely delayed patients will be steered toward assisted suicide where it is legal This problem applies to government-funded health care as well In 2008 came the story that Barbara Wagner a Springfield Oregon woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered She said she was told that instead they would pay for among other things her assisted suicide To say to someone Well pay for you to die but not for you to live -- its cruel she said Another Oregon resident 53-year-old Randy Stroup was diagnosed with prostate cancer Like Wagner Stroup was reportedly denied approval of his prescribed chemotherapy treatment and instead offered coverage for assisted suicide Meanwhile

where assisted suicide is legal an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide witness the request pick up the lethal dose and even give the drug -- no witnesses are required at the death so who would know This can occur despite the fact that diagnoses of terminal illness are

often wrong leading people to give up on treatment and lose good years of their lives True safeguards have been put in place where assisted suicide is legal But in practical terms

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

they provide no protection For example people with a history of depression and suicide attempts have received the lethal drugs Michael Freeland of Oregon

reportedly had a 40-year history of significant depression yet he received lethal drugs in Oregon These risks are simply not worth the price of assisted suicide Available data suggests that pain is rarely the reason why people choose assisted suicide Instead most people do so because they fear burdening their families or becoming disabled or dependent Anyone dying in discomfort that is not otherwise relievable may legally today in all 50 states

receive palliative sedation wherein the patient is sedated to the point at which the discomfort is relieved while the dying process takes place peacefully This means that today there is a legal solution to painful and uncomfortable deaths one that does not raise the very serious problems of legalizing assisted suicide The debate about assisted suicide is not new but voters and elected officials grow very wary of it when they learn the facts Just this year alone assisted suicide bills were rejected in Massachusetts New

Hampshire and Connecticut and stalled in New Jersey due to bipartisan grassroots opposition from a broad coalition of groups spanning the political spectrum from left to right including disability rights organizations medical professionals and associations palliative care specialists hospice workers and faith-based organizations Assisted suicide is a unique issue that breaks down ideological boundaries and requires us to consider those

potentially most vulnerable in our society All this means that we should as a society strive for better options to address the fear and uncertainty articulated by Brittany Maynard

But if assisted suicide is legal some peoples lives will be ended without their consent through mistakes and abuse No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can properly prevent this outcome one that can never be undone Ultimately when looking at the bigger picture and not just individual cases one

thing becomes clear Any benefits from assisted suicide are simply not worth the real and significant risks of this dangerous public policy

2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regsPeak 12 Legalizing Prostitution October 5 2012 Bethany J Peak httpwclcriminallawbriefblogspotcom201210legalizing-prostitutionhtml

There are strong opinions on both sides of the fence regarding prostitution One side thinks that prostitution should be a crime because itrsquos immoral and leads to additional criminal activity as well as the spread of sexually transmitted diseases On the other side is a group that believes prostitution should not be a criminal violation and prostitutes should be recognized as workers like

everyone else Among those that advocate for non-criminal prostitution there are those in favor of legalizing prostitution and those in favor of decriminalization Legalization entails the state regulating a particular practice ndashndashhere the practice of prostitution Decriminalization is

when the state has no laws related to the practice Proponents of decriminalizing prostitution advocate for the removal of all laws related to prostitution There would be no criminal laws under which prostitutes could be punished This would allow prostitute to seek legal assistance if cheated or assaulted and would reduce law enforcement costs of policing and prosecuting prostitutes[1]

3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human traffickingCho et al 2013 [SEO-YOUNG German Institute for Economic Research-DIW AXEL DREHER Heidelberg University Germany University of Goettingen Germany CESifo Germany IZA Germany KOF Swiss Economic Institute Switzerland and ERIC NEUMAYER London School of Economics and Political Science Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking httpdxdoiorg101016jworlddev201205023 Pg 67 Accessed 5242014 DMW]

Much recent scholarly attention has focused on the effect of globalization on human rights (Bjoslashrnskov 2008 de Soysa amp Vadlamannati 2011) and womenrsquos rights in particular (Cho in press Potrafke amp Ursprung 2012) Yet one important and largely neglected aspect of globalization with direct human rights implications is the increased trafficking of human beings (Cho amp Vadlamannati 2012 Potrafke 2011) one of the dark sides of globalization Similarly globalization scholars with their emphasis on the apparent loss of national sovereignty often neglect the impact that domestic policies crafted at the

country level can still exert on aspects of globalization This article analyzes how one important domestic policy choicemdashthe legal status of prostitutionmdash affects the incidence of human trafficking inflows to countries Most victims of international human trafficking are women and girls The vast majority end up being sexually exploited through prostitution (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2006) Many authors therefore believe that trafficking is caused by prostitution and combating prostitution with the force of the law would reduce trafficking (Outshoorn 2005) For example Hughes (2000) maintains that ldquoevidence seems to show that legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industriesrdquo (p 651) Farley (2009) suggests that ldquowherever prostitution is legalized trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increasesrdquo (p 313) 1 In its Trafficking in Persons report the US State Department (2007) states as the official US Government position ldquothat prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in personsrdquo (p 27) The idea that combating human trafficking requires combating prostitution is in fact anything but new As Outshoorn (2005 p 142) points out the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons from 1949 had already called on all states to suppress prostitution 2 See Limoncelli (2010) for a comprehensive historical overview

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

they provide no protection For example people with a history of depression and suicide attempts have received the lethal drugs Michael Freeland of Oregon

reportedly had a 40-year history of significant depression yet he received lethal drugs in Oregon These risks are simply not worth the price of assisted suicide Available data suggests that pain is rarely the reason why people choose assisted suicide Instead most people do so because they fear burdening their families or becoming disabled or dependent Anyone dying in discomfort that is not otherwise relievable may legally today in all 50 states

receive palliative sedation wherein the patient is sedated to the point at which the discomfort is relieved while the dying process takes place peacefully This means that today there is a legal solution to painful and uncomfortable deaths one that does not raise the very serious problems of legalizing assisted suicide The debate about assisted suicide is not new but voters and elected officials grow very wary of it when they learn the facts Just this year alone assisted suicide bills were rejected in Massachusetts New

Hampshire and Connecticut and stalled in New Jersey due to bipartisan grassroots opposition from a broad coalition of groups spanning the political spectrum from left to right including disability rights organizations medical professionals and associations palliative care specialists hospice workers and faith-based organizations Assisted suicide is a unique issue that breaks down ideological boundaries and requires us to consider those

potentially most vulnerable in our society All this means that we should as a society strive for better options to address the fear and uncertainty articulated by Brittany Maynard

But if assisted suicide is legal some peoples lives will be ended without their consent through mistakes and abuse No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can properly prevent this outcome one that can never be undone Ultimately when looking at the bigger picture and not just individual cases one

thing becomes clear Any benefits from assisted suicide are simply not worth the real and significant risks of this dangerous public policy

2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regsPeak 12 Legalizing Prostitution October 5 2012 Bethany J Peak httpwclcriminallawbriefblogspotcom201210legalizing-prostitutionhtml

There are strong opinions on both sides of the fence regarding prostitution One side thinks that prostitution should be a crime because itrsquos immoral and leads to additional criminal activity as well as the spread of sexually transmitted diseases On the other side is a group that believes prostitution should not be a criminal violation and prostitutes should be recognized as workers like

everyone else Among those that advocate for non-criminal prostitution there are those in favor of legalizing prostitution and those in favor of decriminalization Legalization entails the state regulating a particular practice ndashndashhere the practice of prostitution Decriminalization is

when the state has no laws related to the practice Proponents of decriminalizing prostitution advocate for the removal of all laws related to prostitution There would be no criminal laws under which prostitutes could be punished This would allow prostitute to seek legal assistance if cheated or assaulted and would reduce law enforcement costs of policing and prosecuting prostitutes[1]

3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human traffickingCho et al 2013 [SEO-YOUNG German Institute for Economic Research-DIW AXEL DREHER Heidelberg University Germany University of Goettingen Germany CESifo Germany IZA Germany KOF Swiss Economic Institute Switzerland and ERIC NEUMAYER London School of Economics and Political Science Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking httpdxdoiorg101016jworlddev201205023 Pg 67 Accessed 5242014 DMW]

