THE BULLETIN

VOLUME I ISSUE I MAY 2010

FORENSICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

PREP TIME – A SHORT
INTRODUCTION TO
KRITIKS
PARADIGMS –
“POLICY OF REASON,”
“MODERN DEBATE,”
“EASTERN
PHILOSOPHY AND
DEBATE,” & MORE!
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
…AND NOW, FOR A
BRIEF ROADMAP…

3
EDITOR’S CORNER:
Welcome to The Bulletin

6
BALLOTS: Congratulations
to TOC Qualifiers

12
PREP TIME: A Short
Introduction to Kritiks

17
PARADIGM: Policy of
Reason

PARADIGM: Eastern
22 Philosophy

PARADIGM: Modern
26 Debate: Educational or
Not?

30
PARADIGM: Inverting the
Topicality Tradition
 C RNER
EDITOR’S
Remington Robertson is the
editor and founder of The Bulletin, a
tri-annual forensic magazine. He
also researches and compiles debate
briefs at Dynasty Debate
(www.dynasty-debate.com). At
University of North Texas, he is
completing his B.A. in Philosophy.
CONTACT
Remington Robertson
Dynasty Debate, The Bulletin
PO BOX 1100
Glen Rose, TX 76043
(254) 396 0226
administrator@dynasty-debate.com
Welcome to The
With
Bulletin
great appreciation towards the forensic
community, I am extremely excited to announce this
inaugural issue of The Bulletin. This publication
started like I’m sure many others have: during
flippant nighttime conversation between myself and
some of my colleagues. The support from the debate
community—including debaters, coaches, fans and
others—is unparalleled in their efforts towards
helping myself and others get The Bulletin ―off the
ground.‖
In this issue we have been able to put together a
collection of interesting articles concerning unique
aspects of debate. I know and hope that you, Reader,
will find them useful in rounds, the classroom or
even just as a coffee-table-filler.
Despite all of the contributions to this (first!) issue, it
is my hope that this publication will grow
exponentially with time. I’m a very big fan of
Rostrum, but I’m personally interested in producing a
publication that includes as many different
perspectives on forensic competition as possible.
That being said, we are accepting many different
types of submissions for our second issue of The
Bulletin (September 2010); you can find the call for
papers on page 28. Please enjoy this first issue and
distribute it amongst the forensic community, but
also take note that we need article submissions and
other types of contributions in order to keep The
Bulletin alive!
For comments, suggestions, griping, or anything
else, please drop me a line so that we can work to
make every issue of this publication better than the
last. But enough jabbering: see the rest of the issue!
–Remington Robertson
The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 3
BALLOTS
Congratulations
Policy Debate [63 Teams]
Ashland – Tim Borgerson & Zach Markovich
Bishop Guertin – Katie DiTullio & Christian Steckler
Blake – Tom Madsen & David Kang
Bronx Science – Andrew Markoff & Zack Elias
Brophy Prep – Zane Waxman & Michael Maerowitz
Carrollton Sacred Heart – Anna Dimitrijevic & Helen
Gomez
Chattahoochee – Kaavya Ramesh & Megan Cambre
Chattahoochee – Jeff Zhang & Matt Rosenthal
Chattahoochee – Sean Robinson & Adam Kostrinsky
Chattahoochee – Kaitlyn Walker & Cara Venezia
Chattahoochee – Maggie Davis & Mustafa Inamullah
Collegiate Prep (CA) – Vinay Pai & Tatsuro Yamamura
Collegiate Prep (CA) – Chloe Coughlin-Schulte & Justin
Mardjuki
Coppell – Joey Donaghy & Priyanka Krishnamurthy
Damien – Reid Ehrlich-Quinn & Pablo Gannon
Damien – Nadeem Farooqi & Alex Velto
Damien – Eric Berggren & Richard Mancuso
Dulles – Kevin Clarke & Saad Khalid
Eden Prairie – Brett Beutell & Tanay Mehta
Edgemont – Ben Chang & Nikhil Jayawickrama
Edina – Trevor Aufderheide & Nick Khatri
Georgetown Day – Becca Rothfeld & Isaac Stanley-
Becker
Glenbrook North – Flynn Makuch & Alex Pappas
Glenbrook North – Vinay Sridharan & Alexis Shklar
Glenbrook South – Richard Day & Will Thibeau
Grapevine – Jacob Quinn & Amy Schade
Greenhill – Kush Patel & Arnav Kerjiwal
Gulliver Prep – Jorge Toledo & Greg Adler
