8/11/2019 k's tho

1/3

1NC

Next are the preempts:

First , drop the argument on theory and reevaluate the link and impact sections as a disad to

the aff framework because: (a) 1AR theory skews my strategy by forcing me to restart theround in the 2NR. This silences my voice because it made all my previous discourse

meaningless, which is bad for norm creation; (b) dropping the argument is a sufficient

deterrent because it removes the competitive incentive to run the argument in the first place;

and (c) voting to punish a debater for an abusive practice sets a bad precedent for the

community. Sigel explains,

A reasonable position can be developed that [V]oting to punish a team sets a bad precedent. Since it is extremely

difficult to decide when an abusive practice really

justifies punishment, the risk thatdebaters will exploit punishment as a destructive strategic device seems great . In theory, the

punishment argument is the spontaneous response by a team to the abusive debating of their opponents. In practice , however, debaters plan out strategies

to "get a link" to punishment because they don't have any substantive answers to the otherteam's policy arguments. Given the already apparent over-use of punishment arguments by debaters, It seems plausible that voting for them in the future sets a dangerous precedent. The "whine" argument has become the

most [a] serious problem in contemporary debate. Too many teams employ arguments like topicality and punishment

instead of substantive policy positions because it allows them to avoid research. The activity cannot survive if the "best

and the brightest" are plotting ways to make ad hominem attacks on their opponents . Andy Rist's complaint that he "find[s] the punishment paradigm annoying and [that he] usually consider[s] itonly formalized whining" 6 is a candid and accurate description of one of the greatest problems in contemporary debate--the punishment paradigm. 1

Second , when the aff reads 1AR theory prefer reasonable neg interps because there is a

seven to six minute time trade off for the aff, and the aff gets to speak twice on theory, while

I only get to speak once.

Third , education outweighs fairness because: (a) schools fund debate for its educational

value not because its competitive, meaning that if debate is no longer educational, then it

dies as an activity. Education, unlike fairness, has implications in the real world that tangibly

affect our lives. We take what we learn in debate into the real world, unlike our win/lossrecords; (b) as we become better education we have a better understand of what it means

for something to be fair, making it an internal link to education; (c) disclosure solves all

fairness abuse claims because the positions has been online for my opponent to see.

1 Doug Sigel, Northwestern University Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985

8/11/2019 k's tho

2/3

AND , theory is an example of the academic procedural dogma that inhibits creative thinking

and unique problem- solving strategies. Engaging debate on debates terms to weed out

arguments that challenge its assumptions feeds into an ever-growing system of censorship

that controls who is allowed to access certain knowledge. Fairness should always be put on

the sidelines when compared to education because it militarizes the debate space, making our

discourse meaningless. Bleiker explains,

Bleiker 2000 [Roland, Senior Lecturer at the University of Queensland, Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and Global Politics , pgs 18-19] Gazing beyond the boundaries of

disciplinary knowledge is necessary to open up questions of traversal dissent and human

agency. Academic disciplines , by virtue of what they are, discipline the production and diffusion of

knowledge. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods ,

techniques, and instruments that are considered proper for this purpose. Such conventions not only suggest

on what ground things can be studied legitimately, but also decide what issues are

worthwhile to be assessed in the first place. Thus, as soon as one addresses academic disciplines on

their own terms, one has to play according to the rules of a discursive police which

is reactivated each time one speaks. In this case, [O]ne cuts off any innovative thinking

spaces that exist on the other side of this margin.

Fourth, I reserve the right to clarify theory violations in cross-ex to prevent needless theory

debates, which skew both our time and preclude substantive education.

8/11/2019 k's tho

3/3

2NR

A. Counter-interp: the aff must allow the neg to specify an alternative text that cannot be

implemented by a policy-making body and instead reflect a mindset shift.

B. Real World Decision Making:

First, in academics one must be prepared to defend ones position not only against

conventional criticism but also against critical challenges to the assumptions of ones

position. It would be unrealistic to exclude a certain type of argumentation that challenges a

position simply because it questions a different part of the position.

Second, policy-makers can only formulate policy within a given mindset because creating a

policy only makes sense when it is considered and filtered through a different mindset; for

example, it would be nonsensical for a body to implement a development policy when the

mindset is non-anthropocentric.

This has the STRONGEST link to education because it is teaches us the decision-making

skills that transcend the debate round. Strait and Wallace explain,

The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key still. It is the one thing everysingle one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing . Decision-makingtranscends all boundaries between categories of learning like policy education and kritik education, it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually bepolicymakers,

andit transcends

questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It isthe skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all ofourlives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions