2AC Long

A. Counter Interpretation The negative must attack the implementation of a plan by the United States Federal Government Resolved proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy. Parcher 1
Jeff Parcher, former debate coach at Georgetown, Feb 2001 http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Firmness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A

course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly
inconceivable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desirablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the preliminary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further

context: the word resolved is used to

emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.

USFG should means the debate is solely about a policy established by governmental means Ericson 03
(Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debaters Guide, Third Edition, p. 4) The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each

have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1.

topic contains certain key elements, although they An agent doing the acting ---The

United States in The United States should adopt a policy of free trade. Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb shouldthe first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action
desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.

B. Violation The neg does not attack a hypothetical implementation of a plan by the United States Federal Government C. Our interpretation is best 1. Limits A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productive decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all aspects of life---even if their position is contestable thats distinct from it being valuably debatable---this still provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussion to avoid mere statements of fact---T debates also solve any possible turn Steinberg & Freeley 8
*Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-

Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value or policy, there is no need for debate: the
matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where

there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate. In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal
immigrants are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly. Vague

understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007.
Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with."

Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posedsuch as "What can be done to improve public education?"then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be
phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. To

have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about "homelessness" or

"abortion" or "crime'* or "global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear argumentation. If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose. Although

we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned withpoems, novels, government documents, website
development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context? What kind of physical force is being comparedfists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?" The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This

is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

In order to have a debate we must have a starting point at the topic. Letting the neg choose their own starting point destroys our ability to achieve effective deliberation and meaningful debate ODonnell 4
(Dr. Tim, Director of Debate Mary Washington U., And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate, Debaters Research Guide,http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Framework%20article%20for%20the%20DRG%20final2.doc) According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a framework consists

of a set of standards, beliefs, or assumptions that govern behavior. When we speak of frameworks in competitive academic debate we are talking about the set of standards, beliefs, or assumptions that generate the question that the judge ought to answer at the end of the debate. Given that there is no agreement among participants about which standards, beliefs, or
assumptions ought to be universally accepted, it seems that we will never be able to arrive at an agreeable normative assumption about what the question ought to be. So the issue before us is how we preserve community while agreeing to disagree about the question in a way that recognizes that there is richness in answering many different questions that would not otherwise exist if we all adhered to a rule which stated that there is one and only one question to be answered. More importantly, how do we stop talking past each other so that we can have a genuine conversation about the substantive merits of any one question? The answer, I believe, resides deep in the rhetorical tradition in the often overlooked notion of stasis.i Although the concept can be traced to Aristotles Rhetoric, it was later expanded by Hermagoras whose thinking has come down to us through the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintillian. Stasis is a Greek word meaning to stand still. It

has generally been considered by argumentation scholars to be the point of clash where two opposing sides meet in argument. Stasis recognizes the fact that interlocutors engaged in a conversation, discussion, or debate need to have some level of expectation regarding what the focus of their encounter ought to be. To reach stasis, participants need to arrive at a decision about what the issue is prior to the start of their conversation. Put another way, they need to mutually acknowledge the point about which they disagree. What happens when participants fail to reach agreement about what it is that they are arguing about? They talk past each other with little or no awareness of what the other is saying. The oft used clich of two ships passing in the night, where both are in the dark about what the other is doing and
neither stands still long enough to call out to the other, is the image most commonly used to describe what happens when participants in an argument fail to achieve stasis. In

such situations, genuine engagement is not possible because participants have not reached agreement about what is in dispute. For example, when one advocate says that the United States should increase international involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq and their opponent replies that the United States should abandon its policy of preemptive military engagement, they are talking past each other. When such a situation prevails, it is hard to see how a productive conversation can ensue.

Effective deliberation is the lynchpin of solving all existential global problems Lundberg, 10
Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Tradition of Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, 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 speechas 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 citizenry's 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 1988,63, 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 through and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly intonation-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-). Larkin's 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 instmction/no 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) Larkin's study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack's (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 Pack's framing of the issue was prescient: the primary question facing today's 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 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.