Harker – Adam Perelman & Arjun Mody
Harker – Akum Gill & Ashish Mittal
Head Royce – Alex Werner & Takumi Murayama
James Logan – Patrick Berger & Justin Chan
Dallas Jesuit – Sullivan McCormick & Carson Young
Dallas Jesuit – Joel Diamond & Ryan Gorman
Kinkaid – Robert Baldwin & Vivek Datla
Kinkaid – Layne Kirshon & Nikhil Bontha
Lexington (MA) – Arjun Vellayappan & Tyler Engler
McDonogh – Patrik Butler & Alex Resar
Meadows – Jesslyn Mitchell & Spenser Sibley
Mercer Island – Sean Ghods & Stephanie Permut
Montgomery Bell Academy – Campbell Haynes &
Hershel Mehta
Mountain Brook – Kevin Jiang & Lee Quinn
New Trier – Dylan Carpenter & Ira Slomski-Pritz
Notre Dame (CA) – Jake DeFilippis & Morgan Titcher
Oak Park River Forest – James Hanley & John Hazinski
Pembroke Hill – Thomas Hodgman & Peter Vale
Pembroke Hill – Brad Bolman & Lewis Sharp
Rowland Hall-St. Mark‘s – Andrew Arsht & Mario Feola
Saint George‘s – Joe LeDuc & Jordon Newton
Saint Paul Central – Laura Johnson & Steve Quam
Saint Francis (CA) – Katrina Kaiser & Chander Ramesh
Saint Francis (CA) – Ish Arora & Sanjana Parikh
St. Mark‘s (TX) – Rishee Batra & Alex Miles
University School of Nashville – Bamm Bamm Ball &
Emma LaBounty
Wayzata – Krishnan Ramanujan & Dru Svoboda
Westlake (TX) – John Baker & David Mullins
Westminster – Ellis Allen & Daniel Taylor
Westminster – Ayush Dayal & Julia Marshall
Westminster – Drew Cutshaw & Will Morgan
Westwood (TX) – Nishu Mehta & Rekha Tenjarla
Westwood (TX) – Balam Budwal & Christina Qiu
Whitney Young – Kevin Hirn & Misael Gonzalez
Woodward – Matthew Pesce & Max Plithides
to the 2010 Tournament of
Champions qualifiers
Lincoln Douglas [75 Debaters]
Altamont – Sasha Arijanto
Altamont – Shawn Tuteja
Anderson – Max McCready
Bainbridge – Jimmy Mooney
Bainbridge – Brendan Silk
Bainbridge – Alex Barker
Battle Ground Academy – Garrett Jackson
Berkeley Carroll – Dylan Scher
Blake – Erik Legried
Brentwood – Cory Wynn
Bronx Science – Matt Ross
Bronx Science – Carolyn Clendenin
Bronx Science – Bobby Esnard
Collegiate Prep (CA) – Alexandra Kennedy
Crowley – Daniel Lumpee
Glenbrook North – Pat Donovan
Greenhill – Tanya Thanawalla
Harvard-Westlake – Jake Sonnenberg
Harvard-Westlake – Benjamin Sprung-Keyser
Hunter College HS – Isabel Patkowski
Indian Springs – Jeffrey Liu
Iowa City West – Graham Tierney
Iowa City West – Kui Tang
LaSalle – Sean Janda
Lone Peak – Oliver Gappmayer
Loyola-Los Angeles - Andrew Blay
Loyola-Los Angeles – Andrew Seber
Meadows – Jordan Lamothe
Meadows – Nate Socolof
Meadows – Ryan Fink
Mercer Island – Steven Adler
Miami Palmetto – Zhou Fang
Milburn – Michael Hassin
Monticello – Daniel Cook
Mountain Brook – Elizabeth Ernstberger
Needham – Kaushik Vasudevan
New Orleans Jesuit – Nick Falba
New Orleans Jesuit – Jacob Pritt
Niskayuna – Archith Murali
Northland Christian – Josh Roberts
Northland Christian – Jared Woods
Northland Christian – Josh Roberts
Northland Christian – Jared Woods
Palo Alto – Nikhil Bhargava
Palo Alto – Avi Arfin
Perkiomen Valley – Karlyn Gorski
Ridge – Susanna Vogel
Ridge – Varun Jayaraman
Scarsdale – Eric Thurm
Scarsdale – Jonathon Bowyer
Southlake Carroll – Patrick Graham
Southlake Carroll – Cathy Creighton
St. Louis Park (MN) – Catherine Tarsney
Staley – Nick Gorman
Strake Jesuit – Nick Lassus
Strake Jesuit – Alejandro Esquino
Torrey Pines – Ilya Gaitarov
Torrey Pines – Colin Scott
Torrey Pines – Naveen Krishnamurthi
University School (FL) – Michael Fried
University School (FL) – Joshua Tupler
Valley (IA) – Ross Brown
Valley (IA) – Matt Kawahara
Vestavia Hills – Kevin Sipe
Walt Whitman – Ben Lewis
Walt Whitman – Jane Kessner
Walt Whitman – Emily Massey
Walt Whitman – Caroline Sherrard
Walt Whitman – Perry Green
Walt Whitman – Stefanie Rohde
Walt Whitman – Daniel Imas
Walt Whitman – Stephanie Franklin
Walt Whitman – Marshall Thompson
Walt Whitman – Alex Zimmerman
Westlake (TX) – James Monaco
Whippany Park – Ben Yu
William Allen (PA) – Charles Chy
The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 7
 BALLOTS
Congratulations
Public Forum [54 Teams]

