PHS Debate 1

Puyallup JK Myth K
Mythicization K 1NC (1/)
First off is Mythitization-

It is our contention that the Affirmative has engaged in rampantly irrational practices within the 1AC.
We are going to show you a few different means by which the 1AC put forth its defense of the
resolution in an irrational manner.

Subpoint A is the Link-

( ) The affirmative engaged in power tagging-

While this practice is common, the overstatement of probabilities, impacts and availabilities of
particular solvency mechanisms serve to make debate a vacuous activity.

( ) The affirmative used fallacious reasoning to reach its conclusions-

The very basis of rationality is logic. If claims are allowed to be passed off in spite of fallacious
reasoning, debate can never be a rational means by which two sides might discuss an issue of
importance.

( ) The Affirmative used ridiculously extreme impact scenarios-

Debaters for more than a generation have talked about nuclear war, and global extinction. Every
policy is either certain to cause or prevent such catastrophes if one is to believe the reasons for
decision often offered by judges. In spite of this, the world has not faced significant threats on either
front, with the possible exception of the loss of biodiversity. And of course, one should consider
whether any one plan can claim to single handedly prevent such impacts. By claiming their plan does
so, the Affirmative is making an appeal to fear, which is a classic fallacy. There are hundreds of
reasonable impact scenarios, particularly with the economic realities of the present. The discussion of
(**insert extreme terminal impacts here**) is an attempt to win your ballot by appealing to irrational
fears rather than reasoned analysis.
PHS Debate 2
Puyallup JK Myth K
Mythicization K 1NC (2/)
Subpoint B is Rationality and The Myth

Themes tend to become unreal when pitted against each other in an antagonistic manner, like an
academic debate. When particular tactics have succeeded, like (**insert the links you used here**),
they become replicated and accepted. This does not make them rational, only common. In point of
fact, the deepening antagonism and the practices we identified have a tendency to create a
mythicized reality which stops debate from being meaningful.

This is Paulo Freire, from Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

Confronted by this "universe of themes" in dialectical contradiction, persons
take equally contradictory positions: some work to maintain the structures,
others to change them. As antagonism deepens between themes which are the
expression of reality; there is a tendency for the themes and for reality itself to
be mythicized, establishing a climate of irrationality and sectarianism. This
climate threatens to drain the themes of their deeper significance and to
deprive them of their characteristically dynamic aspect. In such a situation,
myth-creating irrationality itself becomes a fundamental theme. Its opposing
theme, the critical and dynamic view of the world, strives to unveil reality,
unmask its mythicization, and achieve a full realization of the human task: the
permanent transformation of reality in favor of the liberation of people. In the
last analysis, the themes both contain and are contained in limit-situations; the
tasks they imply require limit-acts. When the themes are concealed by the limit-
situations and thus are not clearly perceived, the corresponding tasks-people's
responses in the form of historical action-can be neither authentically nor
critically fulfilled. In this situation, humans are unable to transcend the limit
situations to discover that beyond these situations" and in contradiction to
them lies an untested feasibility.

Consider this evidence closely. The 1AC is the myth creating irrationality, as we showed earlier. Our
identification of the irrationality makes our criticism the opposing theme the critical dynamic
worldview. Our criticism is a request for you, the judge, to overcome these common practices which
are so destructive to the meaning of this activity we all love. We, as the negative, have limited power.
All we can do is to point out the irrationality and tell you, Yes, this approach is a result of an absurdly
insular community which has lost touch with its roots in rational thinking. We cannot alone stop the
practices, except within our own arguments. We need judges to accept this type of criticism if we are
to succeed in restoring rationality to debate. So long as the practices weve seen continue, Debate
will be nothing but an intellectual game lacking the ability to transform the world.
PHS Debate 3
Puyallup JK Myth K
Mythicization K 1NC (3/)
Our criticism is the action we take, as conscious human beings to overcome the limits of current
debate practices; the irrational argumentation we have perceived from the day we first started
debating. As the judge, you have the opportunity for meaningful action by voting for the criticism.

