Bruschke Framework

Mostly Nader with Jon re-organizing
CSUF
THE MOTHER OF ALL FRAMEWORK FILES
NEGATIVE FRAMEWORK FILE
A. OUR INTERPRETATION-
1. AFFIRMATIVES MUST HAVE A TOPICAL PLAN. You must meet the literal interpretation of the
resolution and compare the plan against the status quo or a competitive alternative.
2. THE RESOLUTION MUST BE THE ENDING POINT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ADVOCACY, Even if they
win that they don’t have to read a plan their concluding advocacy must defend the resolution of
government pressure on China.
3. You must assume the current political environment, it’s essential for disad link and uniqueness ground,
utopian transitions are not predictable, or educational about how the real world works, we also lose
solvency takeouts, which makes it impossible for the neg to outweigh utopia
4. You have to defend the consequences of the plan
5. Action and discourse outside the resolution is extra-topical; that’s a voter because it kills our ability to
prepare, exploding our research burden, we can’t use PICs to test extra-topical planks, and it steals our
ground.
6. Participation should not be resolved by the ballot. You affirm the resolution, not an ideology. Debate is
competitive, not a search for enlightenment, which means that we’re forced to clash with each other even
on positions we agree with.
B. OUR INTERP IS BETTER AND A VOTER-
1) Predictability: non-literal interpretations of the topic make the resolution functionally meaningless. The
resolution becomes porous and loses its ability to serve as a guide for neg research.
2) Kills neg ground- lack of plan makes it impossible to have competitive counterplans or test the merits of
the particular outcome of the aff advocacy. Disadvantages to plan are based on the current political
circumstances – allowing affs to change their time implementation destroys all relevant disadvantage
ground.
3) Moving target- without a stable plan text the affirmative can dodge our 1nc by reinterpreting what their
advocacy is, plan focus is essential for stable and fair division of ground.
3) RULES CONSTRAIN SPEECH GENRES TO REASONABLE GROUND FOR DELIBERATION—