Much recent scholarly attention has focused on the effect of globalization on human rights (Bjoslashrnskov 2008 de Soysa amp Vadlamannati 2011) and womenrsquos rights in particular (Cho in press Potrafke amp Ursprung 2012) Yet one important and largely neglected aspect of globalization with direct human rights implications is the increased trafficking of human beings (Cho amp Vadlamannati 2012 Potrafke 2011) one of the dark sides of globalization Similarly globalization scholars with their emphasis on the apparent loss of national sovereignty often neglect the impact that domestic policies crafted at the

country level can still exert on aspects of globalization This article analyzes how one important domestic policy choicemdashthe legal status of prostitutionmdash affects the incidence of human trafficking inflows to countries Most victims of international human trafficking are women and girls The vast majority end up being sexually exploited through prostitution (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2006) Many authors therefore believe that trafficking is caused by prostitution and combating prostitution with the force of the law would reduce trafficking (Outshoorn 2005) For example Hughes (2000) maintains that ldquoevidence seems to show that legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industriesrdquo (p 651) Farley (2009) suggests that ldquowherever prostitution is legalized trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increasesrdquo (p 313) 1 In its Trafficking in Persons report the US State Department (2007) states as the official US Government position ldquothat prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in personsrdquo (p 27) The idea that combating human trafficking requires combating prostitution is in fact anything but new As Outshoorn (2005 p 142) points out the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons from 1949 had already called on all states to suppress prostitution 2 See Limoncelli (2010) for a comprehensive historical overview

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solveOrly Lobel 7 Assistant Professor of Law University of San Diego THE PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL ACTIVISM CRITICAL LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS Harvard Law Review Vol 120

Both the practical failures and the fallacy of rigid boundaries generated by extralegal activism rhetoric permit us to broaden our inquiry to the underlying assumptions of current proposals regarding transformative politics mdash that is attempts to produce meaningful changes in the political and socioeconomic landscapes The suggested alternatives produce a new image of social and political action This vision rejects a shared theory of social reform rejects formal programmatic agendas and embraces a multiplicity of forms and practices Thus it is described in

such terms as a plan of no plan211 ldquoa project of pro- jectsrdquo212 ldquoanti-theory theoryrdquo213 politics rather than goals214 presence rather than power215 ldquopractice over theoryrdquo216 and chaos and openness over order and

formality As a result the contemporary message rarely includes a comprehensive vision of common social claims but rather engages in the description of fragmented efforts As Professor Joel Handler argues the commonality of struggle and social vision that existed during the civil rights movement has disappeared217 There is no unifying

discourse or set of values but rather an aversion to any metanarrative and a resignation from theory Professor Handler warns that this move away from grand narratives is self-defeating precisely because only certain parts of the political spectrum have accepted this new stance ldquo[T]he opposition is not playing that game [E]veryone else is operating as if there were Grand Narratives rdquo218 Intertwined with the resignation from law and policy the new bromide of ldquoneither left

nor rightrdquo has become axiomatic only for some219 The contemporary critical legal consciousness informs the scholarship of those who are interested in progressive social activism but less so that of those who are interested for example in a more competitive securities market Indeed an interesting recent development has been the rise of ldquoconservative public interest lawyer[ing]rdquo220 Although ldquopublic interest lawrdquo was originally associated

exclusively with liberal projects in the past three decades conservative advocacy groups have rapidly grown both in number and in their vigorous use of traditional legal strategies to promote their causes221 This growth in conservative advocacy is particularly salient in juxtaposition to the decline of traditional progressive advocacy Most recently some

thinkers have even suggested that there may be ldquosomething inherent in the leftrsquos conception of social change mdash focused as it is on participation and empowerment mdash that produces a unique distrust of legal expertiserdquo222

Once again this conclusion reveals flaws parallel to the original disenchantment with legal reform Although the new extralegal frames present themselves as apt alternatives to legal reform models and as capable of producing significant changes to the social map in practice they generate very limited improvement in existing social arrangements Most strikingly the cooptation effect here can be explained in terms of the most profound risk of the typology mdash that of legitimation The common pattern of extralegal scholarship is to describe an inherent instability in dominant structures by pointing for example to grassroots strategies223 and then to assume that specific instances of counterhegemonic activities translate into a more complete transformation This celebration of multiple micro-resistances seems to rely on an aggregate approach mdash an idea that the multiplication of practices will evolve into something substantial In fact the myth of engagement obscures the actual lack of change being produced while the broader pattern of equating extralegal activism with social reform produces a false belief in the potential of change There are few instances of meaningful reordering of social and economic arrangements and macro-redistribution Scholars write about decoding what is really happening as

though the scholarly narrative has the power to unpack more than the actual conventional experience will admit224 Unrelated efforts become related and part of a whole through mere reframing At the same time the elephant in the room mdash the rising level of economic inequality mdash is left unaddressed and comes to be understood as natural and inevitable225 This is precisely the problematic process that critical theorists decry as losersrsquo self-mystification through which marginalized groups come to see systemic losses as the product of their own actions and thereby begin to focus on minor achievements as representing the boundaries of their willed reality The explorations of micro-instances of activism are often fundamentally performative obscuring the distance between the descriptive and the prescriptive The manifestations of extralegal activism mdash

the law and organizing model the proliferation of informal soft norms and norm-generating actors and the celebrated separate nongovernmental sphere of action mdash all produce a fantasy that change can be brought about through small-scale decentralized transformation The emphasis is local but the locality is described as a microcosm of the whole and the audience is national and global In the context of the humanities Professor Carol Greenhouse poses a comparable challenge to ethnographic studies

from the 1990s which utilized the genres of narrative and community studies the latter including works on American cities and neighborhoods in trouble226 The aspiration of these genres was that each individual story could translate into a ldquotime of the nationrdquo body of knowledge and motivation227 In contemporary legal thought a corresponding gap opens

between the local scale and the larger translocal one In reality although there has been a recent proliferation of associations and grassroots groups few new local-statenational federations have emerged in the United States since the 1960s and 1970s and many of the existing voluntary federations that flourished in the mid-twentieth century are in decline228 There is therefore an absence of links between the local and the national an absent intermediate public sphere which has been termed ldquothe missing middlerdquo by Professor Theda Skocpol229 New social movements have for the most part failed in sustaining coalitions or producing significant institutional change through grassroots activism Professor Handler concludes that this failure is due in part to the ideas of contingency pluralism and localism that are

so embedded in current activism230 Is the focus on small-scale dynamics simply an evasion of the need to engage in broader substantive debate It is important for next-generation progressive legal scholars while maintaining a critical legal consciousness to recognize that not all extralegal associational life is transformative We must differentiate for example between inward-looking groups which tend to be self- regarding and depoliticized and social movements that participate in political activities engage the public debate and aim to challenge and reform existing realities231 We must differentiate between professional associations and more inclusive forms of institutions that act as trustees for larger segments of the community232 As described above extralegal activism tends

to operate on a more divided and hence a smaller scale than earlier social movements which had national reform agendas Consequently within critical discourse there is a need to recognize the limited capacity of small-scale action We should question the narrative that imagines consciousness-raising as directly translating into action and action as directly translating into change Certainly not every cultural description is political Indeed it is questionable whether forms of activism that

are opposed to programmatic reconstruction of a social agenda should even be understood as social movements In fact when groups are situated in opposition to any form of institutionalized power they may be simply mirroring what they are fighting against and merely producing moot activism that settles for what seems possible within the narrow space that is left in a rising convergence of ideologies The original vision is consequently coopted and contemporary discontent is legitimated through a process of self-mystification

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt Orly Lobel 7 University of San Diaego Assistant Professor of Law ldquoThe Paradox of Extralegal Activism Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politicsrdquo 120 HARV L REV 937 httpwwwharvardlawrevieworgmediapdflobelpdf

In the following sections I argue that the extralegal model has suffered from the same drawbacks associated with legal cooptation I show that as an effort to avoid

the risk of legal cooptation the current wave of suggested alternatives has effects that ironically mirror those of cooptation itself Three central types of

difficulties exist with contemporary extralegal scholarship First in the contexts of the labor and civil rights movements arguments about legal cooptation often developed in response to a perceived gap between the conceptual ideal toward which a social reform group struggled and its actual accomplishments But ironically the contemporary message of opting out of traditional legal reform avenues may only accentuate this problem As the rise of

informatization (moving to nonlegal strategies) civil society (moving to extralegal spheres) and pluralism (the proliferation of norm-generating actors) has been effected and appropriated by supporters from a wide range of

political commitments these concepts have had unintended implications that conflict with the very social reform ideals from which they stem