2. Switch-Side Debate A. No offense: The affirmative could easily run their affirmative on the negative and can still present their issue without being untopical as the affirmative. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REASON TO VOTE AFF. You can still endorse their thinking while voting negative. Make them give you reasons why voting affirmative is essential. B. Critical Thinking Effective deliberation is only possible in a switch-side debate forces critical thinking and better advocacy of ones positions and key to decision making Keller et al 1
Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost) SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and legislation (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In recent decades, the concept of policy practice has encouraged social workers to consider the ways in which their work can be advanced through active participation in the policy arena (Jansson, 1984, 1994; Wyers, 1991). The emergence of the policy practice framework has focused greater attention on the competencies required for social workers to influence social policy and placed greater emphasis on preparing social work students for policy intervention (Dear & Patti, 1981; Jansson, 1984, 1994; Mahaffey & Hanks, 1982; McInnis-Dittrich, 1994). The curriculum standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) require the teaching of knowledge and skills in the political process (CSWE, 1994). With this formal expectation of policy education in schools of social work, the

best instructional methods must be employed to ensure students acquire the requisite policy practice skills and perspectives. The authors believe that structured student debates have great potential for promoting competence in policy practice and in-depth knowledge of substantive topics relevant to social policy. Like other interactive assignments designed to more closely resemble "real-world" activities, issue-oriented debates
actively engage students in course content. Debates also allow students to develop and exercise skills that may translate to political activities, such as testifying before legislative committees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,

debates may help to stimulate critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas. Relationships between Policy Practice Skills, Critical Thinking, and Learning Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also
involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options; interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner; political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These

policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are
identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant

parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking. R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill,
1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126) John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in

the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28). The authors believe that involving

students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue.

Effective decision-making outweighs--Key to social improvements in every and all aspects of life Steinberg & Freeley 8
*Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp9-10 If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reach agreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea of justice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man and society, valid for all beings endowed with reason and accepted by what we have called elsewhere the universal audience.14 I think that the only discursive methods available to us stem from techniques that are not demonstrativethat is, conclusive and rational in the narrow sense of the termbut from argumentative

techniques which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the reasonable character of the conceptions put forward. It is this recourse to the rational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal communion that characterizes the
age-long endeavor of all philosophies in their aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressively give way to wisdom.13

Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of" a problem, he or she can solve the problem through a personal decision. For example, if the problem is whether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too
expensive and if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually. But if a friend's car is needed to get to the game, then that person's decision to furnish the transportation must be obtained.

Complex problems, too, are subject to individual

decision making. American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into major corporations while still under the
individual control of the founder. Some computer companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeoned into multimilliondollar corporations with the original inventor still making all the major decisions. And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts of the 1980s were put together by daringsome would say greedyfinanciers who made the day-to-day and even hour-to-hour decisions individually. When President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm, when

President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorized Operation Desert Fox, and when President George W. Bush authorized Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case the ultimate decision was an individual one. In fact, many government decisions can be made only by the president. As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is the
only satisfactory way the exact issues can be decided: A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the novel and changing issues which he must, under the Constitution, decide. Broadly speaking ... the president has two ways of making up his mind. The one is to turn to his subordinatesto his chiefs of staff and his cabinet officers and undersecretaries and the likeand to direct them to argue out the issues and to bring him an agreed decision The other way is to sit like a judge at a hearing where the issues to be decided are debated. After he has heard the debate, after he has examined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine one another, after he has questioned them himself he makes his decision It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to the stress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it Is. But there is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complex issues can be decided.16 John F. Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council meetings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, and challenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate. One historian points out: "One reason for the difference between the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis was that [the Bay of Pig*] fiasco instructed Kennedy in the importance of uninhibited debate in advance of major decision."18 All presidents, to varying degrees, encourage debate among their advisors. We

may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues of national policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions

important to ourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways. That is, this debate may take place in our minds as we weigh the pros and cons of the problem, or we may arrange for others to debate the problem for us. Because we all are increasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society in general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through reasoned debate.