American Heritage – Alvaro Cuba & Matthias Ng Regis – Chris Landry & Shane Mangin
Bellaire – Erik Nelson & Rohini Sigireddi Regis – Matt Haynes & Matt McNeirney
Bettendorf – Leighton Huch & Honda Wang Regis – Brian Cronin & Shane Regan
Blake – Sarah Watson & Taylor Briggs Regis – Joe Cammarosano & Kyle Conlee
Blake – Michael Graham & Mik Kaminski Ridge – Brian Moore & Tejus Pradeep
Bronx Science – Thomas Lloyd & Katie Wong Saint Francis (CA) – Peter Navka & Aakash Ghai
Brophy Prep – Scott Franz & Nick Petsas Saint Francis (CA) – Roxanna Haghighat & Zachary
Chaparral – Steffani Jones & Yassamin Ansari Hargis
Cypress Bay – Chad Klitzman & Matthew Shatanof Spain Park – Grant Sides & Sami Yousif
Dalton – Ivo Crnkovic-Rubsamen & Jake Davidson Thomas Jefferson (VA) – Rebecca Friedman & Emily Yu
Dalton – Oliver Simon & Ryan Sit Timber Creek – Richard Stein & Esteban Cajigas
Eagan – Iaan Reynolds & Rachel Markon Valley (IA) – Molly Fallon & Sam Schulte
Ft. Lauderdale – Matt Gold & Czar Bernstein Walt Whitman – Sarah Houston & Rachel Umans
Gabrielino – Patrick Wu & Jordan Chan Walt Whitman – Max Barnhart & Jesse Freeman
George Washington (CO) – Brendan Patrick & Gabe Walt Whitman – Richard Scordato & Bruno Velloso
Rusk
Harker – Kelsey Hilbrich & Frederic Enea
Harker – Justine Liu & Akshay Jagadeesh
Harker – Ziad Jawadi & Aakash Jagadeesh
Harker – Appu Bhaskar & Benjamin Chen
Harker – Rohan Bopardikar & Daryl Neubieser
Hunter College HS – Cara Eckholm & Toader Mateoc
James Madison – Lingran Kong & Valerie Shen
Lake Highland Prep – Will Miller & Danny Welch
Lexington (MA) – Kelly Miao & Mark Chonofsky
Lexington (MA) – Brendan Schneiderman & Samantha
Segall
Lynbrook – Carl Shan & Parget Singh
Lynbrook – Priyanke Athavale & Meera Suresh
Manchester Essex – Jack Kelly & Matt Hoyle
Mercer Island – Zach Gordy & Aaron Poor
Mira Loma – Vrinda Agarwal & Justin Lin
Mira Loma – Kedar Kulkarni & Arushi Saxena
Needham – Robert Hurd & Aseem Mehta
New Trier – Joe Eichenbaum & David Walchak
Nova – Vanessa Rodriguez & Spencer Orlowski
Oak Grove (MS) – Will Bedwell & Steven Wild
Parkview (MO) – Devin Kelsey & Aaron Sowards
Ramsay – Jennifer Moore & Sydney Page
Ransom Everglades – Eyvana Bengochea & Garrett
Criden
Regis – Mark Andriola & Joseph Eddy
Regis – Partick Cooney & John O‘Brien
 to the 2010 Tournament of
Champions qualifiers
Congress [73 Debaters]
Adlai Stevenson – Evan Ribot
Adlai Stevenson – Michelle Layvant
American Heritage – Morgan Baskin
American Heritage – Hannah Esquenazi
American Heritage – Maddy Bortes
American Heritage – William Vasquez
American Heritage – Travis Noddings
Anderson – Daniel Kane
Bellaire – Louise Lu
Brophy Prep – Andrew Berens
Brophy Prep – Konstantine Vrazhilov
Brophy Prep – Steven Ebensberger
Cheminade Prep – Priya Rajan
Cheminade Prep – Amay Gupta
Desert Vista – Gregory Hietala
Desert Vista – Brittany Stanchik
Desert Vista – Brendan Porter
Durham Academy – Ethan Grant
Durham Academy – Indira Puri
Durham Academy – Alex Young
Esperanza – Emily Wells
Fordham Prep – Nick D‘Angelo
Fort Dodge – Arthur Chou
Fullerton Union – Daniel Tuchler
Harker – Michael Tsai
Highland Park (IL) – Jacob Arber
Highland Park (IL) – Bryan Schatz
Highland Park (IL) – Dana Schwartz
Highland Park (IL) – Evelina Yarmit
John Hersey – Anjelica Tillander
Lake Highland Prep – Paras Saxena
Lake Highland Prep – Jimmy Bagley
Lake Highland Prep – Dylan Bruschi
Little Rock Central – Siteng Ma
Los Altos – Mason Satterwhite
Loyola Academy (IL) – Christina Baworowsky
Milton Academy (MA) – Martin Page
Monte Vista – Sebastian DeLuca
Monte Vista – Sam Stone
Mountain View – Rylan Schaeffer
Mountain View – Akshay Shrivastava
Nova – Anna Tsiotsias
Nova – Anna Tsiotsias