Second the idea of opting out of the legal arena becomes self-defeating as it discounts the ongoing importance of law and the possibilities of legal reform in seemingly unregulated spheres A model encompassing exit and rigid sphere distinctions further fails to recognize a reality of increasing interpenetration and the blurring of

boundaries between private and public spheres profit and nonprofit sectors and formal and informal institutions It therefore loses the critical insight that law operates in the background of seemingly unregulated relationships Again paradoxically the extralegal view of decentralized activism and the division of society into different spheres

in fact have worked to subvert rather than support the progressive agenda Finally since extralegal actors view their actions with romantic idealism they fail to develop tools for evaluating their success If the critique of legal cooptation has involved the argument that legal

reform even when viewed as a victory is never radically transformative we must ask what are the criteria for assessing the achievements of the suggested alternatives As I illustrate in the following sections much of the current scholarship obscures the lines between the descriptive and the prescriptive in its formulation of social activism If current suggestions present themselves as alternatives to formal legal struggles we must question whether the new extralegal politics that are proposed and celebrated are capable of produc ing a constructive theory and

meaningful channels for reform rather than passive s tatus quo politics A Practical Failures When Extralegal Alternatives Are Vehicles for Conservative Agendas We donrsquot

want the 1950s back What we want is to edit them We want to keep the safe streets the friendly grocers and the milk and cookies while blotting out the political bosses the tyrannical headmasters the inflexible rules and

the lectures on 100 percent Americanism and the sinfulness of dissent163 A basic structure of cooptation arguments as developed in relation to the labor and civil rights movements has been to show how in the move from theory to practice the ideal that was promoted by a social group takes on unintended content and the group thus fails to realize the original vision This risk is particularly high when ideals are framed in broad terms that are open to multiple

interpretations Moreover the pitfalls of the potential risks presented under the umbrella of cooptation are in fact accentuated in current proposals Paradoxically as the extralegal movement is framed by way of opposition to formal legal reform paths without sufficiently defining its goals it runs the very risks it sought to avoid by working outside the legal system Extralegal paths are depicted mostly in negative terms and as resorting to new alternative forms of action rather than established models Accordingly because the ideas of social organizing civil society and legal pluralism are framed in open-ended contrarian terms they do not translate into specific visions of social justice reform The idea of civil society which has been

embraced by people from a broad array of often conflicting ideological commitments is particularly demonstrative Critics argue that ldquo[s]ome ideas fail because they never make the light of day The idea of civil society

failed because it became too popularrdquo164 Such a broadly conceived ideal as civil society sows the seeds of its own destruction In former eras the claims about the legal cooptation of the transformative visions of workplace justice and racial equality suggested that through legal strategies the visions became stripped of their initial depth and fragmented and framed in ways that were narrow and often merely symbolic This observation seems accurate in the contemporary political arena the idea of civil society revivalism evoked by progressive activists has been reduced to symbolic acts with very little substance On the left progressive advocates envision decentralized activism in a third nongovernmental sphere as a way of reviving democratic participation and rebuilding the state

from the bottom up By contrast the idea of civil society has been embraced by conservative politicians as a means for replacing government -funded programs

and steering away from state intervention As a result recent political uses of civil society have subverted the ideals of progressive social reform and replaced them with conservative agendas that reject egalitarian views of social provision

Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooptionOmi and Winant 13 Resistance is futile a response to Feagin and Elias Michael Omi Associate Professor at the University of California Berkeley Howard Winant Professor of Sociology at the University of California Santa Barbara and Director of the University of California Center for New Racial Studies 2013 Ethnic and Racial Studies 366 961-973 DOI 101080014198702012715177

In Feagin and Eliasrsquos account white racist rule in the USA appears unalterable and permanent There is little sense that the lsquowhite racial framersquo

evoked by systemic racism theory changes in significant ways over historical time They dismiss important rearrangements and reforms as merely lsquoa distraction from

more ingrained structural oppressions and deep lying inequalities that continue to define US societyrsquo (Feagin and Elias 2012 p 21) Feagin and Elias use a concept they call lsquosurface flexibilityrsquo to argue that white elites frame racial realities in ways that suggest change but are merely engineered to reinforce the underlying structure of racial oppression Feagin and Elias say the phrase

lsquoracial democracyrsquo is an oxymoron 1113088 a word defined in the dictionary as a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms If they mean the USA is a contradictory and

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

incomplete democracy in respect to race and racism issues we agree If they mean that people of colour have no democratic rights or

political power in the USA we disagree The USA is a racially despotic country in many ways but in our view it is also in many respects a racial

democracy capable of being influenced towards more or less inclusive and redistributive economic policies social policies or for that matter imperial policies What is distinctive about our own epoch in the USA (post-Second World War to the present) with respect to race and racism Over the past decades there has been a steady drumbeat of efforts to contain and neutralize civil rights to restrict racial democracy and to maintain or even increase racial inequality Racial disparities in different institutional sites 1113088 employment health education 1113088 persist and in many cases have increased Indeed the post-2008 period has seen a dramatic increase in racial inequality The subprime home mortgage crisis for example was a major racial event Black and brown people were disproportionately affected by predatory lending practices many lost their homes as a result race-

based wealth disparities widened tremendously It would be easy to conclude as Feagin and Elias do that white racial dominance has been continuous and unchanging throughout US history But such a perspective misses the dramatic twists and turns in racial politics that have occurred since the Second World War and the civil rights era Feagin and Elias claim that we overly inflate the significance of the changes wrought by the civil rights movement and that we lsquooverlook the serious reversals of racial justice and persistence of huge racial inequalitiesrsquo (Feagin and Elias 2012 p 21) that followed in its wake We do not In Racial Formation we wrote about lsquoracial reactionrsquo in a chapter of that name and elsewhere in the book as well Feagin and Elias devote little attention to our arguments there perhaps because they are in

substantial agreement with us While we argue that the right wing was able to lsquorearticulatersquo race and racism issues to roll back some of the gains of the civil rights movement we also believe that there are limits to what the right could achieve in the post-civil rights political

landscape So we agree that the present prospects for racial justice are demoralizing at best But we do not think that is the whole story

US racial conditions have changed over the post-Second World War period in ways that Feagin and Elias tend to downplay or

neglect Some of the major reforms of the 1960s have proved irreversible they have set powerful democratic forces in motion These

racial (trans)formations were the results of unprecedented political mobiliza- tions led by the black movement but not confined to blacks alone Consider the desegregation of the armed forces as well as key civil rights movement victories of the 1960s the Voting Rights Act the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart- Celler) as well as important court decisions like Loving v Virginia that declared anti- miscegenation laws unconstitutional While we have the greatest respect for the late Derrick Bell we do not believe that his lsquointerest convergence hypothesisrsquo effectively explains all these developments How does Lyndon Johnsonrsquos famous (and possibly apocryphal) lament upon signing the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964 1113088 lsquoWe have lost the South for a generationrsquo 1113088 count as lsquoconvergencersquo The US racial regime has been transformed in significant ways As Antonio Gramsci argues hegemony proceeds through the incorpora- tion of opposition (Gramsci 1971 p 182) The civil rights reforms can be seen as a classic example of this process here the US racial regime 1113088 under movement pressure 1113088 was exercising its

hegemony But Gramsci insists that such reforms 1113088 which he calls lsquopassive revolutionsrsquo 1113088 cannot be merely symbolic if they are to be effective oppositions must win real gains in the process Once again we are in the realm of politics not absolute rule So yes we think there were important if partial victories that shifted the racial state and transformed the significance of race in everyday life And yes we think that further victories can take place both on the broad terrain of the state and on the more immediate level of social interaction in daily interaction in the human

psyche and across civil society Indeed we have argued that in many ways the most important accomplishment of the anti-racist movement of the 1960s in the USA was the politicization of the social In the USA and indeed around the globe race-based movements demanded not only the inclusion of racially defined lsquoothersrsquo and the democratization of structurally

racist societies but also the recognition and validation by both the state and civil society of racially-defined experience and identity These demands broadened and deepened

democracy itself They facilitated not only the democratic gains made in the USA by the black movement and its allies but also the political advances towards equality social justice and inclusion accomplished by other lsquonew social movementsrsquo second- wave feminism gay liberation and the

environmentalist and anti-war movements among others By no means do we think that the post-war movement upsurge was an unmitigated success Far from it all the new social movements were subject to the same lsquorearticulationrsquo (Laclau and Mouffe 2001 p xii) that produced the racial ideology of lsquocolourblindnessrsquo and its

variants indeed all these movements confronted their mirror images in the mobilizations that arose from the political right to counter them Yet even their incorporation and containment even their confrontations with the various lsquobacklashrsquo phenomena of the past few decades even the need to develop the highly contradictory ideology of

lsquocolour- blindnessrsquo reveal the transformative character of the lsquopoliticization of the socialrsquo While it is not possible here to explore so extensive a subject it is

worth noting that it was the long-delayed eruption of racial subjectivity and self-awareness into the mainstream political arena that set off this transformation shaping both the democratic and anti- democratic social movements that are evident in US politics today

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2nc

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

OverviewOur interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point

There are two net benefits to this model-

Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged

Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt Orly Lobel 7 University of San Diaego Assistant Professor of Law ldquoThe Paradox of Extralegal Activism Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politicsrdquo 120 HARV L REV 937 httpwwwharvardlawrevieworgmediapdflobelpdf