3. Topic Education Topic education is key to education, the reason we debate a new topic each year is to learn more about different areas in the political realm. Roleplaying in policy debate is key to learning about the topic and effectively engaging in Latin America policies. We cant engage when receiving one-sided lectures through the affirmative. Turns case Cook, 85
Kay K., Education Practitioner, September 1985, Latin American Studies, http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-923/latin.htm, accessed 7/7/13, Gallup polls

indicate that Latin America--Mexico, Central America, South America, and the independent countries of the Caribbean--is a region about which United States citizens are poorly informed (Glab 1981). Yet for practical reasons of politics and economics, as well as cultural and historical reasons, United States citizens should be well informed about Latin America. This Digest considers the present status of Latin
American studies in elementary and secondary schools. It discusses the need and rationale for Latin American studies, effective teaching techniques, and resources to supplement textbooks which treat Latin America inadequately. THE PRESENT STATE OF TEACHING ABOUT LATIN AMERICA Social studies textbooks and media often present an incomplete or biased portrait of the countries comprising Latin America. Newspapers and television news programs tend to focus on such spectacular events as earthquakes, terrorism, coups, and American foreign policy related to the region. "It is rare to find stories on the arts, humanities, or culture of Latin America" (Glab 1981). The same is true of textbook representation. A recent survey of ten high school texts revealed that "with the exception of one textbook, little recognition was given to cultural characteristics" (Fleming 1982). Latin American history was presented primarily in the context of United States foreign policy. The point of view of Latin American countries was rarely considered. Textbooks often created or reinforced negative stereotypes of Latin America and its citizens. THE NEED AND RATIONALE FOR TEACHING ABOUT LATIN AMERICA Glab (1981) offers the

following considerations for including more about Latin America in the curriculum: --Foreign Policy. International controversies over the influence of other governments in the politics of Latin America need analysis and examination. -Physical Proximity. Latin American countries are virtually next-door neighbors, "with close political, commercial, and cultural interactions with the United States extending over many years." --The American Heritage. Latin American culture and the Spanish language are part of the American heritage, exerting early and continuing influence on what are now the states of Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. --Negative Stereotyping. It is well documented that Hispanic-Americans in general "suffer from explicit negative stereotyping." In addition to those suggested by Glab, other considerations, based on commonality, exist. Shared
problems include traffic congestion, pollution, and crime related to urbanization; unemployment and slow economic growth; concentration of ownership of agricultural land; and government debt. EFFECTIVE

APPROACHES TO TEACHING LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES In his analysis of high school textbook treatment of Latin America, Fleming (1982) points out that "a major source of information on Latin America should be the social studies classroom." The world history course offers an especially fertile ground for introducing a Latin
American perspective into a study of world events. As an article in the WORLD HISTORY BULLETIN stresses, "The New World was not simply the passive recipient of European civilization; rather, it modified and changed Europe's civilization and contributed to the development of the Old World" (Burns 1984). Case

studies, decision-making exercises, and role playing have been effective methods of introducing Latin American culture and erasing preconceived notions about that region. A separate Latin
American studies course would itself be interdisciplinary in nature, making use of subject areas such as science, art, literature, mathematics, the Spanish language, computer science, and the social sciences. The course would require students to apply a variety of social studies skills and concepts and would be applicable to students of diverse grade levels, skills, and socio-economic backgrounds. When possible, bilingual terminology would be employed.

D. Independently a voting issue for limits and ground---our entire negative strategy is based on the should question of the resolution---there are an infinite number of reasons that the scholarship of their advocacy could be a reason to vote affirmative--these all obviate the only predictable strategies based on topical action---they overstretch our research burden and undermine preparedness for all debates

This is a prior question that must be resolved first it is a pre-condition for debate to occur Shively, 2k
(Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M, Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2) The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. 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-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if 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 communicating: 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 one's 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 and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a
demonstrator's 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.

Abandoning politics cedes it to the elites causes war, slavery, and authoritarianism Boggs 2k
(CAROL BOGGS, PF POLITICAL SCIENCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 00, THE END OF POLITICS, 250-1)

While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms and rational planning, as either useless or dangerous, the actually existing power structure-replete with its own centralized state apparatus, institutional hierarchies, conscious designs, and indeed, rational plans-remains fully intact, insulated from the minimalist critique. In other words, ideologies and plans are perfectly acceptable for elites who preside over established governing systems, but not for ordinary citizens or groups anxious to challenge the status quo. Such one-sided minimalism gives carte blanche to elites who naturally desire as much space to maneuver as possible. The flight from abstract principles rules out ethical attacks on injustices that may pervade the status quo (slavery or imperialist wars, for example) insofar as those injustices might be seen as too deeply embedded in the social and institutional matrix of the time to be the target of oppositional political action. If politics is reduced to nothing other than a process of everyday muddling-through, then people are condemned to accept the harsh realities of an exploitative and authoritarian system, with no choice but to yield to the dictates of conventional wisdom. Systematic attempts to ameliorate oppressive conditions
But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism.