WHILE ALLOWING FOR INCLUSION OF PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES AND NARRATIVES TO
JUSTIFY A PLAN
BAKHTIN 1999
[M.M. “The Problem of speech Genres,” THE DISCOURSE READER, 1999. (122-132)]
ALL THE DIVERSE AREAS of human activity involve the use of language. Quite understandably, the nature and forms of this use
are just as diverse as are the areas of human activity. This, of course, in no way disaffirms the national unity of language. Language
is realized in the form 0f individual concrete utterances (oral and written) by participants in the various areas of human activity These
utterances reflect the specific conditions and goals of each such area not only through their content (thematic) and linguistic style,
that is, the selection of the lexical, phraseological, and grammatical resources of the language, hut above all through their
compositional structure. All three of these aspects - thematic content, style, and compositional structure - are inseparably linked to
the whole of the utterance and are equally determined by the specific nature of the particular sphere of communication. Each
separate utterance is individual, of course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of
these utterances. These we may call speech genres.
The wealth and diversity of speech genres are boundless because the various possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible,
and because each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire 0f speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular
sphere develops and becomes more complex. Special emphasis should he placed on the extreme heterogeneity of speech genres
(oral and written). In fact, the category of speech genres should include short rejoinders of daily dialogue (and these are extremely
1
CSUF
varied depending on the subject matter, situation, and participants) everyday narration, writing (in all its various forms), the brief
standard military command, the elaborate and detailed order, the fairly variegated repertoire of business documents (For the most
part standard), and the diverse world 0f commentary (in the broad sense of the word: social, political). And we must also include
here the diverse forms of scientific statements and all literary genres (from the proverb to the multivolume novel). It might seem that
speech genres are so heterogeneous that they do not have and cannot have a single common level at which they can he studied
[...] One might think that such functional heterogeneity makes the common features of speech genres: excessively abstract and
empty. This probably explains why the general problem of speech genres has never really been raised. Literary genres have been
studies more than anything else. But from antiquity to the present, they have been studied in terms of their specific literary and
artistic features, in terms of the differences that distinguish one from the other (within the realm of literature), and not as specific
types of utterances distinct from other types, but sharing with them a common verbal (language) nature. The general linguistic
problem of the utterance and its types has hardly been considered at all. [...] A clear idea of the nature of the utterance in general
and of the peculiarities of the various types of utterances (primary and secondary), that is, 0f various speech genres, is necessary,
we think, for research in any special area. To ignore the nature of the utterance or to fail to consider the peculiarities of generic
subcategories of speech in any area of linguistic study leads to perfunctoriness and excessive abstractness, distorts the historicity of
the research, and weakens the link between language and life. After all, language enters life through concrete utterances (which
manifest language) and life enters language through concrete utterances as well. The utterance is an exceptionally important node
of problems. Any style is inseparably related to the utterance and to typical forms of utterances, that is, speech genres. Any
utterance - oral or written, primary or secondary, and in any sphere of communication is individual and therefore can reflect the
individuality of the speaker (or writer); that is, it possesses individual style. But not all genres are equally conducive to reflecting the
individuality 0f the speaker in the language of the utterance, that is, to an individual style. The most conducive genres are those of
artistic literature: here the individual style enters directly into the very task of the utterance, and this is one 0f its main goals (but
even within artistic literature various genres offer different possibilities for expressing individuality in language and various aspects of
individuality). The least favorable conditions for reflecting individuality in language obtain in speech genres that require a standard
form, or example, many kinds of business documents military commands, verbal signals in industry, and so on. Here one can reflect
only the most superficial. almost biological aspects of individuality (mainly in the oral manifestation of these standard types of
utterances). In the vast majority of speech genres (except for literary-artistic ones), the individual style does not enter into the intent
of the utterance, does not serve as its only goal, but Is, as it were, an epiphenomenon of the utterance, does not serve as its only
goal products. Various genres can reveal reveal various layers and facets of the individual personality, and individual style can be
found in various interrelations with the national language. The very problem of the national and the individual in language is basically
the problem of the utterance (alter all, only here in the utterance, is the national language embodied in individual form). The very-
determination of style in general, and individual style in particular, requires deeper study of both the nature oh the utterance and the
diversity of speech genres. -1
It is especially harmful to separate style from genre when elaborating historical problems. Historical changes in language styles
are inseparably linked to changes in speech genres. Literary language is a complex, dynamic system of linguistic styles. The
proportions and interrelations of these styles in the system of literary language are constantly changing. Literary language, which
also includes nonliterary styles, is an even more complex system anti it is organized on different bases. In order lo puzzle out the
complex historical dynamia of these systems and move from a simple (and, in the majority of eases, superficial) description of
styles, which are always in evidence and alternating with one another, to a historical explanation of these changes, one must
develop a special history of speech genres (and not only secondary, but also primary ones) that reflects more directly , clearly, and
flexibly all the changes taking place in social life. Utterances and their types, that is. speech genres, are the drive belts from the
history of society to the history of language. There is not a single new pheomenon (phonetic, lexical grammatical) that can enter the
system of language without having traversed the long and complicated path of generic stylistic testing and modification. In each
epoch, certain speech genres set the tone or the development of literary language. And these speech genres are not only secondary
(literary, commentarial, and scientific) , but also primary (certain types of oral dialogue - of the salon, of one's own circle, and other
types as well, such as familiar, family - everyday, sociopolitical, philosophical, and so on). Any expansion of the literary language
that results from drawing on various. extraliterary strata of the national language inevitably entails some degree of penetration into
all genres of written language (literary, scientific, commentarial , conversational, and so forth) to a greater or lesser degree, and
entails new generic devices for the construction of the speech whole, its finalization, the accomodation of the listener or partner, and
so forth. This leads to a more or less fundamental restructuring and renewal of' speech genres. Still current in linguistics are such
fictions as the "listener" and "under- stander" (partners of the "speaker"), the "unified speech flow," and so on - These fictions
produce a completely distorted idea of the complex and multi- faceted process of active speech communication courses in general
linguistics (even serious ones like Saussure's) frequently present graphic-schematic depictions of the two partners in speech
communication -- the speaker and the listener (who perceives the speech) -- and provide diagrams of the active speech processes
of the speaker and the corresponding passive processes of the listener's perception and understanding of the speech. One cannot
say that these diagrams are false or that they do not correspond to certain aspects of reality. But when they are put forth as the
actual whole of speech communication, they become a scientific fiction. The fact is that when the listener perceives and
understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it. He
either agrees or disagrees with it (completely or partially), augments it, applies it, prepares for its execution, and so on And the
listener adopts this responsive attitude for the entire duration of the process of listening and understanding, from the very beginning
- sometimes literally from the speaker's first word .Anv understanding of live speech, a live utterance, is inherently responsive,
although the degree of this activity varies extremely Any understanding is imbued with response and necessarily elicits it in one
form or another: the listener becomes the speaker. I. . .]
Moreover, any speaker is himself a respondent to a greater or lesser degree. He is not, alter all, the first speaker, the one who
disturbs the eternal silence of the universe. And he presupposes not only the existence of the language system he is using, but also
the existence of preceding utterances -- his own and other’ -- with which his given utterance enters into one kind of relation or
another (builds on them, polemicizes with them, or simply presumes that they are already known to the listener). Any utterance is a
link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances of speakers. Any utterance - from a short (single-word) rejoinder in
everyday dialogue to the large novel or scientific treatise - has, so to speak, an absolute beginning and an absolute end: its
beginning is preceded by the utterances of others, and its end is followed by the responsive utterances of others (or, although it may
he silent, others' active responsive understanding, or, finally, a responsive action based on this understanding). The speaker ends
2
CSUF
his utterance in order to relinquish the floor to the other or to make room for the other's active responsive understanding. The
utterance is not a conventional unit, but a real unit, clearly delimited by the change of speaking subjects, which ends by relinquishing
the floor to the other, as if with these forms perceived by the listeners (as a sign) that the speaker has finished. This change of
speaking subjects, which creates clear-cut boundaries of the utterance, varies in nature and acquires different forms in the hetero-
geneous spheres of human activity and life, depending on the functions of language and on the conditions and situations of
communication. One observes this change of speaking subjects most simply and clearly in actual dialogue where the utterances of
the interlocutors or partners in dialogue (which we shall call rejoinders) alternate. Because of its simplicity and clarity, dialogue is a
classic form of speech communication. Each rejoinder, regardless of how brief and abrupt, has a specific quality of completion that
expresses a particular position of the speaker, to which one may respond or may assume, with respect to it, a responsive position.
But at the same time rejoinders are all linked to one another. And the sort of relations that exist among rejoinders of dialogue -.-
relations between question and answer, assertion and objection, assertion and agreement, suggestion and acceptance, order and
execution, and so forth - are impossible among units of language (words and sentences), either in the system of language (in the
vertical cross section) or within the utterance (on the horizontal plane). These specific relations among rejoinders in a dialogue are
only subcategories of specific relations among whole utterances in the process of speech communication. These relations are
possible only among utterances of different speech subjects; they presuppose other (with respect to the speaker) participants in
speech communication. The relations among whole utterances cannot he treated grammatically since, we repeat, such relations are
impossible among units of language, and not only in the system of language, but within the utterance as well. Complexly
structured and specialized works of various scientific and artistic genres, in spite of all the ways in which they differ from rejoinders
in dialogue, are by nature the same kind of units of speech communication.
They, too, are clearly demarcated by a change of speaking subjects, and these boundaries, while retaining their external clarity,
acquire here a special internal aspect because the speaking subject -~ in this case, the author of the work - manifests his own
individuality in his style, his world-view, and in all aspects of the design of his work. This imprint of individuality marking the work
also creates special internal boundaries that distinguish this work from other works connected with it in the overall processes of
speech communication in that particular cultural sphere: from the works of predecessors on whom the author relies, from other
works of the same school, from the works of opposing schools with which the author is contending, and so on. The work, like the
rejoinder in dialogue, is oriented toward the response of the other (others), toward his--responsive understanding, which can
assume various forms: educational influence on the readers, persuasion of them, critical responses, influence on followers and
successors, and so on. It can determine others' responsive positions under the complex conditions of speech communication in a
particular cultural sphere. The work is a link in the chain of a speech communion. Like the rejoinder in a dialogue, it is related to
other work-utterances: both those to which it responds and those that respond to it. At the same time, like the rejoinder in a
dialogue, it is separated from them by the absolute boundaries created by a change of speaking subjects.
.1 The speaker's speech will is manifested primarily in the choice of a particular speech genre. This choice is determined by the
specific nature of the given sphere of speech communication, semantic (thematic) considerations, the concrete situation of the
speech communication, the personal composition of its participants, and so on. And when the speaker's speech plan with all its
individuality antI subjectivity is applied and adapted to a chosen genre, it is shaped and developed within a certain generic form.
Such genres exist above all in the great and multifarious sphere of everyday oral communication, including the most familiar and the
most intimate. We speak only in definite speech genres, that is, all our utterances have definite and relatively stable typical farms
of construction of the whole. Our repertoire of oral (and written) speech genres is rich. We use them confidently and skillfully in
practice, and it is quite possible for us not even to suspect their existence in theory. Like Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain who, when
speaking in prose, had no idea that was what he was doing; we speak in diverse genres without suspecting that they exist. Even in
the most free, the most unconstrained conversation, we cast our speech in definite generic forms, sometimes rigid and trite ones,
sometimes more flexible, plastic, and creative ones (everyday communication also has creative genres at its disposal). We are
given these speech genres in almost the same way that we are given our native language, which we master fluently long before we
begin to study grammar. We know our native language - its lexical composition and grammatical structure - not from dictionaries and
grammars but from concrete utterances that we hear and that we ourselves reproduce in live speech communication with people
around us. We assimilate forms of language only in forms of utterances and in conjunction with these forms. The forms of
language and the typical forms of utterances, that is, speech genres, enter our experience and our consciousness together, and in
close connection with one another. To learn to speak means to learn to construct utterances (because we speak in utterances and
not in individual sentences, and, of course, not in individual words). Speech genres organize our speech in almost the same way as
grammatical (syntactical) forms do. I. . .1
The generic forms in which we cast our speech, of course, differ essentially from language forms. The latter are stable and
compulsory (normative) for the speaker, while generic forms are much more flexible, plastic, and free. Speech genres are very
diverse in this respect. A large number of genres that are widespread in everyday life are so standard that the speaker's individual
speech will is manifested only in its choice of a particular genre, and, perhaps, in its expressive intonation. Such, for example, are
the various everyday genres of greetings, farewells, congratulations, all kinds of wishes, information about health, business, and so
forth. These genres are so (diverse because they differ depending on the situation, social position, and personal interrelations of the
participants in the communication. These genres have high, strictly official, respectful forms as well as familiar ones. And there are
forms with varying degrees of familiarity, as well as intimate forms (which differ from familiar ones). These genres also require a
certain tone; their structure includes a certain expressive intonation. These genres, particularly the high and official ones, are
compulsory and extremely stable. The speech will is usually limited here to a choice of a particular genre. And only slight nuances of
expressive intonation (one can take a drier or more respectful tone, a colder or warmer one; one can introduce the intonation of joy,
and so forth) can express the speaker's individuality (his emotional speech intent). But even here it is to re-accentuate genres. This
is typical of speech communication: thus, for example, the generic form of greeting can move from the official sphere into the sphere
of familiar communication, that is, it can be used with parodic-ironic re-accentuation. To a similar end, one can deliber- ately mix
genres from various spheres.
In addition to these standard genres, of course, freer and more creative genres of oral speech communication have existed and
still exist: genres of salon conversations about everyday social, aesthetic, and other subjects, genres of table conversation,
intimate conversations among friends, intimate conversations within the familv, and so on. (No list of oral speech genres yet exists,
or even a principle on which such a list might be based.) The majority of these genres are subiect to tree creative relormulation (like
artistic genres, and some, perhaps, to a greater degree). But to use a genre freely and creatively is not the same as to create a
3
CSUF
genre from the beginning; genres must be fully mastered in order to he manipulated freely.
1* .1 Any utterance is a link in tile chain of speech communion. It is the active position 0f the speaker in one referentially
semantic sphere or another. Therefore, each utterance is characterized primarily by a particular referentially semantic content.
The choice of linguistic means and speech genre is determined primarily by the referentially semantic assignments (plan) of the
speech subject (or author). This is the first aspect of the utterance that determines its compositional and stylistic features. The
second aspect of' the utterance that determines its composition and style is the expressive aspect, that is, the speaker's subjective
emotional evaluation of the referentially semantic content of his utterance. The expressive aspect has varying significance and
varying degrees of' force in various spheres of speech communication, but it exists everywhere. There call be no such thing as an
