Ethical Policy Debating for a Multicultural Democracy

1. Ethical Policy Debatingfor a Multicultural Democracy University of Louisville Malcolm X Debate Argument Strategy Fall 2008 Session #3 – Wednesday, Aug 20th, 9:30 am

2. Today’s Discussion • Part 1: Winning an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy • Part 2: Format of an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy • Part 3: Evaluation of an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy • Part 4: Unethical Policy Debate in a Multicultural Democracy

3. Session #3 Part One - Winning an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy

4. Winning an Ethical Policy Debate on the Affirmative • An affirmative team wins that their process for both policy creation and policy implementation on behalf of a cultural group create an effective decision for a multicultural democracy. • In other words, the affirmative must successfully propose a valid course of action on behalf of a cultural group as well as an provide an effective strategy for persuading the remaining members of that democracy to accept (vote for) it.

5. Winning an Ethical Policy Debate on the Negative • Prove the affirmative is not an effective policy decision for a multicultural society due to either a successful challenge to the affirmative team policy creation process or policy implementation process. • Provide a superior policy decision on behalf of the affirmative’s cultural group demonstrating a superior policy creation and implementation process.

6. Strategic Negative Tools • Can use same tools as contemporary policy debate, but must consider how to use them for a multicultural democracy. • Case Arguments • Disadvantages • Counterplans • Procedural Arguments • kritiks

7. Session #3 Part Two - Format of an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy

8. Format • 2 person team debate, same as format now • Speech Purpose • 1AC - Outline Policy that you have created. • 1NC- Outline counter policy and attack 1AC policy • 2AC & 2NC – Engage in a defense of your policy creation and policy implementation, demonstrating why your policy is superior. • Rebuttals – Function for development, summary, and evaluation discussions

9. Session #3 Part Three - Evaluation of an Ethical Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy

10. Evaluation Process • Can use same tools as contemporary policy debate, but must consider how to use them for a multicultural democracy. • The voter (not judge), of a multicultural democracy, should consider ethical considerations as representing the interests of the cultural group being advocated for by the affirmative in this debate. • Evaluation should consider the validity of the policy as well as whether the advocate has an effective method to achieve policy implementation.

11. Session #3 Part Four - Unethical Considerations of a Policy Debate for a Multicultural Democracy

12. Categories for Unethical Behavior • Commit philosophical genocide of the cultural group within the topic issue through a majority-privileged impact calculus. • Theoretical arms race resulting in war where the disproportionate amount of causalities are minority perspectives on the topic. • Stylistic exclusion of minority opponent perspectives through imposition of majority-preferred styles, norms, and conventions. • Voter tampering with minority judging perspectives through reliance on mutual preference judging system.

13. PHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDE (Tria) • Philosophy defined means the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. • Genocide defined means the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. • Our definition: Argument strategies that rationally investigate truths and principles of knowledge in ways that deliberately and systematically exterminate a cultural group.

14. PHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDE • Case arguments, kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages and arguments that serve to either eliminate, outweigh, or co-opt topical minority impacts and issues function as acts of philosophical genocide. (Mitchell – Spectator Mentality)

15. Theoretical Arms Race • Theoretical defined: of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied). • Theory defined:a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. • Arms race defined:competition between countries to achieve superiority in quantity and quality of military arms.

16. Theoretical Arms Race • Procedural arguments like topicality, pic theory, aspec and it’s descendants, permutations, and counterplan theory that explain the debate activity becomes a competition to achieve superiority among participants. When use of theory replaces the actual topical arguments, an arms war has begun. (Mitchell – Spectator Mentality)

17. STYLISTIC EXCLUSION • Stylistic defined: Of or relating to a particular kind, sort, or type. • Exclusion defined: The act of forcing someone or something out. • Argument perspectives or strategies that have the effect of forcing out a particular kind, sort, or type.

18. STYLISTIC EXCLUSION • Belittling or demeaning the style of another, rude or disrespectful behavior, attempts to dominate opponent, or attempts to avoid clash and debate using narrowly defined argument tactics are examples of stylistic exclusion. (Valdivia-Sutherland, CEDA Constitution)

19. Voter Tampering • Voter defined: A person who formally expresses an opinion or choice, either positive or negative. • Tampering defined: The act of meddling, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing. • Argument strategies which have the effect of meddling, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing a person who formally expresses an opinion or choice, either positive or negative.

20. Voter Tampering • The use of mutual preference judging allows a debate team to purposefully alter who judges them, damages the ability to learn from different judging perspectives, and misuses dissenting judge viewpoints by preventing them from expressing their opinion through voting in the multicultural democracy.

21. Homework for Session #3 • Read article Linda Alcoff, “Speaking for Others” and Gordon Mitchell – Argumentative Agency. • 3:30 - 4 minute speech – How Policy Debate can improve decision making in a Multicultural Democracy (speech should be broken into three main points: policy creation; policy implementation; defense of an effective evaluation process) Due Friday @ 1pm