would, in Oakeshotts view, turn into a political nightmare.

range of problems: the

A belief that totalitarianism might results from extreme attempts to put society in order is one thing; to argue that all politicized efforts to change the world are necessary doomed either to impotence or totalitarianism requires a completely different (and indefensible) set of premises. Oakeshotts minimalism poses yet another, but still related,

shrinkage of politics hardly suggests that corporate colonization, social hierarchies, or centralized state and military institutions will magically disappear from peoples lives. Far from it: the public space vacated by ordinary citizens, well informed and ready to fight for their interests, simply gives elites more room to consolidate their own power and privilege. Beyond that, the fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian civil society, not too far removed from the excessive individualism, social Darwinism and urban violence of the American landscape could open the door to a modern Leviathan intent on restoring order and unity in the face of social disintegration. Viewed in this light, the contemporary drift towards antipolitics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more authoritarian and reactionary guise-or it could simply end up reinforcing the dominant state-corporate system. In either case,
the state would probably become what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that had vanished from civil society.16 And either outcome would run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshotts Burkean muddling -through theories.

2NC

Overview
4 key arguments here 1. Topicality They violate two words in the violation they should lose solely off of that 2. Limits They explode the topic into an infinite number of one-sided lectures. This precedes all other questions we cannot even debate until we know the conditions, subjects, and limits of this debate you cant evaluate the content of their claims until rules have been set up 3. Switch-Side Debate Solves all of the affirmatives offense all of your reasons why your kritik is good can be ran while you are negative without a blatant violation of the resolution 4. Topic education This is biggest internal-link to education. 5. Cede the political We are the only ones with an external impact if we fail to engage politics, then elites fill the vacuum who push forth imperialist, oppressive agendas

Interpretation/Violation Extensions
Our interpretation is that the affirmative must defend a hypothetical implementation of the plan and the affirmative Extend our Parcher 1 card here that says resolved means to enact a policy The affirmative doesnt meet this interpretation

Topicality Extension
A. First is resolved resolved means to enact by law they dont enact any governmental policy B. Second is USFG the actor of the affirmative is the debaters/judge, not the USFG, that justifies infinite amounts of actors who can do the plan that jacks predictability This is a priori A. Shively says it is a precursor to debate we cannot debate without knowing what we are debating about B. It is key to preserve competitive equity failure to defend a plan allows the affirmative to forego defending disadvantages to the plan that gives the affirmative an unfair competitive advantage C. It is a jurisdictional issue it is outside your power as a judge to vote for a nontopical plan

Limits Extension
Extend our limits argument A. Our Steinberg and Freeley evidence explains that in order to be able to conceive a debate we must a limited discussion. The aff forces us away from a valuable debate about the topic. This doesnt mean we limit out every K aff. Our interpretation still provides enough room for innovation and creativity B. Extend our ODonnell evidence that states that in order to a have a meaningful debate we must have a pre-determined starting point of discussion .This kill any ability to have effective deliberation from both sides. B. It is key to solving existential risks. Extend our Lundberg evidence. Debating gives a bigger capacity to be able to effectively debate consequences and weigh them. Limits are key their interpretation would allow *limitless* contexts for advocacy that only tangentially relate to the topic. The breadth of political theory magnifies the importance of limits on discourse Lutz 2k
(Donald S. Professor of Polisci at Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 39-40) Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levelsdiscourse about the ideal, about the best possible in the real world, and about existing political systems.4 Put another way, comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked, yet distinguishable. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask, imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. At the end, to the right, is an ideal form of government, a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. At the other end is the perfect dystopia, the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of

possibilities, merging into one another, that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. For example, a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end, and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. Of course, visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate, but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human
consciousness as complicated, opaque, and to a significant extent indeterminate. A non-ironic reading of Plato's Republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political philosophy. This is not the case. Any person can

generate a vision of the ideal. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question "Is this ideal worth pursuing?" Before the question can be pursued, however, the ideal state of affairs must be clarified, especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis, and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. The process of pre-theoretical analysis, probably
because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination, too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy.5 However, the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will, for example, lies not in its formal logical implications, nor in its compelling hold on the imagination, but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of actual political systems.

Dialogue debate games open up dialogue which fosters information processing and decision-making they open up infinite frameworks making the game impossible Haghoj 8
PhD, affiliated with Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials, asst prof @ the Institute of Education at the University of Bristol (Thorkild, 2008, "PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE: An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming," PhD dissertation @ Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies, University of Southern Denmark, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf )

Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues to be debated, educational goals, game goals, roles, rules, time frames etc. In this way, debate games differ from textbooks and everyday classroom instruction as debate scenarios allow teachers and students to actively imagine, interact and communicate within a domain-specific game space. However, instead of mystifying debate games as a magic circle (Huizinga, 1950), I will try to overcome
the epistemological dichotomy between gaming and teaching that tends to dominate discussions of educational games. In short , educational gaming is a form of teaching. As mentioned, education and games represent two different semiotic domains that both embody the three faces of knowledge: assertions, modes of representation and social forms of organisation (Gee, 2003; Barth, 2002; cf. chapter 2). In order to understand the interplay between these different domains and their interrelated knowledge forms, I will draw attention to a central assumption in Bakhtin s dialogical philosophy. According to Bakhtin, all forms of

communication and culture are subject to centripetal and centrifugal forces (Bakhtin, 1981). A centripetal force is the drive to impose one version of the truth, while a centrifugal force involves a range of possible truths and interpretations. This means that any form of expression involves a duality of centripetal and centrifugal forces: Every concrete utterance of a speaking subject serves as a point where centrifugal as well as
centripetal forces are brought to bear (Bakhtin, 1981: 272). If we take teaching as an example, it is always affected by centripetal and ce ntrifugal forces in the ongoing negotiation of truths between teachers and students. In the words of Bakhtin: Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction (Bakhtin, 1984a: 110). Similarly, the dialogical

space of debate games also embodies centrifugal and centripetal forces. Thus, the election elements that are mainly determined by the rules and outcomes of the game, i.e. the election is based on a limited time frame and a fixed voting procedure. Similarly, the open-ended goals, roles and resources represent centrifugal elements and create virtually endless possibilities for researching, preparing, 51 presenting, debating and evaluating a variety of key political issues. Consequently, the actual process of enacting a game scenario involves a complex negotiation between these centrifugal/centripetal forces that are inextricably linked with the teachers and students game activities. In this way, the enactment of The Power Game is a form of teaching that combines different pedagogical practices (i.e. group work, web quests,
scenario of The Power Game involves centripetal student presentations) and learning resources (i.e. websites, handouts, spoken language) within the interpretive frame of the election scenario. Obviously,

tensions may arise if there is too much divergence between educational goals and game goals. This means that game facilitation requires a balance between focusing too narrowly on the rules or facts of a game (centripetal orientation) and a focusing too broadly on the contingent possibilities and interpretations of the game scenario (centrifugal orientation). For Bakhtin, the duality of centripetal/centrifugal forces often manifests itself as a dynamic between monological and dialogical forms of discourse.
Bakhtin illustrates this point with the monological discourse of the Socrates/Plato dialogues in which the teacher never learns anything new from the students, despite Socrates ideological claims to the contrary (Bakhtin, 1984a). Thus, discourse becomes monologised when someone who knows and possesses the truth instructs someone who is ignorant of it and in error, where a thought is either affirmed or repudiated by the authority of the teacher (Bakhtin, 1984a: 81). In contrast to this, dialogical pedagogy fosters inclusive learning environments that are able to expand upon students existing knowledge and collaborative construction of truths (Dysthe, 1996). At this point, I should clarify that Bakhtins term dialogic is both a descriptive term (all utterances are per definition dialogic as they address other utterances as parts of a chain of communication) and a normative term as dialogue is an ideal to be worked for against the forces of monologism (Lillis, 2003: 197 -8). In this project, I am mainly interested in describing the dialogical space of debate games. At the same time, I agree with Wegerif that one of the goals of education, perhaps the most important goal, should be dialogue as an end in itself

(Wegerif, 2006: 61).

Limits are key to being creative It challenges teams to be innovative while being topical Intrator, 10
Intrator, David. "Thinking Inside the Box | trainingmag.com." trainingmag.com. N.p., 22 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 July 2013. <http://www.trainingmag.com/article/thinking-inside-box>.