absolutely neutral utterance The speaker's evaluative attitude toward the subject of his speech (regardless of what his subject may
be) also determines the choice of' lexical, grammatical, and compositional means of the utterance. The individual style of the
utterance is determined primarily by its expressive aspect. This is generally recognized in the area of stylistics. Certain investigators
even reduce style directly to the emotionally evaluative aspect of speech. When selecting words, we proceed from the planned
whole of our utterance, and this whole that we have planned and created is always expressive. The utterance is what radiates its
expression (rather, our expression) to the word we have selected, which is to say, invests the word with the expression of the
whole. And we select the word because of it’s meaning, which is not in itself expressive but which can accommodate or not
accommodate our expressive goals in combination with other words, that is, in combination with the whole of our utterance. The
neutral meaning of the word applied to a particular actual reality under particular real conditions of speech communication creates
a spark of expression. And, after all, this is precisely what takes place in the process of creating an utterance.[. .] A speech genre
is not a Form of language, but a typical form of utterance; as such the genre also includes a certain typical kind of expression that
inheres in it. In the genre, the word acquires a particular typical expression. Genres correspond to typical situations of speech
communication, typical themes, and, consequently, also to particular contacts between the meanings 0f words and actual concrete
reality under certain typical circumstances. Hence also the possibility of typical expressions that seem to adhere to words. This
typical expression (and the typical intonation that corresponds to it does not have that force of compulsoriness that language forms
have, [. . .] Speech genres in general submit fairly easily to re-accentuation, the sad can be made jocular and gay, but as a result
something new is achieved (for example, the genre of comical epitaphs).
The words of a language belong to nobody, but still we hear those words only in particular individual utterancess, we read them in
particular individual works, and in such cases the words already have not only a typical, but also (depending on the genre) a more or
less clearly reflected individual expression, which is determined by the unrepeatable individual context of the utterance. Neutral
dictionary meanings of the words of a language ensure their common features and guarantee that all speakers oi a given language
will understand one another, but the use of words in live speech communication is always individual and contextual in nature
Therefore, one can say that any word exists for the speaker in three aspects: as a neutral word of a language, belonging to nobody;
as an others' word, which belongs to another person and is filled with echoes of the other's utterance; and, finally, as my word, for,
since I am dealing with it in a particular situation, with a particular speech plan, it is already imbued with my expression. In both of
the latter aspects, the word is expressive, but, we repeat, this expression does not inhere in the word itself. It originates at the point
of contact between the word and actual reality, under the conditions of that real situation artic- ulated by the individual utterance. In
this case the word appears as an expression of some evaluative position of an individual person (authority, writer, scientist, father,
mother, friend, teacher, and so forth), as an abbre- viation of the utterances.
4) Switch side debate which their framework does not provide for is the only way to overcome
dogma and work toward a reasonable view of the world
Muir 1993 (Star A. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC, "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate,"
v26, n4, p.288)
The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster
tolerance without accruing the moral complications of acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique
in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral
irresponsibility. As Freeley notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world both within and
between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In
this view, the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective
without obligating students to validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions.
4
CSUF
5) Requiring teams to debate both sides increases tolerance--aff version of debate sows seeds of
bigotry and dogmatism
MUIR 1993
[Star, “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3]
The values of tolerance and fairness implicit in t h e m e t a p h o r 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.
5
CSUF
7) Switch sides debating lets them run this on the negative. Their defense of an additional world
vision on top of plan action is only proof that they are refusing to role play. Switch side debating
is uniquely valuable
Kristin Chisolm Dybvig and Joel Iverson, no date (http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html)
Not all debate research appears to generate personal advocacy and challenge peoples' assumptions.
Debaters must switch sides, so they must inevitably debate against various cases. While this may seem
to be inconsistent with advocacy, supporting and researching both sides of an argument actually created
stronger advocates. Not only did debaters learn both sides of an argument, so that they could defend their
positions against attack, they also learned the nuances of each position. Learning and the intricate nature
of various policy proposals helps debaters to strengthen their own stance on issues.
8) Our framework is most inclusive and arguments about the importance of moral and ethical
impacts are allowed – there is evidence that makes comparative risks and threat assessments
between genocide and war. This is the key to creativity. Debating specifics is key to education,
transforms debater opinions, crucial to promoting effective activism.
Kristin Chisolm Dybvig and Joel Iverson, no date (http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html)
Addressing all of these differences is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus upon the research process involved in the
more research intensive forms of debate: National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA)
style debate. We have surmised that research has several beneficial effects on debaters. Research creates an in-depth analysis of
issues that takes students beyond their initial presuppositions and allows them to truly evaluate all sides of an issue. Not only is the
research involved in debate a training ground for skills, but it also acts as a motivation to act on particular issues. It is our contention
that debate not only gives us the tools that we need to be active in the public sphere, but it also empowers some debaters with the
impetus to act in the public sphere.
We examine the role of research by analyzing the arguments regarding the role of debate for critical thinking as well as the role
debate has begun to play in activism. Specifically, we closely examine the analysis of Mitchell (1998) regarding the empowerment of
debaters and the role of research in academic debate. Next, we provide analysis of the role research plays in developing personal
opinions and action based upon examples from our collective debate experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994) and conversations
in situ. Finally, we offer some potential pathways for future conversations and investigations into the role of research in policy and
parliamentary debate.
Mitchell (1998) provides a thorough examination of the pedagogical implication for academic debate. Although Mitchell
acknowledges that debate provides preparation for participation in democracy, limiting debate to a laboratory where students
practice their skill for future participation is criticized. Mitchell contends:
For students and teachers of argumentation, the heightened salience of this question should signal the danger that critical thinking
and oral advocacy skills alone may not be sufficient for citizens to assert their voices in public deliberation. (p. 45)
Mitchell contends that the laboratory style setting creates barriers to other spheres, creates a "sense of detachment" and causes
debaters to see research from the role of spectators. Mitchell further calls for "argumentative agency [which] involves the capacity to
contextualize and employ the skills and strategies of argumentative discourse in fields of social action, especially wider spheres of
public deliberation" (p. 45). Although we agree with Mitchell that debate can be an even greater instrument of empowerment for
students, we are more interested in examining the impact of the intermediary step of research. In each of Mitchell's examples of
debaters finding creative avenues for agency, there had to be a motivation to act. It is our contention that the research conducted for
competition is a major catalyst to propel their action, change their opinions, and to provide a greater depth of understanding of the
issues involved.
The level of research involved in debate creates an in-depth understanding of issues. The level of research conducted during a year
of debate is quite extensive. Goodman (1993) references a Chronicle of Higher Education article that estimated "the level and extent
of research required of the average college debater for each topic is equivalent to the amount of research required for a Master's
Thesis (cited in Mitchell, 1998, p. 55). With this extensive quantity of research, debaters attain a high level of investigation and
(presumably) understanding of a topic. As a result of this level of understanding, debaters become knowledgeable citizens who are
further empowered to make informed opinions and energized to take action.
Research helps to educate students (and coaches) about the state of the world. Without the guidance of a debate topic, how many
students would do in-depth research on female genital mutilation in Africa, or United Nations sanctions on Iraq? The competitive
nature of policy debate provides an impetus for students to research the topics that they are going to debate. This in turn fuels
students’ awareness of issues that go beyond their front doors. Advocacy flows from this increased awareness. Reading books and
6
CSUF
articles about the suffering of people thousands of miles away or right in our own communities drives people to become involved in
the community at large.
Research has also focused on how debate prepares us for life in the public sphere. Issues that we discuss in debate have found
their way onto the national policy stage, and training in intercollegiate debate makes us good public advocates. The public sphere is
the arena in which we all must participate to be active citizens. Even after we leave debate, the skills that we have gained should
help us to be better advocates and citizens. Research has looked at how debate impacts education (Matlon and Keele 1984), legal
training (Parkinson, Gisler and Pelias 1983, Nobles 19850 and behavioral traits (McGlone 1974, Colbert 1994). These works
illustrate the impact that public debate has on students as they prepare to enter the public sphere.
The debaters who take active roles such as protesting sanctions were probably not actively engaged in the issue until their research
drew them into the topic. Furthermore, the process of intense research for debate may actually change the positions debaters hold.
Since debaters typically enter into a topic with only cursory (if any) knowledge of the issue, the research process provides exposure
to issues that were previously unknown. Exposure to the literature on a topic can create, reinforce or alter an individual's opinions.
Before learning of the School for the America's, having an opinion of the place is impossible. After hearing about the systematic
training of torturers and oppressors in a debate round and reading the research, an opinion of the "school" was developed. In this
manner, exposure to debate research as the person finding the evidence, hearing it as the opponent in a debate round (or as judge)
acts as an initial spark of awareness on an issue. This process of discovery seems to have a similar impact to watching an
investigative news report.
Mitchell claimed that debate could be more than it was traditionally seen as, that it could be a catalyst to empower people to act in
the social arena. We surmise that there is a step in between the debate and the action. The intermediary step where people are
inspired to agency is based on the research that they do. If students are compelled to act, research is a main factor in compelling
them to do so. Even if students are not compelled to take direct action, research still changes opinions and attitudes.
7
CSUF
9) Fairness; all the literature is skewed their direction—no one says that the civil rights movement
was bad—or racism is good, affs interpretation forces the neg into indefensible ground
10) Intervention – encourages judicial intervention aesthetics are subjective; its all about the
judge’s reaction which is not debateable. Debates will be centered around theatrics rather then
coherent policy change. Hierarchies will continue to exist with those who can act or dance the
best. Their framework won’t have a coherent way to evaluate the debate or weigh the argument
interaction.
11) You must evaluate the ‘plan’ in a acuum test – can you advocate their ideas without topical
action? This proves the uniqueness to our education claims of hearing the same arguments every
year.
12) The government isn’t going to change because you win an affirmative. Proves your advocacy
is a sham. Your evidence is non-existent on this question, and all the debate rounds that have
been won and produced zero government change disprove the value of local advocacy, and the
value of playing a game with rules.
13) If they can change mindsets our counteradvocacy is to have rapers stop raping and war
mongers to stop causing war and human rights violators to stop violating rights.
14) Exclusion is inevitable and participation in democratic politics is key.
Chantal Mouffe, 1999 (in Gary Olson & Lynn Worsham, Race, Rhetoric, and the postcolonial) p. 171-2
“It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of consensus, but what needs to be put into question is the nature of consensus because I think
that every consensus is by nature exclusionary. There can never be a completely inclusive consensus. I would say that the very
condition of the possibility for consensus is at the same time the condition of the impossibility of consensus without exclusion. We
can find this same idea in Derrida, but Foucault is the one who made it very clear. It's important to realize that in order to have
consensus there must be something which is excluded. So the question is not to say that therefore we're not going to seek
consensus. That's where I would differ with Lyotard. I think we need in politics to establish consensus on the condition that we
recognize that consensus can never be "rational." What I'm against is the idea of "rational" consensus because when you posit that
idea, it means that you imagine a situation in which those exclusions, so to speak, disappear, in which we are unable to realize that
this consensus which you claim to be rational is linked with exclusion. And rhetoric is important here. But it must be understood that
this is the way in which we are going to try to reach some kind of reasonable agreement—"reasonable" meaning that in certain
circumstances this is how a political community, on the basis of a certain principle or something it values, is going to decide what is
acceptable; but this process can never coincide with "rational" consensus. It is always based on a form of exclusion.
So, to come back to Perelman, when we are going to try to establish this form of consensus—in fact, to define what the common
good is, because that's what is at stake in politics—we can't do without this dimension on the condition that we recognize that there
is no such thing as a universel auditoire or the common good and that it's always a question of hegemony. What is going to be
defined at the moment as the common good is always a certain definition that excludes other definitions. Nevertheless, this
movement to want a definition of the common good, to want a definition of a kind of consensus that I want to call "reasonable" in
order to differentiate it from "the rational," is necessary to democratic politics.
8
CSUF
15) Our Egos are not inflated enough to believe our opinions will reform the world—Our Opinions
have real effects On Ourselves. Advocacy Of Legal Change Is Vital To Personal Opinion Formation
And Individual Freedom To Question The Those Who Grip The Levers of Power
Carlson 1999 (David Gray, COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW. v99 November Lexis)
Schlag is very hard on law professors who give advice to judges. He mocks their work as mere "pretend-law," n313 mere journalism.
n314 "One need only pick up a judicial opinion, a state statute, a federal regulation, or a law review article to experience an
overwhelming sense of dread and ennui." n315 Meanwhile, judges are not even paying attention to legal scholarship n316 - which,
experience teaches, is disappointingly true.
Vicarious participation in litigation or legislation can nevertheless be defended as a participation in culture itself. Law professors can
contribute to that culture by making law more coherent, and in this sense their project is at least as worthy as any that philosophy,
history or astrophysics [*1951] could devise. Law has an objective structure that exceeds mere subjectivity. This objective structure
can be altered by hard work. An altered legal world, however, is not the point. Evidence of consequential impact is gratifying, but this
is simply what mere egotism requires. It is in the work itself that the value of legal scholarship can be found. Work is what reconciles
the failure of the unhappy consciousness to achieve justice. Work is, in Hegel's view,
desire held in check, fleetingness staved off... work forms and shapes the thing. The negative relation to the object becomes its
form and something permanent... This negative middle term or the formative activity is at the same time the individuality or pure
being-for-self of consciousness which now... acquires an element of permanence. n317
Hegel, then, gives a spiritual turn to that worthy slogan "publish or perish." By working the law, lawyers, judges, private citizens, and
even academics can make it more permanent, more resilient, more "existential," n318 but, more to the point, they make themselves
more resilient, more "existential." n319 Work on law can increase freedom - the positive freedom that relieves the worker of "anxiety"
- fear of disappearance into the Real. n320 When work is done, the legal universe swells and fills itself out - like an appetite that
"grows by what it feeds on." n321 But far more important, the self gains a place in the world by the very work done. Work is the
means of "subjective destitution" or "narcissistic loss" n322 - the complete externalization of the subject and the surrender of the
fantasy support upon which the subject otherwise depends. In Lacanian terms, "subjective destitution" is the wages of cure at the
end of analysis. n323 Or, in Hegelian terms, cure is "the ascesis that is necessary if consciousness is to reach genuine philosophic
knowledge." n324 In this state, we precisely lose the suspicion that law (i.e., the big Other) does not exist. n325 In Hegel's
inspirational words:
Each individual consciousness raises itself out of its allotted sphere, no longer finds its essence and its work in this particular
sphere, but grasps itself as the Notion of will, grasps all spheres as [*1952] the essence of this will, and therefore can only realize
itself in a work which is a work of the whole. n326
I make no special claim that legal academic work is worthy of extra-special respect. It is a craft, like any other. As such, it is at least
worthy of its share of respect. If spirit unfolds and manifests itself in the phenomenal world of culture, n327 why should it not also
manifest itself in the law reviews?
9
CSUF
16) OUR INTERPRETATION STIMULATES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RESEARCH OPENING OUR