Paulo Freire, from Pedagogy of the Oppressed continues:

Humans, however, because they are aware of themselves and thus of the world-because
they are conscious beings-exist in a dialectical relationship between the determination of
limits and their own freedom. As they separate themselves from the world, which they
objectify, as they separate themselves from their own activity, as they locate the seat of
their decisions in themselves and in their relations with the world and others, people
overcome the situations which limit them: the "limit-situations."
15
Once perceived by
individuals as fetters, as obstacles to their liberation, these situations stand out in relief
from the background, revealing their true nature as concrete historical dimensions of a
given reality. Men and women respond to the challenge with actions which Vieira Pinto calls
"limit-acts": those directed at negating and overcoming, rather than passively accepting, the
"given." Thus, it is not the limit-situations in and of themselves which create a climate of
hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived by women and men at a given historical
moment: whether they appear as fetters or as insurmountable barriers. As critical
perception is embodied in action, a climate of hope and confidence develops which leads
men to attempt to overcome the limit-situations. This objective can be achieved only
through action upon the concrete, historical reality in which limit-situations historically are
found. As reality is transformed and these situations are superseded, new ones will appear,
which in turn will evoke new limit-acts.

We argue that the irrational practices are only fetters to slow us. They are not insurmountable
barriers. Some judges have disagreed with us. One judge a respected coach of a national circuit
team who saw this kritik at Berkeley wrote on the ballot that power tagging has always and would
always be a part of debate. That such a person could feel so hopeless demonstrates the power of
perception.

Dont let it bother you that these things have been going on for as long as you can remember. This is
only a matter of perception. At the end of the 2NR we are going to pose you with 2 questions:

1: Is debate about the rational exchange of competing ideas?
2: Is the affirmative guilty of using irrational practices in their defense of the resolution?

We contend that both of these can be answered with a resounding yes. If debate is about rational
discussion, then the Affirmative has a prima facie burden to present a rational defense of the
resolution. Their failure to do so leaves Negative in a tricky spot. Either we must engage in the
irrationality by presenting our own power-tagged, fallacious, highly improbable scenarios, or we must
have the guts to ask for a ballot on presumption.
PHS Debate 4
Puyallup JK Myth K
Mythicization K 1NC (4/)
And that is our alternative: Vote NEG on presumption. As long as there has been fiat, resolutions, and
plan-based debate, there also has been presumption. The idea is simple: The Affirmative has a
burden entering the round to provide a rational defense of topical policy action. If they fail to provide
a policy that can meet those standards, they have failed to prove the resolution true.

Now, theyre going to get up and say some neat things in 2AC. Let me preemptively address a couple
of them.

First, they are going to try to perm our criticism by severing the cards we identified as problematic.
Dont let them do this. They had the ability to create a rational policy defense before presenting their
1AC. Allowing them to shift their advocacy at this point is unreasonable, as we would have responded
entirely differently had the 1AC been rational.

Second, they will talk about the dangers of their impact scenarios. Theyll say something like A 1%
chance of (**insert terminal impact**) means you should vote AFF. Dont fall for this thinly veiled
attempt to manipulate you. Sure, the impacts are terrifying. The idea of the sky falling is terrifying
too, but we all learned to ignore Chicken Little before getting to kindergarten. At least we learned
that lesson. Sometimes we have doubts about our opponents.

Third, they may even tell you that presumption is dead in a world where debates are decided by
means of offense/defense decision making. Consider this though: even in an offense/defense
approach, the team making a claim has the burden to prove their claim by rational warrants and/or
evidence. Given the wholesale failure of the Affirmative to do so, we argue that they generated no
real offense in their 1AC. Further, our arguments in favor of presumption can be seen as offense of its
own sort what is offense other than an argument which forces your opponent to address your
arguments on your own terms?

PHS Debate 5
Puyallup JK Myth K
Mythicization K 1NC (5/)
Subpoint C is Framework-

What you will be left with at the end of this round is one side who presented a wholly fallacious
defense of the resolution and another side who refused to engage with it. We would rather debates
not look like this. But to engage in discussing the merits of the affirmative proposal, rather than
discussing their methods would be to engage in a Red Herring. The affirmative has misrepresented
their evidence, used faulty reasoning in their conclusions and attempted to scare you with end of the
world arguments. This is a classic Red Herring, and we wont wrestle in the mud just because they
chose to jump in the pigsty before the 1NC. Logic dictates that fallacious arguments be addressed on
the fallacies alone, lest the discussion become about claims which have not yet been proven accurate.
Because of this, we cannot honestly engage in this criticism and discuss the plan at the same time. So
consider the criticism without weighing it against the impacts of the 1ac. To do otherwise would be
nonsensical.