By David Intrator, president, The Creative Organization One of the most pernicious myths about creativity, one that seriously inhibits creative thinking and innovation, is the belief that one needs to think outside the box. As someone who has worked for decades as a professional creative, nothing could be further from the truth. This a is view shared by the vast majority of creatives, expressed famously by the modernist designer Charles Eames when he wrote, Design depends largely upon constraints. The myth of thinking outside the box stems from a fundamental misconception of what creativity is, and what its not. In the popular imagination, creativity is something weird and wacky. The

creative process is magical, or divinely inspired. But, in fact, creativity is not about divine inspiration or magic. Its about problem-solving, and by definition a problem is a constraint, a limit, a box. One of the best illustrations of this is the work of photographers. They create by excluding the great mass whats before them, choosing a small frame in which to work. Within that tiny frame, literally a box, they uncover relationships and establish priorities. What makes creative problem-solving uniquely challenging is that you, as the creator, are the one defining the problem. Youre the one choosing the frame. And you alone determine whats an effective solution. This can be quite demanding, both intellectually and emotionally. Intellectually, you are
required to establish limits, set priorities, and cull patterns and relationships from a great deal of material, much of it fragmentary. More often than not, this is the material you generated during brainstorming sessions. At the end of these sessions, youre usually left with a big mess of ideas, half-ideas, vague notions, and the like. Now, chances are youve had a great time making your mess. You might have gone off-site, enjoyed a brainstorming camp, played a number of warm-up games. You feel artistic and empowered. But to be truly creative, you have to clean up your mess, organizing those fragments into something real, something useful, something that actually works. Thats the hard part. It takes a lot of energy, time, and willpower to make sense of the mess youve just generated. It also can be emotionally diffic ult. Youll need to throw out many ideas you originally thought were great, ideas youve become attached to, because they simply dont fit into the rules youre creating as you build your box. You can always change the rules, but that also comes with an emotional price. Unlike many other kinds of problems, with creative

problems there is no external authority to which you can appeal to determine whether youre on the right track, whether one set of rules should have priority over another, or whether one box is better than another. There is no correct answer. Better said: There might be a number of correct answers. Or none at all. The responsibility of deciding the right path to take is entirely upon you. Thats a lot of responsibility, and it can be paralyzing. So its no wonder that the creative process often stalls after the brainstorming in many organizations. Whereas generating ideas is open-ended, and, in a sense, infinitely hopeful, having to pare those ideas down is restrictive, tedious, and, at times, scary. The good news, however, is that understanding the creative process as problem-solving is ultimately liberating. For one, all of those leftbrainers with well-honed rational skills will find themselves far more creative than they ever thought. Theyll discover their talents for organization, abstraction, and clarity are very much whats required to be a true creative thinker. Viewing creativity as problem-solving also makes the whole process far less intimidating, even though
it might lose some of its glamour and mystery. Moreover, since creative problems are open to rational analysis, they can be broken down into smaller components that are easier to address. Best

of all, the very act of problem-solving, of organizing and trying making sense of things, helps generate new ideas. Paradoxically, thinking within a box may be one of the most effective brainstorming techniques there is. That may be what Charles Eames meant when he added, I welcome constraints. Without some sort of structure to your creative thinking, youre just flailing about. For a while you might feel like youre making progress, generating a great mess of ideas that might hold some potential. But to turn those ideas into something truly innovative, your best bet is to build your box and play by the rules of your own
creation. David Intrator, president of The Creative Organization

Deliberation requires a predetermined subjectthey over-determine the resolution more than us by assuming debates are the ultimate arbiter of its value as opposed to a means to facilitate clash Gundersen, 2000
Adolf G. Gundersen, Associate Professor of Political Science, Texas A&M, 2000 POLITICAL THEORY AND PARTISAN POLITICS, 2000, p. 104-5. Indirect political engagement is perhaps the single most important element of the strategy I am recommending here. It is also the most emblematic, as it results from a fusion of confrontation and separation. But what kind of political engagement might conceivably qualify as being both confrontational and separated from actual political decision-making? There is only one type, so far as I can see, and that is deliberation. Political

deliberation is by definition a form of engagement with the collectivity of which one

is a member. This is all the more true when two or more citizens deliberate together. Yet deliberation is also a form of political action that precedes the actual taking and implementation of decisions. It is
thus simultaneously connected and disconnected, confrontational and separate. It is, in other words, a form of indirect political engagement. This conclusion, namely, that we ought to call upon deliberation to counter partisanship and thus clear the way for deliberation, looks rather circular at first glance. And, semantically at least, it certainly is. Yet this ought not to concern us very much. Politics, after all, is not a matter of avoiding semantic inconveniences, but of doing the right thing and getting desirable results. In political theory, therefore, the real concern is always whether a circular argument translates into a self-defeating prescription. And here that is plainly not the case, for it may well be that