In the following sections I argue that the extralegal model has suffered from the same drawbacks associated with legal cooptation I show that as an effort to avoid

the risk of legal cooptation the current wave of suggested alternatives has effects that ironically mirror those of cooptation itself Three central types of

difficulties exist with contemporary extralegal scholarship First in the contexts of the labor and civil rights movements arguments about legal cooptation often developed in response to a perceived gap between the conceptual ideal toward which a social reform group struggled and its actual accomplishments But ironically the contemporary message of opting out of traditional legal reform avenues may only accentuate this problem As the rise of

informatization (moving to nonlegal strategies) civil society (moving to extralegal spheres) and pluralism (the proliferation of norm-generating actors) has been effected and appropriated by supporters from a wide range of

political commitments these concepts have had unintended implications that conflict with the very social reform ideals from which they stem

Second the idea of opting out of the legal arena becomes self-defeating as it discounts the ongoing importance of law and the possibilities of legal reform in seemingly unregulated spheres A model encompassing exit and rigid sphere distinctions further fails to recognize a reality of increasing interpenetration and the blurring of

boundaries between private and public spheres profit and nonprofit sectors and formal and informal institutions It therefore loses the critical insight that law operates in the background of seemingly unregulated relationships Again paradoxically the extralegal view of decentralized activism and the division of society into different spheres

in fact have worked to subvert rather than support the progressive agenda Finally since extralegal actors view their actions with romantic idealism they fail to develop tools for evaluating their success If the critique of legal cooptation has involved the argument that legal

reform even when viewed as a victory is never radically transformative we must ask what are the criteria for assessing the achievements of the suggested alternatives As I illustrate in the following sections much of the current scholarship obscures the lines between the descriptive and the prescriptive in its formulation of social activism If current suggestions present themselves as alternatives to formal legal struggles we must question whether the new extralegal politics that are proposed and celebrated are capable of produc ing a constructive theory and

meaningful channels for reform rather than passive s tatus quo politics A Practical Failures When Extralegal Alternatives Are Vehicles for Conservative Agendas We donrsquot

want the 1950s back What we want is to edit them We want to keep the safe streets the friendly grocers and the milk and cookies while blotting out the political bosses the tyrannical headmasters the inflexible rules and

the lectures on 100 percent Americanism and the sinfulness of dissent163 A basic structure of cooptation arguments as developed in relation to the labor and civil rights movements has been to show how in the move from theory to practice the ideal that was promoted by a social group takes on unintended content and the group thus fails to realize the original vision This risk is particularly high when ideals are framed in broad terms that are open to multiple

interpretations Moreover the pitfalls of the potential risks presented under the umbrella of cooptation are in fact accentuated in current proposals Paradoxically as the extralegal movement is framed by way of opposition to formal legal reform paths without sufficiently defining its goals it runs the very risks it sought to avoid by working outside the legal system Extralegal paths are depicted mostly in negative terms and as resorting to new alternative forms of action rather than established models Accordingly because the ideas of social organizing civil society and legal pluralism are framed in open-ended contrarian terms they do not translate into specific visions of social justice reform The idea of civil society which has been

embraced by people from a broad array of often conflicting ideological commitments is particularly demonstrative Critics argue that ldquo[s]ome ideas fail because they never make the light of day The idea of civil society

failed because it became too popularrdquo164 Such a broadly conceived ideal as civil society sows the seeds of its own destruction In former eras the claims about the legal cooptation of the transformative visions of workplace justice and racial equality suggested that through legal strategies the visions became stripped of their initial depth and fragmented and framed in ways that were narrow and often merely symbolic This observation seems accurate in the contemporary political arena the idea of civil society revivalism evoked by progressive activists has been reduced to symbolic acts with very little substance On the left progressive advocates envision decentralized activism in a third nongovernmental sphere as a way of reviving democratic participation and rebuilding the state

from the bottom up By contrast the idea of civil society has been embraced by conservative politicians as a means for replacing government -funded programs

and steering away from state intervention As a result recent political uses of civil society have subverted the ideals of progressive social reform and replaced them with conservative agendas that reject egalitarian views of social provision

Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooptionOmi and Winant 13 Resistance is futile a response to Feagin and Elias Michael Omi Associate Professor at the University of California Berkeley Howard Winant Professor of Sociology at the University of California Santa Barbara and Director of the University of California Center for New Racial Studies 2013 Ethnic and Racial Studies 366 961-973 DOI 101080014198702012715177

In Feagin and Eliasrsquos account white racist rule in the USA appears unalterable and permanent There is little sense that the lsquowhite racial framersquo

evoked by systemic racism theory changes in significant ways over historical time They dismiss important rearrangements and reforms as merely lsquoa distraction from

more ingrained structural oppressions and deep lying inequalities that continue to define US societyrsquo (Feagin and Elias 2012 p 21) Feagin and Elias use a concept they call lsquosurface flexibilityrsquo to argue that white elites frame racial realities in ways that suggest change but are merely engineered to reinforce the underlying structure of racial oppression Feagin and Elias say the phrase

lsquoracial democracyrsquo is an oxymoron 1113088 a word defined in the dictionary as a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms If they mean the USA is a contradictory and

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

incomplete democracy in respect to race and racism issues we agree If they mean that people of colour have no democratic rights or

political power in the USA we disagree The USA is a racially despotic country in many ways but in our view it is also in many respects a racial

democracy capable of being influenced towards more or less inclusive and redistributive economic policies social policies or for that matter imperial policies What is distinctive about our own epoch in the USA (post-Second World War to the present) with respect to race and racism Over the past decades there has been a steady drumbeat of efforts to contain and neutralize civil rights to restrict racial democracy and to maintain or even increase racial inequality Racial disparities in different institutional sites 1113088 employment health education 1113088 persist and in many cases have increased Indeed the post-2008 period has seen a dramatic increase in racial inequality The subprime home mortgage crisis for example was a major racial event Black and brown people were disproportionately affected by predatory lending practices many lost their homes as a result race-

based wealth disparities widened tremendously It would be easy to conclude as Feagin and Elias do that white racial dominance has been continuous and unchanging throughout US history But such a perspective misses the dramatic twists and turns in racial politics that have occurred since the Second World War and the civil rights era Feagin and Elias claim that we overly inflate the significance of the changes wrought by the civil rights movement and that we lsquooverlook the serious reversals of racial justice and persistence of huge racial inequalitiesrsquo (Feagin and Elias 2012 p 21) that followed in its wake We do not In Racial Formation we wrote about lsquoracial reactionrsquo in a chapter of that name and elsewhere in the book as well Feagin and Elias devote little attention to our arguments there perhaps because they are in

substantial agreement with us While we argue that the right wing was able to lsquorearticulatersquo race and racism issues to roll back some of the gains of the civil rights movement we also believe that there are limits to what the right could achieve in the post-civil rights political

landscape So we agree that the present prospects for racial justice are demoralizing at best But we do not think that is the whole story

US racial conditions have changed over the post-Second World War period in ways that Feagin and Elias tend to downplay or

neglect Some of the major reforms of the 1960s have proved irreversible they have set powerful democratic forces in motion These

racial (trans)formations were the results of unprecedented political mobiliza- tions led by the black movement but not confined to blacks alone Consider the desegregation of the armed forces as well as key civil rights movement victories of the 1960s the Voting Rights Act the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart- Celler) as well as important court decisions like Loving v Virginia that declared anti- miscegenation laws unconstitutional While we have the greatest respect for the late Derrick Bell we do not believe that his lsquointerest convergence hypothesisrsquo effectively explains all these developments How does Lyndon Johnsonrsquos famous (and possibly apocryphal) lament upon signing the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964 1113088 lsquoWe have lost the South for a generationrsquo 1113088 count as lsquoconvergencersquo The US racial regime has been transformed in significant ways As Antonio Gramsci argues hegemony proceeds through the incorpora- tion of opposition (Gramsci 1971 p 182) The civil rights reforms can be seen as a classic example of this process here the US racial regime 1113088 under movement pressure 1113088 was exercising its

hegemony But Gramsci insists that such reforms 1113088 which he calls lsquopassive revolutionsrsquo 1113088 cannot be merely symbolic if they are to be effective oppositions must win real gains in the process Once again we are in the realm of politics not absolute rule So yes we think there were important if partial victories that shifted the racial state and transformed the significance of race in everyday life And yes we think that further victories can take place both on the broad terrain of the state and on the more immediate level of social interaction in daily interaction in the human