MINDS TO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES SPURRING REAL CHANGE.
JOYNER, Professor of International Law at Georgetown, 1999

[Christopher C., “Teaching International Law,” 5 ILSA J Int’l & Comp L, L/N//ADI]
For many international law courses taught from a political science perspective, the most sustained and most
rewarding learning experience can come from a collaborative process. Teaching international law is not supposed to
be a platform for the professor to pontificate or proselytize. Rather, it furnishes an opportunity for a community of
persons to learn together, in effect, to use the classroom experience for shaping and testing new ideas after being
exposed or basic philosophical concepts and general principles of international law.
For collaborative learning experiences to be especially meaningful for political science students, it is essential that
they reflect exposure to various legal problems, hopefully set out in authentic setting with real world analogies. This
means that hypothetical cases, if used as learning devices, should be constructed in such a manner that mirrors as
truly as practicable real world events and real world circumstances. International law must function in a real world
political environment, and simulation exercises should reflect that fact.
One successful collaborative learning experience is to assign a series of topics for team debates before the
classroom. This compels students on each debate side to conduct legal research on the merits of a particular issue,
formulate proposed rationales for its lawfulness, follow the debate, and take questions from class members on the
legal implications and merits of their respective positions. It combines individual responsibility with the necessity of
collaborative intra-group learning.
Confronting international law in practice is critical to achievement of the course objectives, and this is effectively done
through a series of debates in a course that I teach on International law and United States Foreign Policy. Students
try to WIN the games by garnering support from the rest of the class based on the merits and suasion of their legal
arguments, although past experience indicates that clear winners are not often produced. The degree of success this
exercise enjoys depends on two key factors: first, the willingness of students to assume their adopted roles with
energy and, second, the extent to which student participants in the debates can learn and relate how, where, and why
international law is [*385] integrated into the United States foreign policy decision-making process and can
demonstrate the tensions between national security considerations and international legal constraints in formulating
United States foreign policy. Taken in tandem, these two ingredients can produce a successful and unique learning
experience that fosters a deeper understanding of the subject matter than would likely be attained through a lecture-
format course.
10
CSUF
17) Our advocacy of specific reforms that cannot be Directly Implemented In This Debate Is
Uniquely valuable. This Kind of Utopitan Thinking Is a Vital Educational and Political Strategy
Streeten, no date (Paul, http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/ocational_papers/oc4b.htm)
A different criticism is that, though desirable, these proposed institutions are not feasible; they are utterly unrealistic and utopian.
There are five replies to such a criticism, in defence of utopian proposals. First, utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for
thinking, in the same way that physicists assume for some purposes a vacuum. The assumption plainly would not be useful for the
design of parachutes, but can serve well other purposes. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow's problems, utopianism is not helpful.
But for strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which can get lost in approaches that
are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the best of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary
constraint and all vision is lost. Third, excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In negotiations, it
strengthens the hand of those opposed to reform. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of circumstances changes
quite suddenly and dramatically, and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable to even radical
innovation. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday may have appeared utterly utopian,
reforms will lose out by default. Nobody would have expected only a few years ago the dramatic changes in Central and East
Europe, the Soviet Union, China and South Africa. Although the subsequent fate of the Special Drawing Rights was disappointing,
when they were established the creation and acceptability of an international liquid asset came as a surprise to many. Fifth, the
utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailing the self-interested pressures of the obstructionist
groups. Ideas thought to be utopian have become realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them, and
those in power have to yield to their demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these five reasons that
utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals, unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political
constraints, in the same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration, from thinking the unthinkable.
18) POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—EVEN IF THIS DOESN’T OCCUR, ROLE
PLAYING HELPS US CHECK BACK THE VIOLENCE OF THE STATE
Rawls, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, 1999

[John, The Law of Peoples, pg 54]
Similarly, the ideal of the public reason of free and equal peoples is realized, or satisfied, whenever chief
executives and legislators, and other government officials, as well as candidates for public office, act from
and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other peoples their reason for pursuing or
revising a people's foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other societies. As for private citizens,
we say, as before, that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were executives and
legislators and ask themselves what foreign policy supported by what considerations they would think it
most reasonable to advance, Once again, when firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view
themselves as ideal executives and legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for
public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples, is part of the political and social basis
of peace and understanding among peoples.
11
CSUF
19) Community based norms of ground and fairness are key to clash and productive interchange
of arguments
Ehniger 1970 (Douglas, SPECH MONOGRAPHS, "Argument as Method:Its Nature, Its Limitations and Its
Uses, p. 108)
12
CSUF
20) Deliberative Democracy Prevents Exploitation
Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p. 138-140)
1.3. Democracy has a long history, from its beginning in classical Greece down to the present day, and there are many different
ideas of democracy.2° Here I am concerned only with a well-ordered constitutional democracy-a term I used at the outset-
understood also as a deliberative democracy. The definitive idea for deliberative democracy is the idea of deliberation itself. When
citizens deliberate, they exchange views and debate their supporting reasons concerning public political questions. They suppose
that their political opinions may be revised by discussion with other citizens; and therefore these opinions are not simply a fixed
outcome of their existing private or nonpolitical interests. It is at this point that public reason is crucial, for it characterizes such
citizens' reasoning concerning constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice. While I cannot fully discuss the nature of
deliberative democracy here, I note a few key points to indicate the wider place and role of public reason. There are three essential
elements of deliberative democracy. One is an idea of public reason,21 although not all such ideas are the same. A second is a
framework of constitutional democratic institutions that specifies the setting for deliberative legislative bodies. The third is the
knowledge and desire on the part of citizens generally to follow public reason and to realize its ideal in their political conduct.
Immediate implications of these essentials are the public financing of elections, and the providing for public occasions of orderly and
serious discussion of fundamental questions and issues of public polity. Public deliberation must be made possible, recognized
as a basic feature of democracy, and set free from the curse of money.22 Otherwise politics is dominated by corporate and other
organized interests who through large contributions to campaigns distort if not preclude public discussion and deliberation.
Deliberative democracy also recognizes that without widespread education in the basic aspects of constitutional democratic
government for all citizens, and without a public informed about pressing problems, crucial political and social decisions simply
cannot be made. Even should farsighted political leaders wish to make sound changes and re forms, they cannot convince a
misinformed and cynical public to accept and follow them. For example, there are sensible proposals for what should be done
regarding the alleged coming crisis in Social Security: slow down the growth of benefits levels, gradually raise the retirerneoL age,
impose limits on expensive terminal medical care that prolongs life for only a few weeks or days, and finally, raise taxes now, rather
than face large increases later.23 But as things are, those who follow the "great game of politics" know that none of these sensible
proposals will be accepted. The same story can be told about the importance of support for international institutions (such as the
United Nations), foreign aid properly spent, and concern for human rights at home and abroad. In constant pursuit of money to
finance campaigns, the political system is simply unable to function. Its deliberative powers are paralyzed.
21) Deliberative Democracy Solves The Problesm of Contemporary Democracy
Bird 2000 (Colin, Democracy and Its Nightmares Spring