deliberation rests on certain preconditions. I am not arguing that there is no such thing as a deliberative first cause. Indeed, it seems obvious to me both that deliberators require something to deliberate about and that deliberation presumes certain institutional structures and shared values. Clearly something must get the deliberative ball rolling and, to keep it rolling, the cultural terrain must be free of deep chasms and sinkholes. Nevertheless,
however extensive and demanding deliberations preconditions might be, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that, once begun, deliberation tends to be self-sustaining. Just a partisanship begets partisanship, deliberation begets deliberation. If that is so, the question of limiting partisanship and stimulating deliberation are to an important extent the same question.

Switch-Side Debate Extension

Extend our Switch-Side Debate argument A. No offense: We arent completely excluding them, they can easily run their aff as an kritik on the neg No offense even though debate might be flawed, switch-side checks all offense Muir 93
(Department of Communications at George Mason, Star, A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric 26(4), Gale Academic)

Contemporary debate, even in the context of a vigorous defense, does have its drawbacks. It tends to overemphasize logic and tactics
and to downplay personal feelings; it is by nature competitive, and therefore susceptible to competitive impulses and techniques (such as rapid speaking and a multiplicity of arguments); and it can desensitize debaters to real human problems and needs through continual labeling and discussion of abstract issues on paper.

These problems, however, are more than matched by the conceptual flexibility, empathy, and familiarity with significant issues provided by switch-side debate. The values of tolerance and fairness, implicit in the metaphor of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. In his description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the
glance of your enforced eclecticism! . . . It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.

B. Switch-Side Debate key to critical thinking: Extend our Keller evidence we can learn better advocacy skills by debating both sides of one argument and obtain critical thinking skills by debating different arguments Critical thinking is key to effective decision making. We will not be able to fully involve ourselves if we are always debating the same argument on both the neg and the aff side Effective decision making outweighs: It is key to making better social improvements because we are able to learn from mistakes and take into account from different perspectives. That was Steinberg & Freeley

Topic Education Extension

Extend our topic education claims A. Topic education is key to education: The reason we debate many topics each year is so we can get a sense or different arguments each year. Kritiks kill that ability because they can run the same argument each year. We have the bigget internal-link to education B. Roleplaying good: Roleplaying is the only way we can effectively learn about the topic. Our Cook evidence states that Americans are not as much involved in Latin America policies and the most effective way to engage in Latin America policies are case studies through roleplaying No-Topic discussion skews debate Preston, 2003
Thomas C. Preston summer 2003. Professor of communications at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions. http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf Finally, of

the 43 responses, 35, or 81.4 per cent, felt that the no-topic debate skewed the outcome of the debate toward one side or the other. Of those responses, 32 (91.4 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 74.4 per cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Government. Three (8.6 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 7.0 per cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Opposition.

Voting Issue Extension

Extend our voting issue claims They completely destroy ground for the negative. All our arguments are based on the should part of the resolution and now we have lost all ability to effectively engage in debate with affirmative, but we are nowhere listening to a one-sided lecture. Extend our Shively evidence. This should be the first question to come to mind when constructing affirmative when the topic is released each year. In order there to be a debate the affirmative must meet all pre-conditions. This is a d-rule impossible to be negative without prior agreement on the terms of the resolution Shively 2k
(Ruth Lessl, Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas A&M, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 182-3) The point may seem trite, as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic

terms must be shared before they can be resisted and problematized. In fact, they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approach: the paradoxical or
"parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. But admitting the paradox is not helpful if, as usually happens here, its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. For what the

paradox should tell us is that some kinds of harmonies or orders are, in fact, good for resistance; and some ought to be fully supported. As such, it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain full-fledged
ambiguists, they cannot admit to these implications, for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary, is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. Perhaps they might just continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic, but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of subversion.Yet difficulties remain. For and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. For debate

and contest are forms of dialogue: that is, they are activities premised on the building of progressive agreements. Imagine, for instance, that two people are having an argument
about the issue of gun control. As noted earlier, in any argument, certain initial agreements will be needed just to begin the discussion. At the very least, the two discussants must agree on basic terms: for example, they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing about it; what facts are being contested, and so on. They must also agreeand they do so simply by entering into debatethat they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are willing to listen to, and to be persuaded by, good arguments. Such agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation.

