210 likes | 349 Views
Its Our Party We Can Do What We Want: Topicality and Procedurals. Thursday, 6/27 Baxter and Dave. Basic Framework of Theoretical Arguments. Interpretation Violation Standards Voting Issues. Topicality Proper.
E N D
Its Our Party We Can Do What We Want:Topicality and Procedurals Thursday, 6/27 Baxter and Dave
Basic Framework of Theoretical Arguments • Interpretation • Violation • Standards • Voting Issues
Topicality Proper • The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.
…substantially… • Arbitrary Values • “Substantial/substantially” means • Essentially • Important • In the Main • Large • To make greater/augment • Material/real • Excludes material qualifications
…increase… • Does it have to exist already? • Can it just get better?
…its… • The object (economic engagement) belongs to the prior subject (The United States federal government). • Can it be an NGO or private entity? • Can it be cooperative/consultative?
…economic engagement… • Big Questions • QPQ • Timeframe • Political Change • G2G • Foreign Aid • Smaller Ones • Specifics • Sanctions • Cooperation
…toward… • Does it need to be directly towards?
…Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. • Cuba • Does it include Gitmo? • Is the embargo an increase in engagement (FX)? • Mexico • Or • Can it be and? • Venezuela
Debating T Well • Like almost all theory, revolves around two impacts • Fairness • Education • You need to focus on three issues • Caselists (content and size) • Division of ground • Types of literature • Good T debating requires an appropriate mix of both offense and defense
Are the Same As T!!! • Plan vagueness • Solvency advocate (lack thereof) • Specification • Agent • Enforcement • Funding
Framework • What is this about? The controversy behind almost all framework debates is which types o f impacts “count” when the judge renders a decision • A secondary question the involves what mechanisms the debaters can use to access those impacts • Useful analogs include • Legal rules of evidence • Criteria debates from old school CEDA or LD • Methodological disputes
Framework (2) • What impacts are we competing for? • Education • Fairness • “Good political agents” • What are the approaches negatives take to defending framework against non-traditional affs? • “T”: you are not what the resolution says, debate like a T violation (caveman) • Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re not it (old school) • Cooptive frameworks: fair play, etc.
Framework (3) • Judges and framework debates • Be aware of the judge’s identity and social location/status • Ideologues • K all the way • K no way • Centrists (largely incoherent)—both sides get to weigh their impacts
Framework (4) • Meaning of words is arbitrary/predictability is a praxis, not a truth • Counter-definitions of worlds that allow an individualized focus • USFG is the people • Resolved refers to us, not the USFG • Debates do not leave the room • Policymakers do evil things, policymaking logic does evil things
Framework (5) • Epistemological kritiks (knowledge from policy land is bad/tainted) • Politically-centered kritiks • Friere • Identity politics • Schlag • Ethics kritiks • Language kritiks/dirty words • General “case outweighs”