http://religionanddemocracy.lib.virginia.edu/h/spring00/BirDemoVol2.html;
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-hh?id=BirDemo2-
1.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all)
Gutmann and Thompson don’t deny the importance of these sorts of constraints, but rather want to embed them within a braoder
and in their view more basic set of democratic contstraints (40). They formulate these broader constraints as a set of rules of moral
argument tio guide citizens’ (not just judges’ or academics’ [4-5, 45]) deliberations about public policy. On their model, principles of
“reciprocity,” “publicity,” and “accountability” structure the deliberations themselves, and determine what counts as an appropriate
resolution, while the values of “basic liberty,” “basic opportunity,” and “fair opportunity” form the subject matter of the deliberation
(348). According to Gutmann and Thompson, by observing these principles citizens can make up a “deliberative deficit” whose
contemporary symptoms include “communicating by soundbite, competing by character assassination, and resolving political
conflicts through self-seeking bargaining” (12).
A critic of democracy might reasonably regard these as chronic and perhaps decisive failings of representative democracy.
However, Gutmann and Thompson aren’t ready to give up on democracy, and they suggest that deliberative democracy will yield
public decisions that are “more morally legitimate, public-spirited, mutually respectful, and self-correcting.” As they concede, this “is
more than democracy in America now offers most of its citizens most of the time” (51). The clear implication is that contemporary
“soundbite” democracy typically produces morally questionable outcomes, undermines mutual respect and fellow-feeling among
citizens, and fails adequately to correct its own mistakes. It is here that Democracy and Disagreement offers a response, albeit
tentative, to a familiar contemporary variant of the democratic nightmare. Gutmann and Thompson want to convince us that their
deliberative principles can inject (a currently often absent) moral coherence and rationality into the democratic process. By
encouraging a sense of “collective moral purpose” (62), deliberative democracy can express “as complete a conception of the
common good as is possible within a morally pluralistic society” (93).
13
CSUF
22) Interpersonal understanding gained through role playing the government is necessary for
legitimate decision making
Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p.136-137)
1.2. I now turn to a discussion of what I have labeled the third, fourth, and fifth aspects of public reason. The idea of public reason
arises from a conception of democratic citizenship in a constitutional democracy. This fundamental political relation of citizenship
has two special features: first, it is a relation of citizens within the basic structure of society a structure we enter only by birth and exit
only by death;18 and second, it is a relation of free and equal citizens who exercise ultimate political power as a collective body.
These two features immediately give rise to the question of how, when constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice are at
stake, citizens so related can be bound to honor the structure of their constitutional democratic regime and abide by the statutes and
laws enacted under it. The fact of reasonable pluralism raises this question all the more sharply, since it means that the differences
between citizens arising from their comprehensive doctrines, religious and nonreligious, may be irreconcilable. By what ideals and
principles, then, are citizens who share equally in ultimate political power to exercise that power so that each can reasonably justify
his or her political decisions to everyone? To answer this question we say: Citizens are reasonable when, view- ing one another as
free and equal in a system of social cooperation over generations, they are prepared to offer one another fir terms of cooperation
according to what they consider the most reasonable conception of political justice; and when they agree to act on those terms,
even at the cost of their own interests in particular situations, provided that other citizens also accept those terms. The criterion of
reciprocity requires that when those terms are proposed as the most reasonable terms of fair cooperation, those proposing them
must also think it at least reasonable for others to accept them, as free and equal citizens, and not as dominated or manipulated, or
under the pressure of an in- ferior political or social position.'9 Citizens will of course differ as to which conceptions of political justice
they think the most reasonable, but they will agree that all are reasonable, even if barely so. Thus when, on a constitutional
essential or matter of basic justice, all appropriate government officials act from and follow public reason, and when all reasonable
citizens think of themselves ideally as if they were legislators following public reason, the legal enactment expressing the opinion of
the majority is legitimate law. It may not be thought the most reasonable, or the most appropriate, by each, but it is politically
(morally) binding on him or her as a citizen and is to be accepted as such. Each thinks that all have spoken and voted at least
reasonably, and therefore all have followed public reason and honored their duty of civility Hence the idea of political legitimacy
based on the criterion of reciprocity says: Our exercise of political power is proper only when we sincerely believe that the reasons
we would offer for our political actions- were we to state them as government officials-are sufficient, and we also reasonably think
that other citizens might also reasonably accept those reasons. This criterion applies on two levels: one is to the constitutional
structure itself, the other is to particular statutes and laws enacted in accordance with that structure. To be reasonable, political
conceptions must justify only constitutions that satisfy this principle.
14
CSUF
23) Positioning ourselves as the government is key to interpersonal understanding and
democracy
Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p.56-7)

How is the ideal of public reason realized by citizens who are not government officials? In a representative government, citizens
vote for representatives-chief executives, legislators, and the like-not for particular laws (except at a state or local level where they
may vote directly on referenda questions, which are not usually fundamental questions). To answer this question, we say that,
ideally, citizens are to think of themselves as they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons
satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think it most reasonable to enact.7' When firm and widespread, the disposition of
citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate
public reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus
in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold
government officials to it. This duty, like other political rights and du- ties, is an intrinsically moral duty. I emphasize that it is not a
legal duty, for in that case it would be incompatible with freedom of speech. Similarly, the ideal of the public reason of free and
equal peoples is realized, or satisfied, whenever thief executives and legislators, and other government officials, as well as
candidates for public office, act from and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other peoples their reasons for
pursuing or revising a people's foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other societies. As for private citizens, we say, as
before, that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were executives and legislators and ask themselves what foreign
policy supported by what considerations they would think it most reasonable to advance. Once again, when firm and widespread,
the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and legislators, and to repudiate government officials and
candidates for public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples, is part of the political and social basis of peace
and understanding among peoples.
63. Content of the Law of Peoples. Recall that, in the domestic case,72 the content of public reason is given by the family of liberal
principles of justice for a constitutional democratic regime, and not by a single one. There are many liberalisms and therefore many
forms of public reason specified by the family of reasonable political conceptions. Our task in developing the public reason of the
Society of Peoples was to specify its content-its ideals, principles, and standards-and how they apply to the political relations among
peoples. And this we did in the first argument in the original position at the second level when I considered the merits of the eight
principles of the Law of Peoples listed in §4. These familiar and largely traditional principles I took from the history and usages of
international law and practice. As I said in §4, the parties are not given a menu of alternative principles and ideals from which to
select, as they were in Political Liberalism, and in A Theory of Justice. Rather, the representatives of liberal constitutional
democracies reflect on the advantages of the principles of equality among peoples. The principles must also satisfy the criterion of
reciprocity, since this criterion holds at both levels-both between citizens as citizens and between peoples as peoples. In the latter
case it requires that, in proposing a principle to regulate the mutual relations between peoples, a people or their representatives
must think not only that it is reasonable for them to propose it, but also that it is reasonable for other peoples to accept it.
24) USFG dosn't mean traditional debate is complicit with genocide
Bostick 2004 (Matthia, debater, "RE: Music", on edebate, apr 19,