Extend our Boggs evidence, this is the real external impact in the debate now. They fail to effectively engage in American policies and cede politics to the elites. This completely turns the case and this is the root cause for all authoritarianism and war.

Rules key to Education

Without concrete terms for discussion, disputes become meaningless and valueless, only once a consensus has been arrived at can there be any engagement. Kemerling, 97
professor of philosophy at Newberry College, (Garth, Definition and Meaning, http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm) We've seen that sloppy

or misleading use of ordinary language can seriously limit our ability to create and communicate correct reasoning. As philosopher John Locke pointed out three centuries ago, the achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification. Needless controversy is sometimes produced and perpetuated by an unacknowledged ambiguity in the application of key terms. We can distinguish disputes of three sorts: Genuine disputes involve disagreement about whether or not some specific proposition is true. Since the people engaged in a genuine dispute agree on the meaning of the words by means of which they convey their respective positions, each of them can propose and assess logical arguments that might eventually lead to a resolution of their differences. Merely verbal disputes, on the other hand, arise entirely from ambiguities in the language used to express the positions of the disputants. A verbal dispute disappears entirely once the people involved arrive at an agreement on the meaning of their terms, since doing so reveals their underlying agreement in belief.
Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes can also occur, of course. In cases of this sort, the resolution of every ambiguity only reveals an underlying genuine dispute. Once that's been discovered, it can be addressed fruitfully by appropriate methods of reasoning. We

can save a lot of time, sharpen our reasoning abilities, and communicate with each other more effectively if we watch for disagreements about the meaning of words and try to resolve them whenever we can.

Policy Education Better

Education about policymaking is better than critical education: feasibility, research, and specificity. Speice and Lyle, 2003
Patrick Speice and Jim Lyle 2003 traditional policy debate: now more than ever Oceans Policy Adrift http://www.wfu.edu/Studentorganizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm

Why are these researching skills important? First, learning how to conduct research translates in the better academic skills. Better research produces better papers, speeches and presentations, and general knowledge (Freeley, 1996). Experience with research also provides debaters with good models for learning how to write. Learning to do conduct research is also useful for many personal purposes. Furthermore, it is not simply the ability to conduct research that debate teaches; rather it is the ability to engage in research efficiently and effectively. It still ceases to amaze us how poor the research skills are of most non-debaters. It is not that most people cannot do research, but rather how inefficient they are at doing it. Second, learning how to do policy research, and doing the research is desirable because it provides students with a better understanding of how the American government, and the world, exist and operate. This is useful as academic knowledge, but is of even greater utility in professional and social roles that intersect with the functioning of the American democracy. As has been noted elsewhere, engagement in research not only produces disinterested knowledge, it also can facilitate individual argumentative agency (Mitchell, 1998). The policy analysis focus of research is particularly desirable in achieving this goal. Experience with policy research also can translate into post -debate skills. There are many debaters who have gained employment with a variety of private, governmental, and international policy institutions due in large part to their research skills (Parcher, 1996). Research is an
important part of the activity, and in policy debate it is essential. The specific knowledge requirements for this form of debate are intense, and they are magnified by the switch-side nature of the activity. Do other forms of debate require/teach research skills? Yes, but the results are not the same. Language and performance critiques

produce shallow debate: they are ultra generic, have a lower burden of proof associated with them, and provide vague alternatives. First, many of these critiques that fail to challenge the desirability of the plan are ultra generics that discourage research across a spectrum of issues. While there is considerable literature addressing language choices and performance,
there is also always a vast amount of literature that addresses the resolutions policy area. Reality is such that most individuals do not have the time to dedicate to researching all of these issues. Delving into one area of research will trade-off with another. Additionally,

because the language and performance literature is so broad, and not necessarily linked to the policy area of the resolution or the affirmative plan, there is no way to fully research all of these issues, and still have time for policy issues. Consider last years mental illness topic, there were so many options regarding language
choice and so many performances available for presentation that one could easily have only researched these issues and never made it into the policy literature. Some of the more recently popularized forms of performance have even resulted in the virtual elimination of research.