psyche and across civil society Indeed we have argued that in many ways the most important accomplishment of the anti-racist movement of the 1960s in the USA was the politicization of the social In the USA and indeed around the globe race-based movements demanded not only the inclusion of racially defined lsquoothersrsquo and the democratization of structurally

racist societies but also the recognition and validation by both the state and civil society of racially-defined experience and identity These demands broadened and deepened

democracy itself They facilitated not only the democratic gains made in the USA by the black movement and its allies but also the political advances towards equality social justice and inclusion accomplished by other lsquonew social movementsrsquo second- wave feminism gay liberation and the

environmentalist and anti-war movements among others By no means do we think that the post-war movement upsurge was an unmitigated success Far from it all the new social movements were subject to the same lsquorearticulationrsquo (Laclau and Mouffe 2001 p xii) that produced the racial ideology of lsquocolourblindnessrsquo and its

variants indeed all these movements confronted their mirror images in the mobilizations that arose from the political right to counter them Yet even their incorporation and containment even their confrontations with the various lsquobacklashrsquo phenomena of the past few decades even the need to develop the highly contradictory ideology of

lsquocolour- blindnessrsquo reveal the transformative character of the lsquopoliticization of the socialrsquo While it is not possible here to explore so extensive a subject it is

worth noting that it was the long-delayed eruption of racial subjectivity and self-awareness into the mainstream political arena that set off this transformation shaping both the democratic and anti- democratic social movements that are evident in US politics today

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2nc

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

OverviewOur interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point

There are two net benefits to this model-

Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged

Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

incomplete democracy in respect to race and racism issues we agree If they mean that people of colour have no democratic rights or

political power in the USA we disagree The USA is a racially despotic country in many ways but in our view it is also in many respects a racial

democracy capable of being influenced towards more or less inclusive and redistributive economic policies social policies or for that matter imperial policies What is distinctive about our own epoch in the USA (post-Second World War to the present) with respect to race and racism Over the past decades there has been a steady drumbeat of efforts to contain and neutralize civil rights to restrict racial democracy and to maintain or even increase racial inequality Racial disparities in different institutional sites 1113088 employment health education 1113088 persist and in many cases have increased Indeed the post-2008 period has seen a dramatic increase in racial inequality The subprime home mortgage crisis for example was a major racial event Black and brown people were disproportionately affected by predatory lending practices many lost their homes as a result race-

based wealth disparities widened tremendously It would be easy to conclude as Feagin and Elias do that white racial dominance has been continuous and unchanging throughout US history But such a perspective misses the dramatic twists and turns in racial politics that have occurred since the Second World War and the civil rights era Feagin and Elias claim that we overly inflate the significance of the changes wrought by the civil rights movement and that we lsquooverlook the serious reversals of racial justice and persistence of huge racial inequalitiesrsquo (Feagin and Elias 2012 p 21) that followed in its wake We do not In Racial Formation we wrote about lsquoracial reactionrsquo in a chapter of that name and elsewhere in the book as well Feagin and Elias devote little attention to our arguments there perhaps because they are in

substantial agreement with us While we argue that the right wing was able to lsquorearticulatersquo race and racism issues to roll back some of the gains of the civil rights movement we also believe that there are limits to what the right could achieve in the post-civil rights political

landscape So we agree that the present prospects for racial justice are demoralizing at best But we do not think that is the whole story

US racial conditions have changed over the post-Second World War period in ways that Feagin and Elias tend to downplay or

neglect Some of the major reforms of the 1960s have proved irreversible they have set powerful democratic forces in motion These

racial (trans)formations were the results of unprecedented political mobiliza- tions led by the black movement but not confined to blacks alone Consider the desegregation of the armed forces as well as key civil rights movement victories of the 1960s the Voting Rights Act the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart- Celler) as well as important court decisions like Loving v Virginia that declared anti- miscegenation laws unconstitutional While we have the greatest respect for the late Derrick Bell we do not believe that his lsquointerest convergence hypothesisrsquo effectively explains all these developments How does Lyndon Johnsonrsquos famous (and possibly apocryphal) lament upon signing the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964 1113088 lsquoWe have lost the South for a generationrsquo 1113088 count as lsquoconvergencersquo The US racial regime has been transformed in significant ways As Antonio Gramsci argues hegemony proceeds through the incorpora- tion of opposition (Gramsci 1971 p 182) The civil rights reforms can be seen as a classic example of this process here the US racial regime 1113088 under movement pressure 1113088 was exercising its

hegemony But Gramsci insists that such reforms 1113088 which he calls lsquopassive revolutionsrsquo 1113088 cannot be merely symbolic if they are to be effective oppositions must win real gains in the process Once again we are in the realm of politics not absolute rule So yes we think there were important if partial victories that shifted the racial state and transformed the significance of race in everyday life And yes we think that further victories can take place both on the broad terrain of the state and on the more immediate level of social interaction in daily interaction in the human

psyche and across civil society Indeed we have argued that in many ways the most important accomplishment of the anti-racist movement of the 1960s in the USA was the politicization of the social In the USA and indeed around the globe race-based movements demanded not only the inclusion of racially defined lsquoothersrsquo and the democratization of structurally

racist societies but also the recognition and validation by both the state and civil society of racially-defined experience and identity These demands broadened and deepened

democracy itself They facilitated not only the democratic gains made in the USA by the black movement and its allies but also the political advances towards equality social justice and inclusion accomplished by other lsquonew social movementsrsquo second- wave feminism gay liberation and the

environmentalist and anti-war movements among others By no means do we think that the post-war movement upsurge was an unmitigated success Far from it all the new social movements were subject to the same lsquorearticulationrsquo (Laclau and Mouffe 2001 p xii) that produced the racial ideology of lsquocolourblindnessrsquo and its

variants indeed all these movements confronted their mirror images in the mobilizations that arose from the political right to counter them Yet even their incorporation and containment even their confrontations with the various lsquobacklashrsquo phenomena of the past few decades even the need to develop the highly contradictory ideology of

lsquocolour- blindnessrsquo reveal the transformative character of the lsquopoliticization of the socialrsquo While it is not possible here to explore so extensive a subject it is

worth noting that it was the long-delayed eruption of racial subjectivity and self-awareness into the mainstream political arena that set off this transformation shaping both the democratic and anti- democratic social movements that are evident in US politics today

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2nc

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

OverviewOur interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point

There are two net benefits to this model-

Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged

Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

2nc

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

OverviewOur interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point

There are two net benefits to this model-

Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged

Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

OverviewOur interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point

There are two net benefits to this model-

Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged

Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

A2 Role of BallotRole of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence Speice and Lyle 3 Traditional Policy Debate Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice Wake Forest University and Jim Lyle Debate Coach Clarion University 2003 httpgroupswfuedudebateMiscSitesDRGArticlesSpeiceLyle2003htmhtm

In addition to the affirmative-inclusive advocacy language critiques and performance critiques have led to contention about the role of the judge in a debate Initially it is important to note that every debate takes place with at least five participants ndash four debaters and a judge The judgersquos job is to evaluate the participantsrsquo arguments and render a decision in favor of one of the teams at the conclusion of the debate While this may seem like a trite observation the role of the

judge has far-reaching implications for the desirability of non-traditional debate practices In TPD the judge is asked to evaluate which team did the better

debating and the source of such a determination is the way that the judge answers the yesno question that is posed by the resolution The plan serves as an example that proves the resolution true by answering the question of the resolution in the affirmative The method for making such an evaluation is generally understood as a cost-benefit analysis of the desirability of the policy proposed by the affirmative made by evaluating all of the arguments for and against the plan in relation to any competitive policy alternatives (including the status quo) While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action)

the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance In TPD the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims For example teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral it is justified in order to save lives This type of

argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea If morality is more important than lives the plan would be rejected in the above example if

preserving life is more important than acting morally the plan would be endorsed In a round focused on language and performance the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judgersquos decision from a topical plan-focus The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to

determine the desirability of a policy but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate There is no obvious yesno question that the judge

can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith 2002) A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in

which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate For example does the judge listen the same way as each team does What if each team interprets a performance differently What makes one performance better than any other What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion What if

one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yesno question

(Smith 2002) Without clearly defined criteria judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating For example what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism What if the negative did the same sort of performance but spoke only of sexism Both performances are good so how could the

judge ever reconcile those competing claims What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmativersquos performance Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they donrsquot like even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives There is no method for evaluating two ldquogoodrdquo performances against one another even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a ldquogoodrdquo and ldquobadrdquo performance Moreover teams that run arguments focused on the effects of language will frequently call on the judge to vote for them as a means of political activism That is a team will argue that the judge should vote for their arguments to make a particular political statement that could affect the ldquoreal worldrdquo Some judges may feel uncomfortable endorsing a position that

they do not personally agree with even if a team wins their argument If voting for a certain argument requires the judge to take an overtly political action they may intervene in the debate and vote against the team who won the argument because they do not agree with the politics of the argument in question This notion of intervention is related to the lack of criteria for evaluating language and performance critiques It is not clear if the judge can or should continue to be an objective critic of argument when the team advocating the critique changes the focus of the debate to one of personal preferences But why does it matter if the

judge has a clearly defined role in the debate If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable debate would cease to be an educationally

rewarding enterprise Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success While the debate would not be slanted in one

particular direction (save for that of the judgersquos political biases) those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded In this sense non-TPD rounds make the game less fun as the better team would only have a 50 chance of winning any given round despite the quality of their debating The TPD format avoids this problem by

establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate This predictability stems from requiring the affi rmative to

advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate Accordingly the neg ative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge

intervention Accordingly TPD is a better game than non-TPD because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Case ov

Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences Isaac 02

(Jeffrey Professor of Political Science and Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life director ldquoEnds Means and Politicsrdquo httpwwwdissentmagazineorgarticleends-means-and-politics Accessed 8-26-13 LKM)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world It is the core of politics Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world Politics in large part

involves contests over the distribution and use of power To accomplish anything in the political world one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about And to develop such means is to develop and to exercise power To say this is not to say that power is beyond moral- ity It is to say

that power is not reducible to morality As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli Max Weber Reinhold Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt have taught an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility The concern may be morally laudable reflecting a kind of personal integrity but it

suffers from three fatal flaws (1) It fails to see that the purity of onersquos intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing but if such tactics entail impotence then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean con- science of their supporters (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice moral purity is not simply a form of powerless- ness it is often a form of complicity in injustice This is why from the standpoint of politicsmdashas opposed to religionmdashpacifism is always a potentially immoral stand In categorically repudiating violence it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions it is the effects of action rather than the motives of action that is most significant Just as the alignment with ldquogoodrdquo may engender impotence it is often the pursuit of ldquogoodrdquo that generates evil This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century it is not enough that onersquos goals be sincere or idealistic it is equally important always to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment It alienates those who are not true believers It promotes arrogance And it undermines political effectiveness

Util is inevitable

Greene 02

(Joshua Greene Department of Psychology Princeton University ldquoA DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYrdquo NOVEMBER 2002 httpwwwwjhharvardedu~jgreeneGreeneWJHGreene-Dissertationpdf)

Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights take priority over which If thatrsquos what we mean by 302 ldquobalancing rightsrdquo then we are wise

to shun this sort of talk Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is dogmatism at its most esoteric but dogmatism

all the same However itrsquos likely that when some people talk about ldquobalancing competing rights and obligationsrdquo they are already thinking like consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language Once again what deontological language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong emotional moral intuitions ldquoIt doesnrsquot matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death To do this would be a violation of his rightsrdquo19 That is why angry protesters say things like ldquoAnimals Have Rights Toordquo rather than ldquoAnimal Testing The Harms Outweigh the Benefitsrdquo Once again rights talk captures the apparent clarity of the issue and

absoluteness of the answer But sometimes rights talk persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded One thinks for example of the thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the ldquorightsrdquo of those children One finds oneself balancing the ldquorightsrdquo on both sides by asking how many rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life and so on and at the end of the day onersquos underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be despite the deontological gloss And whatrsquos wrong with that Nothing except for the fact that the deontological gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are ldquorightsrdquo etc Best to drop it When deontological talk gets sophisticated the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist

Extinction outweighs Bostrom 2

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Nick Bostron Department of Philosophy Yale University 2002 ldquoExistential Risks Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsrdquo httpwwwtranshumanistcomvolume9riskshtml

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error There is no opportunity to learn from errors The reactive approach ndash see

what happens limit damages and learn from experience ndash is unworkable Rather we must take a proactive approach This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions moral norms social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks Existential risks are a different kind of beast We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat Reductions in existential risks are

global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14] Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk If we take into account the welfare of future generations the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [1516]

All lives are infinitely valuable Cummisky 96

(David Cummisky Professor of Philosophy Bates College 1996 ldquoKantian Consequentialismrdquo 145-146 )

We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract ldquosocial entityrdquo It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive ldquooverall social goodrdquo Instead the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons Robert Nozick for example argues that ldquoto use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person that his is the only life he hasrdquo But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do

not save through our failure to act By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate person s each with only one life who will bear the cost of our inaction In such a situation what would a conscientious Kantian agent an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings choose A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle

that ldquorational nature exists as an end in itselfrdquo (GMM 429) Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many

rational beings as possible (chapter 5) In order to avoid this conclusion the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints As we saw in chapter 1

however even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale But we have seen that Kantrsquos normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of

value If I sacrifice some for the sake of others I do not use them arbitrarily and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings

Persons may have ldquodignity that is an unconditional and incomparable worthrdquo that transcends any market value (GMM 436) but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7) The concept of the end-in-itself does not

support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many

Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy McMahan 86

(Jefferson Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University ldquoNuclear Deterrence and Future Generationsrdquo in Avner Cohen and Steven Leersquos ldquoNuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity The Fundamental Questions ldquo Google Books httpbooksgooglecombooksid=gYmPp6lZqtMCamppg=PA331ampsource=gbs_toc_rampcad=4v=onepageampqampf=false PG 332-333 Accessed 6-15-14 LKM)

These are undoubtedly important reasons for ensuring the existence of future generations Again however if the force of these points is only that it would be worse for existing people if there were to be no future generations Then these points will contribute nothing to the larger argument against nuclear deterrence that is not already provided by premises lb and lc it is however

equally plausible to suppose that there is independent value in say the evolution of our culture so that it is important for our culture to continue to develop quite apart from the fact that our lives would be impoverished by the belief that the evolution of our culture were at an end If

this further claim is accepted we have a reason for ensuring the existence for future generations that is independent of the interests of existing

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

people Another and perhaps stronger argument for the claim that it is morally important to ensure the existence of future generations also makes no appeal to the interests of existing people This argument moves from the claim that there is a principle of non-maleticence that provides a moral reason not to bring a person into existence if his life would be worse than no life at all or worth not living to the claim that there is a principle of beneficence that provides a moral reason to bring a person into existence if his life would on balance be worth living The argument takes as its first premise the claim that it would be wrong other things being equal to bring a person into existence if his life would predictably be worth not living This seems uncontroversial But how can we best explain why it would be wrong It is tempting to appeal to side-effects to the fact that it is normally worse for existing people if a person who is utterly wretched comes to exist But this explanation is excluded by the ceteris paribus clause And in any case the appeal to side-effects could provide only a partial explanation of why it would be wrong to bring a miserable person into existence For it is only contingently true that it is worse for existing people when miserable people come into existence There could be cases in which this would be better for existing people

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Law

Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance Scoular 10 Whats Law Got To Do With it How and Why Law Matters in the Regulation of Sex Work Jane Scoular The Law School University of Strathclyde JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY VOLUME 37 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2010 ISSN0263-323X pp12plusmn39

Rather than expel law we need a more complex analytical framework to understand its contemporary relevance Such a framework

can be developed by applying insights from theories of governmentality to the studies on the regulation of sex work This offers a

fuller appreciation of the wider legal complex and its role in regulating and authorizing the spaces norms and subjects of contemporary sex work It also explains laws role in maintaining the systems of governmentality across legal systems that exacerbate these injustices and forms of bare life that

have become hallmarks of late- industrial capitalist societies In arguing for the continued relevance of law I do not intend to reinstate an imperialist

uncritical positivist position I argue instead for its strategic use in order to `pursue a deconstructivist agenda within legal arenas and discourses117 This requires an acute understanding of law as a mode of regulation as well as an understanding of how it could be how harnessed as a tool of resistance As Tadros notes rather than the structure or fabric which constitutes our society the law is a machine which oils the modern

structures of domination or which at best achieves a tinkering on the side of justice 118 In order to tinker more on the side of justice rather

than domination one has to be critically aware of how modern forms of governance and control operate This article it is hoped begins this

process as it allow us to see that law does matter in the regulation of sex work and could matter albeit in a different way than was thought before

Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientationKrause et al 97 (Ketih Keith Krause is an Oxford philosophy professor ldquoCritical security studies concepts and casesrdquo xv-xvi) 61914 RK

These and other critical perspectives have much to say to each other in the construction of a critical theory of international relations and in turn to

contemporary security studies While elements of many approaches may be found in this volume no one perspective dominates If anything several of the contributions to this volume

stand more inside than outside the tradition of security studies which reflects our twofold conviction about the place of critical perspectives in contemporary scholarship 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 questions 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 statis assumptions 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 structural capable actor in contemporary world politics

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1nr

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1NR

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

PermutationYou should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC

Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation

Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Law

Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance Scoular 10 Whats Law Got To Do With it How and Why Law Matters in the Regulation of Sex Work Jane Scoular The Law School University of Strathclyde JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY VOLUME 37 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2010 ISSN0263-323X pp12plusmn39

Rather than expel law we need a more complex analytical framework to understand its contemporary relevance Such a framework

can be developed by applying insights from theories of governmentality to the studies on the regulation of sex work This offers a

fuller appreciation of the wider legal complex and its role in regulating and authorizing the spaces norms and subjects of contemporary sex work It also explains laws role in maintaining the systems of governmentality across legal systems that exacerbate these injustices and forms of bare life that

have become hallmarks of late- industrial capitalist societies In arguing for the continued relevance of law I do not intend to reinstate an imperialist

uncritical positivist position I argue instead for its strategic use in order to `pursue a deconstructivist agenda within legal arenas and discourses117 This requires an acute understanding of law as a mode of regulation as well as an understanding of how it could be how harnessed as a tool of resistance As Tadros notes rather than the structure or fabric which constitutes our society the law is a machine which oils the modern

structures of domination or which at best achieves a tinkering on the side of justice 118 In order to tinker more on the side of justice rather

than domination one has to be critically aware of how modern forms of governance and control operate This article it is hoped begins this

process as it allow us to see that law does matter in the regulation of sex work and could matter albeit in a different way than was thought before

Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientationKrause et al 97 (Ketih Keith Krause is an Oxford philosophy professor ldquoCritical security studies concepts and casesrdquo xv-xvi) 61914 RK

These and other critical perspectives have much to say to each other in the construction of a critical theory of international relations and in turn to

contemporary security studies While elements of many approaches may be found in this volume no one perspective dominates If anything several of the contributions to this volume

stand more inside than outside the tradition of security studies which reflects our twofold conviction about the place of critical perspectives in contemporary scholarship 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 questions 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 statis assumptions 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 structural capable actor in contemporary world politics

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1nr

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1NR

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

PermutationYou should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC

Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation

Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1nr

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1NR

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

PermutationYou should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC

Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation

Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

1NR

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

PermutationYou should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC

Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation

Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

PermutationYou should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC

Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation

Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Switch SideSwitch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile

Flow

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

CTPNobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take holdMohr 95 (Richard D January Richard D Mohr is a Professor of Philosophy at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ldquoThe Perils of Postmodernismrdquo The Harvard Gay amp Lesbian Review Pg 9-13 JSTOR) 6814 RK

The price of postmodernity is high-too high I believe It eliminates privacy rights equality rights and free speech rights Ironically it turns out that post-moderns themselves when they deign to descend from their ivory towers also believe the price of postmodernity is too high When confronted with the real world and the need to act politically they resort to what they call strategic essentialism essentialism here is a code word for the presumptions about human nature embedded in liberal individualism 36 Post-moderns recognize that their own sort of relativism-

laden relativism-leaden talk will not get them anywhere in the real world and that they will have to resort at least to the strategies styles and cant of the arguments used by liberal humanists if gay progress is to be made But bereft of the substance and principles of liberalism which are its

real tools and which postmodernism sup- poses it has destroyed liberal strategies will hardly be effective Further despite postmodernisms thick jargon and tangled prose there is no reason to suppose that the courts wont eventually see through the postmodern bluff and like Toto pull back the curtain of postmodernitys l iberal guise to reveal machinery that conservative justices can effectively use to further restrict rights After all two can play the game if that is all the courts are-a game I can imagine for instance gay analogues to the Sears case in which a conservative federal judge used the cant of feminist difference to uphold against civil rights challenge employment patterns that leave women trapped in low-paying jobs The judge rationalized the result by noting that even feminists believe women are different and want different things than men want Who then should be surprised the judge concluded when women acting on their difference end up differently situated It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which Justice Scalia signs off on a

Schenck-Dennis-style opinion38 upholding the mass arrest of gay Marchers on Washington by block quoting Stanley Fish In short the name of the game has always been politics even when (indeed especially when) it is played by stigmatizing politics as the area to be avoided [by legal restraints]

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

AT No LawsAlternatives to legal restraints result in mass violenceScheuerman 6

(William E Professor of Political Science at Indiana University Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib Constellations Volume 13 Issue 1)

Yet this argument relies on Schmittrsquos controversial model of politics as outlined eloquently but unconvincingly in his famous Concept of the Political To be sure there are intense conflicts in which it is naiumlve to expect an easy resolution by legal or juridical means But

the argument suffers from a troubling circularity Schmitt occasionally wants to define ldquopoliticalrdquo conflicts as those irresolvable

by legal or juridical devices in order then to argue against legal or juridical solutions to them The claim also suffers from a

certain vagueness and lack of conceptual precision At times it seems to be directed against trying to resolve conflicts in the courts or

juridical system narrowly understood at other times it is directed against any legal regulation of intense conflict The former argument

is surely stronger than the latter After all legal devices have undoubtedly played a positive role in taming or at least minimizing

the potential dangers of harsh political antagonisms In the Cold War for example international law contributed to the peaceful

resolution of conflicts which otherwise might have exploded into horrific violence even if attempts to bring such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed22para Second Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state-centered system of international law by expanding protections to non-state fighters His view is that irregular combatants logically enjoyed no protections in the state-centered Westphalian model By broadening protections to include them international law helps undermine the traditional state system and its accompanying legal framework Why is this troubling The most obvious answer is that Schmitt believes that the traditional state system is normatively superior to recent attempts to modify it by for example extending international human rights protections to individuals against states 23 But what if we refuse to endorse his nostalgic preference for the traditional state system Then a sympathetic reading of the argument would take the form of suggesting that the project of regulating irregular combatants by ordinary law must fail for another reason it rests on a misguided quest to integrate incongruent models of interstate relations and international law We cannot in short maintain core features of the (state-centered) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actorspara This is a powerful argument but it remains flawed Every modern legal order rests on diverse and even conflicting normative elements and ideals in part because human existence itself is always ldquoin transitionrdquo When one examines the so-called classical liberal legal systems of nineteenth-century England or the United States for example one quickly identifies liberal elements coexisting uneasily alongside paternalistic and authoritarian (eg the law of slavery in the United States) monarchist as well as republican and communitarian moments The same may be said of the legal moorings of the modern welfare state which arguably rest on a hodgepodge of socialist liberal and Christian

and even Catholic (for example in some European maternity policies) programmatic sources In short it is by no means self-

evident that trying to give coherent legal form to a transitional political and social moment is always doomed to fail Moreover

there may be sound reasons for claiming that the contemporary transitional juncture in the rules of war is by no means as incongruent

as Schmitt asserts In some recent accounts the general trend towards extending basic protections to non-state actors is plausibly

interpreted in a more positive ndash and by no means incoherent ndash light 24para Third Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the

classical quest for codified and stable law and the empirical reality of a social world subject to permanent change ldquoThe tendency to modify or even dissolve classical [legal] conceptshellipis general and in view of the rapid change of the world it is entirely understandablerdquo (12) Schmittrsquos postwar writings include many provocative comments about what contemporary legal scholars describe as the dilemma of legal obsolescence 25 In The Partisan he suggests that the ldquogreat transformations and modificationsrdquo in the technological apparatus of modern warfare place strains on the aspiration for cogent legal norms capable of regulating human affairs (17 see also 48ndash50) Given the ever-changing character of warfare and the fast pace of change in military technology it inevitably proves difficult to codify a set of cogent and stable rules of war The Geneva Convention proviso that legal combatants must bear their weapons openly for example seems poorly attuned to a world where military might ultimately depends on nuclear silos buried deep beneath the surface of the earth and not the success of traditional standing armies massed in battle on the open field ldquoOr what does the requirement mean of an insignia visible from afar in night battle or in battle with the long-range weapons of modern technology of warrdquo (17)para As I have tried to show elsewhere these are powerful considerations deserving of close scrutiny Schmitt is probably right to argue that the enigma of legal obsolescence takes on special significance in the context of rapid-fire social change26 Unfortunately he seems uninterested in the slightest possibility that we might successfully adapt the process of lawmaking

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

to our dynamic social universe To be sure he discusses the ldquomotorization of lawmakingrdquo in a fascinating 1950 publication but only

in order to underscore its pathological core27 Yet one possible resolution of the dilemma he describes would be to figure how to

reform the process whereby rules of war are adapted to novel changes in military affairs in order to minimize the danger of

anachronistic or out-of-date law Instead Schmitt simply employs the dilemma of legal obsolescence as a battering ram against

the rule of law and the quest to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