http://ndtceda.com/archives/200404/0587.html)
Let me see if I understand this argument correctly. Think tanks promote genocidal imperialism, debaters work at think tanks, thus,
traditional debaters are genocidal? Sorry, that is not a logically consistent argument. That is a reason why think tanks are bad, not
why debaters are bad or why traditional debate practices in any way shape the policies of think tanks. Corporations utilize bad sweat
shops and poor environmental practices, SOME debaters will go on to work for corporations, thus TRADITIONAL debate is
responsible for all bad working conditions and poor environmental standards in the world. Debaters also smoke, smoking is bad for
you, thus, TRADITIONAL debaters are the root cause of cancer. And seriously, apologize to John. While you're at it, you really
ought to apologize to Jake as well. Calling him a date rapist in so many words? What the fuck? Is that your argumentative strategy?
'If losing argument, resort to petty, untrue personal attacks to distract.' Fucking agree to disagree about debate style....or continue to
go at it about such....but leave the personal attacks at home. Perhaps I don't speak for everyone, but the 'support my style of
debate or I will insult you publicly' argument isn't a particularly persuasive reason to make me want to embrace alternative forms of
debate. Jonah Feldman is my personal hero. Lay off my fucking coaches..... msb
15
CSUF
25) Fiat Good Learning and Empowerment
Innes and Booher 1999 (Judith E. JOURNAl OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, WInter,
ProQuest)
Our observation and practice of consensus building suggests that the analogy to role-playing games will help to illuminate the
dynamic of effective consensus processes. Even when the dispute seems intractable, role playing in consensus building allows
players to let go of actual or assumed constraints and to develop ideas for creating new conditions and possibilities. Drama and
suspension of reality allows competing, even bitterly opposed interests to collaborate, and engages individual players emotionally
over many months. Scenario building and storytelling can make collective sense of complexity, of predicting possibilities in an
uncertain world, and can allow the playful imagination, which people normally suppress, to go to work.[sup9] In the course of
engaging in various roles, participants develop identities for themselves and others and become more effective participants,
representing their stakeholders' interests more clearly,[sup10]
In many of their most productive moments, participants in consensus building engage not only in playing out scenarios, but also in a
kind of collective, speculative tinkering, or bricolage, similar in principle to what game participants do. That is, they play with
heterogeneous concepts, strategies, and actions with which various individuals in the group have experience, and try combining
them until they create a new scenario that they collectively believe will work. This bricolage, discussed further below, is a type of
reasoning and collective creativity fundamentally different from the more familiar types, argumentation and tradeoffs.[sup11] The
latter modes of problem solving or dispute resolution typically allow zero sum allocation of resources among participants or finding
the actions acceptable to everyone. Bricolage, however, produces, rather than a solution to a known problem, a new way of framing
the situation and of developing unanticipated combinations of actions that are qualitatively different from the options on the table at
the outset.[sup12] The result of this collective tinkering with new scenarios is, most importantly, learning and change among the
players, and growth in their sophistication about each other, about the issues, and about the futures they could seek. Both
consensus building and roleplaying games center on learning, innovation, and change, in a process that is entertaining and-when
conducted effectively-in some fundamental sense empowers individuals.[sup13]
26) The Plan Focus of Traditional Debate Is Ky To Clash and Education In Debates
Parcher 2001 (Jeff Feb. 26 edebate; http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0794.html)
This is absolutely devastating to the performance arguments. And even if we could hodge-podge together some inevtiably subjective
criteria in each individual debate, they simply could never match the benefits of debate provided by a clear plan/resolution focus.
Performance debates would be incredibly repetitive in that they would always be 90% about methodolgy rather than the substance
of performances. Because the limits to possible performances are so large - both sides would always have an incentive to focus on
methodology rather than substance. The affirmative will be on an endless search to coopt the negative performance (in the words of
the Fort, "We are in solidarity with these words"). The negative on an endless search to exclude the affirmative performance through
topicality or general kritiks. Rarely do I think we would ever have debates which engaged the two performances. The current
puryeyors of this type of debate have certainly relied much more on competitiveness arguments than on actual substantive
engagement (as far as I've seen anyway). >
27) Intellectuals must theorize about problems to elucidate Solutions
Said (Edward, THE NATION< September 17/24 p. 34)
So in effect this enables intellectual performances on many fronts, in many places, many styles, that keep in play both the sense of
opposition and the sense of engaged participation. Hence, film, photography and even music, along with all the arts of writing, can
be aspects of this activity. Part of what we do as intellectuals is not only to define the situation but also to discern the possibilities for
active intervention, whether we then perform them ourselves or acknowledge them in others who have either gone before or are
already at work, the intellectual as lookout. Provincialism of the old kind--e.g., I am a literary specialist whose field is early-
seventeenth-century England--rules itself out and, quite frankly, seems uninteresting and needlessly neutered. The assumption has
to be that even though one can't do or know everything, it must always be possible to discern the elements of a struggle or tension
or problem near at hand that can be elucidated dialectically, and also to sense that other people have a similar stake and work in a
common project.
16
CSUF
28) Role playing debates create active learning environments giving relevance to complex
arguments increasing the learning curve
Sutcliffe 2002 (Mark. "Simulations, Games and Role-Play” Univesity of the West of England, The
Handbook for Economics Lectures,
http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/games_v5.pdf)
The use of games and simulations in economics is well established, with a well-developed body of literature to support their use in
the teaching environment (see the section 8 for a list of key sources). Role-play, as an educational approach, is often referred to in
the same context as games and simulations. However, the use of role-plays in teaching has received far less attention. Collectively,
simulations, games and role-play (SGRP) provide students with some form of imaginary or real world within which to act out a given
situation. Beyond this, however, each is quite distinct. The aim of a simulation is to deepen students’ conceptual understanding by
working within, and reflecting upon, a representation of a real environment. For example, simulations of the macroeconomy may be
used to train economists by requiring them to devise economic strategies to achieve policy objectives. The dynamic of a simulation
may be competitive, whereby students are encouraged either to outperform other students or to achieve a high rating according to
criteria set by the simulation. In these cases the simulation is also a game. However, students might also be encouraged to explore
a simulation, to investigate its behaviour and discover its assumptions. For example, they might be asked to set their own criteria for
‘successful performance’ within a simulation and then to investigate how best to achieve that performance. In most cases, it is the
way in which a simulation is used that determines whether or not it is effectively a game. This choice has important implications for
the way in which a simulation may contribute to learning.
Games may be distinguished from other forms of simulation by the rules that dictate what it means to ‘win’ the game and the
sense of competition they engender. Games tend to have winners and losers. For example, a typical form of business game
requires students to compete with others in buying and selling shares on the stock market. Such games operate with clear rules for
the process and timing of share trading, and they encourage students to compete on the basis of achieving the highest level of profit
through their trading. Simulations become role-plays when the student is expected to act as they imagine appropriate to a given
role. For example, they might be asked to act as a stockbroker in a share-dealing simulation or as the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in managing the economy. The opportunity for the student to act out the role is bounded by the rules of the simulation and the
degree to which the simulation is constructed as a game. As games usually require tight rules, role-plays are likely to give more
scope for the student to exercise their own interpretation of the role when the simulation is not constructed as a game.
This chapter explores the world of SGRP. Sections 2 and 3 examine basic principles in using SGRP in teaching. Following a
review of the major strengths and weaknesses of using SGRP in teaching and learning in section 2, section 3 examines the
rationale for using SGRP at different points in a programme of teaching. Much of the chapter is taken up with three case studies of
practice presented in section 4. These case studies have been chosen because they are easily available and can be adapted for
different circumstances. Section 5 reviews some of the key issues to be considered in designing SGRP and section 6 examines the
growing impact of new technology on using SGRP in higher education. The chapter ends with brief conclusions and suggestions for
further reading. In this section we will review the main arguments both for and against the use of SGRP as a teaching and learning
strategy. Although, in many respects, simulations, games and role-play offer distinct strengths and weaknesses, in a majority of
cases arguments both for and against their use are the same. This section will therefore evaluate SGRP in general terms, making
specific reference to a particular approach only where necessary.
Supporters of the use of SGRP as a teaching strategy are frequently found to argue that its greatest virtue is that students are
encouraged to reflect on their knowledge and draw together the various dimensions of their course of study (Alden, 1999;
Oberhofer, 1999). It is, however, also recognised (Alden, 1999) that there is always a threat of simplification, where students fail to
draw upon or make optimum use of the knowledge they have been taught. The issue for the tutor is whether sufficient safeguards
can be initiated to minimise such simplification, such as the construction of clear guidance notes (see below). In addition, SGRP
often require the tutor to relinquish some control over the process and outcomes of learning. Are students reflecting upon their
knowledge in the most effective way? Francis and Byrne (1999) suggest that this drawback in using SGRP might in fact be turned
into an advantage. They argue that one of the greatest benefits they found when using SGRP in their teaching programme was that
it helped reveal ‘sticking points in student understanding’ (p. 209), in the light of which they were able to rectify the design of their
course. As well as encouraging students to reflect upon their theoretical understanding of economic concepts and arguments, SGRP
is an excellent approach by which to develop in students a greater appreciation of role and responsibility. As a teaching method,
SGRP can encourage students to empathise with the position and feelings of others and to look beyond their immediate
assumptions and expectations. As Freeman and Capper (1998) remark following an evaluation of their Web-based simulation role-
play, students ‘achieved a deeper understanding of their own views and those of others’ (p. 12). When evaluating issues of role and
responsibility, it is important for the tutor to recognise that roles might also be distorted and stereotyped, and might in certain cases
fail to reflect an accurate perception of those whom it might claim to represent. In such cases, careful debriefing is essential.
Many studies (Francis and Byrne, 1999; Oberhofer, 1999) have claimed that SGRP, especially when group based, have contributed
to a positive change in classroom dynamics. It has been suggested (Francis and Byrne, 1999) that they help break down barriers
and stimulates a greater level of long-term interactivity between students. Problems, however, might arise if students fail to take the
SGRP seriously, seeing it merely as a break from ‘real’ teaching. Oberhofer (1999) remarks upon this issue when devising a history
of economic thought class based totally upon role-play. He notes that when devising the course he had to consider not only whether
those studying the course would have the ability to make the role-play work, but also whether they would be willing to take on the
responsibility such a course would demand and fully ‘engage in the enterprise’ (p. 113). Supporters of SGRP (Neral and Ray, 1995;
Lowry, 1999) claim that such an approach to teaching and learning can give life and relevance to academically descriptive material.
Remote theoretical concepts can be given life by placing them in a situation with which students are familiar. For example,
understanding the workings of the market might be far more effectively relayed to students through a simple game rather than a
theoretical discussion of the principles of demand and supply.
Neral and Ray (1995), in discussing the merits of teaching costs and production via a game, remark that ‘many of the students in
our introductory courses have difficulty in dealing with the high level of abstraction that permeates economic theory, [and] it can be
17
CSUF
extremely helpful to provide these students with concrete examples of the phenomena that the theories attempt to describe’ (p.
170). They dismiss simply giving real-world examples as illustration, claiming that students have different experiences and many will
be unable to relate to the examples given. However, the use of classroom games, they claim, ‘ensures that all students have at least
some level of common experience upon which to base their understanding of the relevant theory, [and second] it actively involves
the student in the learning process’ (p. 170). As well as knowledge and roles, SGRP can contribute positively to the development of
key transferable skills, particularly in terms of communication and social skills. Depending upon the organisation of the activity, it
may be possible to develop skills in recognising and presenting arguments, presenting to an audience and working collaboratively in
a group. The literature on SGRP (Francis and Byrne, 1999; Alden, 1999; Gremmen and Potters, 1997) suggests that the typical use
of SGRP involves group work, and as such draws upon its relative strengths and weaknesses. Most SGRP, such as those
highlighted in the case studies in section 4, require students to solve problems through analysis, synthesis and evaluation: all high
level skills.
29) Role Playing is Key To Active Engagement in Political Discourse
Joyner 1999 (Christopher. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Spring)
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing
simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike
other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead
of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates
present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience
serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and
enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team.
These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy
actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national
interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant
principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States
should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to
military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United
States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In
addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law,
especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States.
This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well
as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are
largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate.
[*386]
By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not
always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of
perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted
in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the
benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their
subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to,
and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case.
The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a
cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way,
they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of
their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps
between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter.
Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign
policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. n8 The debate thus becomes an
excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique,
and legal defense.
18
CSUF
30) Role playing in debate allows for a more engaging education.
MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY ON WORLDS.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 1/1/2000, eLibrary]
The basic concept of the role-play technique is easy to grasp. "The idea of roleplay," as Van Ments explains, is asking someone to
assume the dramatic posture of "another person in a particular situation. They are then asked to behave exactly as they feel that
person would. As a result of doing this, they, or the rest of the class, or both, will learn something about the person and/or situation"
(1983, p. 16). In their book, Simulation in the Classroom, Taylor and Walford explain that "[r]ole-play relies on the spontaneous
performance of participants, when they have been placed in a hypothetical situation" (p. 19). In their formulation, Taylor and Walford
isolate three key aspects of the role-play process: 1) Players take on roles which are representative of the real world, and then make
decisions in response to their assessment of the setting in which they find themselves; 2) They experience simulated consequences
which relate to their decisions and their general performance; 3) They 'monitor' the results of their actions, and are brought to reflect
upon the relationship between their own decisions and the resultant consequences (1972, p. 17).
31) Role playing is a key pedagogical tool.
MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

ON WORLDS. Argumentation and Advocacy, 1/1/2000, eLibrary]
Simulated public argument represents a form of academic debate that promises to redeem more fully debate's potential as a
method of "dialogic" learning. In the next section, I explore the basis for such optimism by sketching the historical roots and logistical
dynamics of role-play as a classroom exercise. Since ancient times, schools have served as sites of dramatic performance in
society. The idea of the "school play" is rooted in a venerable theatrical tradition that treats drama as an independent field of
academic study, marked off from the "mainstream" curriculum. Only in this century, however, have teachers begun to recognize the
value of dramatic role-play simulation as a generic pedagogical tool for teaching a wide variety of subjects, ranging from psychology
to political science. The origin of this transition from drama as public performance to role-play as a general teaching tool can he
traced to the 1930s, when "a growing interest in small-group behavior by psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists led to the use
of role-play as a vehicle for extending research into human behavior in varied learning environments" (Taylor and Walford 1972, p.
19). According to McCaughan and Scott (1978, p. 22), this pedagogical technique was "first written about seriously" by Jacob
Moreno, who suggested in a 1953 book, Who Shall Survive, that role-play exercises might have broad applicability in schools.
During the 1960s, role-play teaching entered its "most prolific stage of development in the USA and UK" (McCaughan and Scott, p.
101), growing in popularity as interest in simulation gaming surged in schools and universities. Today, one can find a wide variety of
role-play exercises designed by organizations and individual teachers to teach subjects as diverse as Bushmen hunting in the
Kalahari Desert, inner-city community organizing, pollution control, and the legislative process (see Taylor and Walford, pp. 147--
172).
32) Role playing allows for students to empower their selves as situated actors.

Moore provides additional detail in his description of role-play as a pedagogical approach. Emphasizing pre-performance
brainstorming as an essential feature of the process, Moore suggests that initially, students "[f]reewrite a practice paragraph about
the topic from the point of view of the character. Try to assume his or her voice. Imagine the character being asked to speak about
the subject and write what he or she would say" (1995, p. 194). After this initial brainstorming process, a secondary discussion takes
place, where students meet in groups to "review others' papers, look for stereotypes and misconceptions ... [and] [g]ive suggestions
to the role-player on how to improve the character's argument" (Moore, p. 194). After scenes are developed and character sketches
completed, role-play participants move from the realm of invention to performance, where students engage in simulated dialogues
with each other, working to fashion statements that fit their character sketches and draw creatively from assigned readings and
background knowledge. Throughout such exchanges, students present themselves and fashion arguments not from the perspective
of their own self-identities, but rather from the perspective of hypothetical identities constructed to fit their interpretations of a
dramatic role. Traditional debate contests encourage a similar kind of perspective-taking, with students assuming the roles of
affirmative and negative advocates speaking for and against particular propositions. However, opportunities for identity
experimentation are limited in this context by the expectation that debate adversaries present arguments in the voice of omniscient
commentators, delivering overarching assessments of issues that "clash" directly with positions staked out by opponents. On the
other hand, role-play exercises encourage students to speak not as transcendent, pro/con commentators, but as situated actors in
everyday circumstances, able to assume a variety of flexible rhetorical postures, and freed from the agonistic impera-tives of
competitive debate formats.
19
CSUF
33) Role playing allows for an ethic of listening.

The dynamic communicative interplay generated through role-play exercises carries with it a number of significant
pedagogical benefits. Most basically, by foregrounding students' oral performances as the key sources of knowledge,
"[a]n appropriately timed role-playing exercise can stimulate involvement and enhance the learning environment" (van
der Meulen Rodgers 1996, p. 217). For those who witness a classroom role-play exercise for the first time, one of the
most striking features of the activity is the radical heterogeneity of argumentation generated through the performance.
When role-play scenarios are designed to dramatize the way in which actors from a multitude of different worldviews
and voices participate in public arguments, spaces are opened for students to experiment with forms of logic, styles
of presentation, and modes of thinking that are often excluded from "mainstream" treatments of political issues. For
example, public arguments about corporate partnership agreements between public schools and big businesses
frequently unfold in austere forums like boardrooms and legislative chambers, where the resulting deliberations are
invisible to most citizens. However, consider the role-play simulation placing a high-ranking Reebok executive at a
public meeting to answer questions and counter arguments from ordinary parents and students regarding a proposed
corporate partnership agreement. This arrangement recasts the public argument over corporate involvement in public
education in new light, by bringing previously excluded voices into the discussion. This maneuver jibes with
Goodnight's call for argumentation pedagogy "to repopulate its social imagination by making less dominant abstract
decision makers or remote audiences, and foregrounding friends, teachers, parents, truant officers--the significant
and marginal 'others' framed in argumentative engagements routinely encountered by students" (Goodnight 1991, P.
7; see also Fuller 1998). Because role-play participants must fashion their unfolding scripts in relation to the
sequence of shared dialogue on which layers of meaning are constructed by students, the role-play process steers
performers toward an increased awareness of the feelings of others (see McKeachie 1990). When the communicative
space of the classroom is transformed in such a positive way, the potential is also created for students to learn in
multiple intellectual and affective registers. With role-playing, "the learning involves more of the self--it demands a
creative output calling on both the intellectual and affective areas of the learner" (McCaughan and Scott, p. 9). For
example, if a student interprets a certain role by generating a character identity predisposed toward emotional
appeals instead of so-called "rational statements," the classroom space is open for him or her to express this type of
persuasive reasoning. There seems an inherent value in providing students with opportunities that teach them how to
transpose the vernaculars of private pain or personal experience into language intended to persuade broader publics.
Olson and Goodnight argue that such opportunities clear the way for democratic moments of "social controversy" to
spring from deliberative milieux. A social controversy is an extended rhetorical engagement that critiques, resituates,
and develops communication practices bridging the public and personal spheres. The loci of such controversy include
participation in governance, distribution and use of economic resources and opportunities, assumption of personal
and collective identities and risks, redress of common grievances, assignments of rights and obligations, and the
processes of social justice (Goodnight 1991). Social controversy occupies the pluralistic boundaries of a democracy
and flourishes at those sites of struggle where arguers criticize and invent alternatives to established social
conventions and sanctioned norms of communication (Olson and Goodnight 1994, p.249). Consider the Purple Cross
role-play scenario, where a student playing a patient suffering chronic back pain appealed to insurance executives
with the argument "My back hurts! Can't you do something about it?" Such an appeal called into question the validity
of cold, bureaucratic responses such as "I'm sorry, it's against procedure for us to help you." As a "discursive
oppositional argument in social controversy," the suffering patient's emotional appeal not only clashed with the
insurance executive's denial of coverage; it also directly challenged "the implied norms of participation signaled by
the communication" (Olson and Goodnight, p. 251). This sort of argument has the potential to validate expressions of
self-identity in public spheres and help students explore the limits of such assertions as reasonable arguments
advanced in public dialogue.
20
CSUF
34) Role playing offers unique educational opportunity.

Role-play performance thus works as a springboard to appreciation and critique of prevailing communication norms
that lock in expert authority in public debate. When role-play exercises highlight contrasts between participatory
classroom spaces and the frequently closed and restrictive public spaces beyond the schoolyard walls, room is
created for students to question the appropriateness of the formal rules and informal presumptions governing public
discourse. Students can use the apparent cleavage between simulated and actual public spheres to leverage salient
critiques of contemporary practices in public argument, such as the manner in which power and money are used to
exclude persons with important viewpoints from discussion. In this way, visions of possible public spheres enacted
through classroom performance can serve as benchmarks for re-visions of prevailing communication norms in wider
public spheres outside the academy. The "kinetic" knowledge (Kincheloe 1993, p. 83) generated by active student
involvement in meaning-making is differentiated from the reductive and detached knowledge transmitted to students
through top-down didactic exercises. One difference that separates these two kinds of knowledge is mnemonic value.
"The role play simulation shows promise as an active learning technique which fosters student interest, helps
students apply material to real world situations, and may be remembered by students well after the course ends"
(deNeve and Heppner, p. 244). For example, a follow-up evaluation of students eight months after the conclusion of
an industrial psychology course that featured role-playing as a pedagogical technique "showed a tendency for
students to remember more information from the role play simulations than from the lectures" (deNeve and Heppner,
p. 243). One explanation for these findings is that the excitement and drama of role-play scenarios can serve as
significant motivators for students to conduct research. The anticipation of public performance and the desire to act
well for one's peers are strong incentives prompting students to conduct research in order to generate a believable
and colorful character interpretation, as well as orient themselves vis-a-vis other roles featured in role-play
simulations. For example, to prepare for role-play deliberations in the U.N. General Assembly over a proposed
resolution condemning U.S. missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, students playing the roles of Afghanistani,
Pakistani, and Sudanese ambassadors carefully researched primary news sources from those countries in order to
generate realistic character interpretations. These research efforts produced novel findings that disputed mainstream
U.S. news accounts alleging, for example, that the targets of the American missile attacks were unambiguous sites of
terrorist activity. Further, since these findings were introduced through the praxis of student dialogue, the process of
research and oral presentation was intrinsically empowering, representing a reversal of the debilitating pedagogical
dynamics of the "banking concept of education" described by Freire (1970, p.53).
21
CSUF
35) Role playing is politically empowering and educational
MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, “SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