T-Version

Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework

Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs

Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate

Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies

Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment

George Mason Debate

2013-2014 [File Name]

Agency DebatePolitical simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment Hanghoj 8 PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming Thorkild Hanghoslashj PhD Dissertation

Institute of Literature Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008 httpstaticsdudkmediafilesFilesInformation_tilStuderende_ved_SDUDin_uddannelsephd_humafhandlinger2009ThorkilHanghoejpdf

The two preceding sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value and how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of

rational means-end schemes For now I will turn to Deweyrsquos concept of dramatic rehearsal which assumes that social actors deliberate by projecting and choosing between various scenarios for future action Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most extensive elaboration in

Human Nature and Conduct Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action [It] is an experiment in finding out what the various lines of possible action are really like () Thought runs ahead and foresees outcomes and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of

actual failure and disaster An act overtly tried out is irrevocable its consequences cannot be blotted out An act tried out in imagination is not final or fatal It is

retrievable (Dewey 1922 132-3) 85 This excerpt illustrates how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an imaginative drama metaphor Thus decisions are made through the imaginative projection of outcomes where the ldquopossible competing lines of actionrdquo are resolved through a thought experiment Moreover Deweyrsquos compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian rational or mechanical exercises but that they have emotional creative and personal qualities as well Interestingly there are relatively few discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal A notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz who praises Deweyrsquos concept as a ldquofortunate imagerdquo for understanding everyday rationality (Schutz 1943 140) Other attempts are primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary 1991 2000 2006 Fesmire 1995 2003 Ronsson 2003 McVea 2006) As Fesmire points out dramatic rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise the whole process of making moral decisions which includes ldquoduties and contractual obligations short and long-term consequences traits of character to be affected and rightsrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Instead dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of ldquocrystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypothesesrdquo (Fesmire 2003 70) Thus deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a ldquothought experimentrdquo will be

successful But what it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than would be the case with ldquoblindrdquo trial-and-error (Biesta 2006

8) The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the capacity to stage and evaluate ldquoactsrdquo which implies an ldquoirrevocablerdquo difference between acts that are

ldquotried out in imaginationrdquo and acts that are ldquoovertly tried outrdquo with real-life consequences (Dewey 1922 132-3) This description shares obvious similarities with games as they require participants to inquire into and resolve scenario-specific problems (cf chapter 2) On the other hand there is also a striking difference between moral deliberation and educational game

activities in terms of the actual consequences that follow particular actions Thus when it comes to educational games acts are both imagined and tried out but without all the real-life consequences of the practices knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the game world Simply put there is a

difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of everyday life and in games which only ldquoplay atrdquo or simulate the stakes and 86 risks that characterise the ldquoseriousrdquo nature of moral deliberation ie a real-life politician trying to win a parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to win the election scenario of The Power Game

At the same time the lack of real-life consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated for educational purposes In this sense educational games are able to

provide a safe but meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (eg by giving a poor political presentation) and dramatically rehearse

particular ldquocompeting possible lines of actionrdquo that are relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey 1922 132) Seen from this pragmatist perspective the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving the ldquo rightrdquo answers but more a question of exploring the contingent outcomes and domain-specific processes of problem-based scenarios

• Rutgers RW 1NC
• • 1
  • • Interpretation and violation- the aff should be a topical defense of the resolution
    • Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum
    • Should expresses an obligation
    • The United States splits sovereignty among federal and state governments
    • Legalize is to make an illegal act lawful
    • Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
    • Two net benefits-
    • First Fairness- They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks destroying predictable limits and ensuring the Aff always wins The community chooses resolutionally divided ground because it is balanced and educational Arguments that arenrsquot linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable A narrow mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy
    • This is a pre-condition to debate
    • Second nb decision-making skills-
    • Second decision-making skills- we make choices every day that affect those around us We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities
    • Stasis fostered by topical advocacy creates better decisions
    • A switch-side format it require students see both sides of an issue
    • Through discussing paths of government action debate teaches us to be better organizational decision makers
    • These skills solve a laundry list of problems
    • • 2
      • • Counterplan text The United States should legalize all or nearly all of the following Physician-Aid in dying Sale of Human Organs Online Gambling and Prostitution
        • Legalizing marijuana is bad
        • Legalization leads to corporate market control
        • Corporate cannabis collapses the environment
        • Economic inequality and biodiversity loss risk extinction
        • • Case
          • • Your Deleuze evidence is talking about real whips and chains masochism the object of his criticism is the term ldquosadomasochismrdquo His only point is to contrast and separate the terms from one another not advocate one over the other
            • The affrsquos focus on masochism forever suspends political engagement in favor of self-therapy---accepting some axioms of commonality are necessary to achieve emancipation
            • Totalized submission without aftercare drags the ego and subject into subspace from which nothing can be achieved because of withdrawal
            • Consent solvency turns
            • 1 - Legalization of PAS causes mass killing without consents
            • 2 - Legalization includes regulations ndash Have to prove consent to regs
            • 3 - Legalizing prostitution spurs increased human trafficking
            • Institutional macro-political engagement is vital to solve
            • Legal activism might not be perfect but itrsquos better than the alt
            • Reforms are possible and desirable- tangible change outweighs the risk of cooption
            • • 2nc
              • • Overview
                • • Our interpretation promotes a model of debate as a dialogue- this looks at the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of ideas Normative restrictions are key to effective dialogue- ensuring full clash over a stable axis point
                  • There are two net benefits to this model-
                  • Fairness- topical advocacy best preserves predictable limits and neg ground This is a prior question because we must agree what we are debating about before we debate it Debate is a game and people wonrsquot start if the game seems rigged
                  • Decision-making skills- debate is a laboratory for skills development It does not seek to establish a propositional truth but just to have an in-depth dialogue These skills are best fostered under a stasis point discussing political issues and a switch-side debate format These skills are necessary in daily life and are solve complex existential problems
                  • • A2 Role of Ballot
                    • • Role of ballot claims are self-serving- just vote for the team that did the better debating Any alternative to the yesno question of the resolution links to all our offence
                      • • Case ov
                        • • Ethical policymaking must be grounded in consequences
                          • Util is inevitable
                          • Extinction outweighs
                          • All lives are infinitely valuable
                          • Extinction is unethical because it sacrifices things like Cultural Evolution that will make future generations happy
                          • • Law
                            • • Law is inevitable- rather than expel the law- we should recognize it can be used strategically as a tool of resistance
                              • Operating outside of the state destroys possibilities for reorientation
                              • • 1nr
                                • 1NR
                                • • Permutation
                                  • • You should not allow them to have a permutationmdashtopicality is a referendum on whether this debate should have ever happenedmdashitrsquos a theoretical reason why the AFF is illegitimate which means it canrsquot be permuted since it has to include the planmdashanything else is severance which is a voting issue because it skirts negative ground and makes clash impossiblemdashthe terminal impact to that was in the 2NC
                                    • Still links to all of our offensemdashwe have presented an alternative model of debate which should be idealized universallymdashinclusion of AFFs that allow for the negation of the resolution hurt dialogue and deliberation
                                    • Also they canrsquot win on the permutation because it means that T version is able to include the multiplicity of views OR the permutation canrsquot solve- therersquos also no net benefit to the permutation in the 2AC- donrsquot allow new 1AR analysis
                                    • • Switch Side
                                      • • Switch side debate solves ALL of their offense- reading your 1AC on the negative includes for the epistemology and performance of the aff in these spaces- switch side is the ONLY way to change how students orient themselves towards legal structures- thatrsquos Bile
                                        • Flow
                                        • CTP
                                        • • Nobody cares about your ivory tower criticism- your movement wont take hold
                                          • • AT No Laws
                                            • • Alternatives to legal restraints result in mass violence
                                              • • T-Version
                                                • • Framing issue- I donrsquot have to give them a T-version that solves the 1AC- only one that solves their offense on framework
                                                  • Extend T version- Topical Version of The Aff ndash The United States should legalize all of the following in the United States marihuana online gambling physician-assisted suicide prostitution and the sale of human organs
                                                  • Solves all of their offense- allows for a different conception of the way that we relate ourselves to the law- we donrsquot say that you have to say that the United States or the law is good- you just have to defend something stable that we can debate
                                                  • Doesnrsquot reinscribe the law- your aff could take the angle that it deconstructs institutions- you could legalize a topic area and not have ANY regulations to decrease state engagement or control of our bodies
                                                  • Extend Kinsella- technical legal debates are critical to teaching us the ins and outs of how inevitable institutions work and how we can change them to our benefit
                                                  • • Agency Debate
                                                    • • Political simulation creates a deliberative active-learning environment