ON WORLDS”, Argumentation and Advocacy, 1/1/2000, eLibrary]
The positive energy generated by roleplay activities can be inspiring, but importantly, such simulations will
not automatically deliver meaningful learning experiences if the approach is reduced to a formulaic
technique. Desultory role-play exercises conducted in an offhand spirit have the potential to deteriorate
into comical rows that duplicate many of the drawbacks of more traditional adversarial debate formats.
Even more damaging, uncritical role-play simulations can mirror and reify oppressive power relationships
that currently constrain deliberation in many public spheres. Indeed, many pedagogical challenges inhere
in the project of developing role-play curriculum to energize classroom discussion, stimulate appetites for
student learning, and prompt critical reflection on the part of participants. Some of these challenges
involve preparatory work essential to transform the classroom into an inviting space where students feel
comfortable taking rhetorical risks. Other challenges come into play in the mid st of role-play activities,
when the momentum of energetic student dialogue needs to be maintained and channeled into productive
avenues of discussion. The degree to which the potential benefits of a role-play curriculum can be
realized in practice depends largely on the prior creation of a favorable learning environment in the
classroom. Since role-playing involves risk-taking, mutual trust among students and teachers is
necessary to counter the danger that encounters with unfamiliar roles may cause "withdrawal or
defensive panic" (Mc- Caughan and Scott, p. 11; see also Kincheloe 1993, p. 227). Indeed, it can be
frightening for students to be cast into roles wholly foreign to their life experience (McCaughan and Scott,
p. 11), so teachers must build a positive classroom environment that focuses student attention on the
broader purposes of schooling, where students are linked together in a common project of educational
emancipation (see Freire 1994; Giroux 1997). With the educational enterprise recast in a co-operative
and purposeful light, it is easier to cultivate a mutually supportive classroom environment where students
can experiment comfortably with the political and affective dimensions of identity construction through
dramatic performance. Such experimentation is necessary to realize role-play's heuristic potential as a
source of critical knowledge about social relationships between persons with heterogeneous identities
and interests. By playing roles that depart from their own self-identities, students not only learn valuable
lessons about how others view the world, but they also experience what it might be like to adopt different
notions of selfhood. Because there is a natural tendency for students to choose dramatic roles with which
they identify closely, careful teacher interventions into the character selection process may be helpful in
stimulating student experimentation in this regard. For example, discussion in the initial role-play
brainstorming process could highlight the natural fluidity of identity positions, thereby encouraging
students to step outside relatively settled perspectives and develop characters diverging from their own
familiar senses of selfhood. In classrooms where teachers have formed strong bonds of mutual trust wit h
students, a more direct approach could be used. This might include active teacher involvement in the role
selection process, where teachers suggest or assign particularly challenging roles for particular students
to assume. Even in classrooms characterized by a supportive dynamic that invites all students to speak
out, teachers conducting role-play activities still often face the dilemma of role scarcity, i.e. that there may
not be enough characters in a simulated public argument to allow each student to play a role. For
example, the Nevada Boxing Commission role-play simulation discussed earlier was conducted in a class
of fifteen students, but the simulation featured only three characters (Mike Tyson, his agent, and the
↓
22
CSUF
↓
boxing commissioner). Because active performance is such a critical learning stimulus in the role-play
approach, this discrepancy deserves careful consideration. Fortunately, there are a number of strategies
available to maximize student participation even under conditions of role scarcity. One very basic solution
is to design role-play scenarios that tolerate multiple players for each role. For example, in the Reebok
role-play, there were frequently two or three students playing the roles of parents or teachers in the
simulated public argument. Another strategy for broadening student participation involves extending the
pre-performance brainstorming process. After a cast of characters is generated for a particular scenario,
students can then convene into small breakout groups, with each group assigned to brainstorm
arguments and performance styles that would be appropriate for a particular character. Following a robust
brainstorming period, each small group can next volunteer one of its members to carry the group's ideas
to the larger class, by performing the particular character role in the actual simulation. As the action
unfolds in this way, students from brainstorming groups can act as "alter egos" (McCaughan and Scott, p.
134) of their performing colleagues, watching the drama from afar and offering feedback privately when
they notice an opportunity to inject an argument or provide strategic advice. A modification of the
Mcaughan and Scott's "alter ego" strategy borrows a dramatic technique from improvisational theater,
where performers on the "sidelines" jump in to "freeze" the action with a tap on the shoulder of a
performing character, and then restart the drama by redirecting the action with their own contribution. This
basic objective can also be accomplished by running a series of role-plays using the same cast of
characters, but with a new set of students rotating in for each performance. Yet another strategy for
drawing a greater number of students into the realm of performance involves pursuit of "spin-off" role-
plays that grow out of initial simulations. For example, in some performances of the Reebok role-play
where parties participating in a simulated public discussion agreed to accept the Reebok offer, follow-up
scenes were created to simulate difficulties involved in implementation of the agreement in practice. One
such "spin-off" scene involved the hypothetical case of a student who wrote a poem critical of Reebok in
English class. To simulate a discussion designed to decide the fate of this imaginary student under the
Reebok agreement, a new set of students were invited to play the roles of principal, Reebok executive,
parent, teacher, and student, called together to discuss the matter in the principal's office.
23
CSUF
36) Role playing is good as it allows for co-operation and greater excitement as well as education.
MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, “SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

ON WORLDS”, Argumentation and Advocacy, 1/1/2000, eLibrary]
Since the role-play approach could reduce the intimidation of engaging in debate activities as traditionally
understood, it makes sense to consider role-play as a potential bridge that could carry debate activities to
diverse areas of high school and college curricula. In this light, deNeve and Heppner point out that the
role-play approach has wide potential applicability as a pedagogical tool in multiple academic fields.
"[T]he role play simulation," they explain, "can easily be modified for use in such diverse disciplines as
economics, law, medicine, political science, and sociology" (deNeve and Heppner, P. 245). Since
administrators contemplating approval of cross-curricular role-play initiatives will likely ask for concrete
illustrations of the ways in which role-play exercises can be graded and implemented across fields in a
co-ordinated fashion, this section provides heuristic reflections on these important questions of
assessment and implementation. The prospect of teacher intervention into unfolding role-play simulations
raises some significant questions regarding assessment logistics. How are student performances to be
graded? If role-play exercises are truly relational and co-operative projects involving the entire class
(including students and teachers), how can teachers evaluate each individual's contribution in a fair
manner? Are there ways to create an assessment system so as to encourage students to model
particularly desirable dialogic behaviors? The most appropriate answers to these challenging questions
are likely to evolve out of the particular curricular constraints and unique pedagogical styles employed by
different teachers. However, teachers seeking to integrate role-play exercises into curriculum might
consider using a three-part assessment sequence that evaluates student performance in the areas of
preparation, performance, and reflection. Initially, student work completed in preparation for actual role-
play performances could be assessed using basic and concrete evaluative criteria. In the initial
brainstorming stage of role-play projects, students could generate a list of characters populating the
chosen public argument, with each student then cast to play a particular role. At this point in the process,
students could be assigned the task of preparing written "character sketches" for their selected roles.
These documents might contain a general description of the student's fictional character (e.g. name,
background), an explication of the character's stake in the controversy, a preview of the likely initial
positions the character would take in public argument, and a brief discussion of the style of presentation
the character would use to present these arguments. Teachers could assess character sketches based on
the degree to which students provide lucid, creative, and detailed treatments of these four areas. This
preparation stage of the r ole-play project could be extended in cases where selected topics present
opportunities for in-depth research, or where teachers follow Moore's strategy of adding an additional
layer of assessment by inviting students to exchange and
↓
24
CSUF
↓
critique each others' character sketches (see Moore, p. 194). Assessment in the performance stage of
role-play exercises represents a more difficult challenge. In fact, there are compelling reasons to carve
out actual role-play performances as relatively "grade-free" zones for students. For example, intense role
scarcity or frequent teacher intervention could interfere with the ability of students to "get a word in
edgewise," and it would be unfair to penalize these students for circumstances beyond their control.
Additionally, since arguments advanced in role-play simulations involve highly subjective identity
interpretations, it would be difficult indeed for teachers to develop evaluative criteria that would judge
radically different student performances fairly. Further, if role-play evaluations were based on frequency of
participation, competition for performance time could reproduce similar aspects of the zero-sum
antagonism found in traditional competitive debate models. Given these complications, it would seem
appropriate for teachers to employ a minimalist evaluation method for assessment in the performance
stage of role-play exercises, perhaps simply assigning a satisfactory / unsatisfactory grade to each
student, based on attendance. If more specific means of assessment are required, one strategy might
involve application of student-generated criteria, solicited during the preparation phase. For example,
prior to role-play performance, students could be asked to supply an answer to the question: "What
criteria should the teacher use to evaluate your performance?" Answers to this question could generate
specific criteria to evaluate the role-play performances of particular students.
25

Bruschke Framework

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bruschke Framework

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mostly Nader with Jon re-organizing

4. You have to defend the consequences of the plan

B. OUR INTERP IS BETTER AND A VOTER-

3) RULES CONSTRAIN SPEECH GENRES TO REASONABLE GROUND FOR DELIBERATION—

Kristin Chisolm Dybvig and Joel Iverson, no date (http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html)

Kristin Chisolm Dybvig and Joel Iverson, no date (http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html)

14) Exclusion is inevitable and participation in democratic politics is key.

16) OUR INTERPRETATION STIMULATES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RESEARCH OPENING OUR

JOYNER, Professor of International Law at Georgetown, 1999

Streeten, no date (Paul, http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/ocational_papers/oc4b.htm)

Rawls, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, 1999

Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p. 138-140)

21) Deliberative Democracy Solves The Problesm of Contemporary Democracy

Bird 2000 (Colin, Democracy and Its Nightmares Spring

Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p.136-137)

Rawls 1999 (John THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE p.56-7)

24) USFG dosn't mean traditional debate is complicit with genocide

Bostick 2004 (Matthia, debater, "RE: Music", on edebate, apr 19,

25) Fiat Good Learning and Empowerment

Parcher 2001 (Jeff Feb. 26 edebate; http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0794.html)

27) Intellectuals must theorize about problems to elucidate Solutions

Said (Edward, THE NATION< September 17/24 p. 34)

29) Role Playing is Key To Active Engagement in Political Discourse

31) Role playing is a key pedagogical tool.

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, “SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

MITCHELL IN 2000 [Gordon R. Mitchell, “SIMULATED PUBLIC ARGUMENT AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLAY

Вам также может понравиться