Nova – Jacob Gilson
Nova – Cameron Pennant Isaacs
Nova – Max Wexler
Nova – Robert Hill
Nova – Jarik LaPorte
Pennsbury – Jonathan Fried
Pennsbury – James Montgomery
Plantation – Gregory Bernstein
Ridge – Alex Smyk
Ridge – Clare Yao
Ridge – George Philipose
Ridge – Shivam Patel
Southlake Carroll – Paul Sella
Southlake Carroll – Parker Burns
Southlake Carroll – Arvind Venkataraman
Southlake Carroll – Scott McWilliams
Southlake Carroll – Paul Samuel
St. Joseph‘s Prep – Charles Gress
St. Joseph‘s Prep – Fred Deritis
St. Joseph‘s Prep – Chris Cannataro
St. Thomas Aquinas (FL) – Frances Rodriguez
Stuyvesant – Joseph Puma
Trinity Prep – Andrew Block
Trinity Prep – Dhruv Ranadive
Walt Whitman – Mike Neubauer
Walt Whitman – Jessica Sheehan
Walt Whitman – Ross Slaughter
Walt Whitman – Amar Mukunda
Western (FL) – Brian Lynn
Western (FL) – Kevin Bowie
West Springfield (VA) – Erik Bakke
The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 9
 A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO KRITIKS
PREP TIME
Introduction
The focus of this essay is to give an introduction
to kritiks in policy debate. It may also serve to re-cap the
K for debaters and coaches who have used these
arguments in policy debate rounds, specifically for those
wondering what K arguments might offer for the 2010-
2011 policy debate topic on military deployment. While
kritiks are still highly contested in the debate world as to
their merit or use, the reality is that they still exist. It is
my personal belief that every team ought to understand
the K— even if they do not utilize them on the negative—
so as to be able to argue against them on the affirmative.
General
History. The Kritik became a formalized argument
in policy debate rounds during the early 1990‘s. Bill
Shanahan, from University of Texas-Austin, is generally
attributed as the creator of the K. Shanahan developed an
anarchism counterplan that challenged ontological
presumptions during rounds that, so the myth goes,
developed and was formalized into the argument we now
call a Kritik. Other sources indicate that similar nascent-
kritik strategies were developed during the same general
time period from other areas in debate. Nevertheless, the
K has not been around for too long (in comparison to
disadvantage arguments, for example), but it has
permeated debate rounds at an incredible speed.
The Argument. Kritiks are arguments that criticize
underlying assumptions implemented by the affirmative
in the resolution, the plan, or both. In 1993 Roger Solt
defined the K as ―an argument operating outside the
framework of a normal, comparative policy debate,
attacking a (usually implicit) assumption of an opponent‘s
analysis.‖ These assumptions are more formally referred
to as paradigms, which usually stem from a normative
aspect of one‘s culture.
by Remington Robertson, editor
The basis of a kritik says that the affirmative upholds or
utilizes this paradigm which reinforces impacts that are to
be considered bad. (Patriarchy oppresses females; racial
supremacy causes poverty and death; and so on). One
might say that the general aspect of the kritik is that,
despite harms the affirmative plan may be solving for,
upholding such-and-such paradigm (1) causes these harms
to happen and/or (2) causes other, worse impacts to
happen. From this perspective kritiks are closely
connected to solvency. I personally like to contrast kritiks
with the standard topicality violation. Topicality
violations introduce a debate on the debate itself, which
includes propositions of standards as to why to prefer
this-or-that definition, interpretation, etc. Kritiks are very
similar in that they analyze the paradigm or framework of
an affirmative plan and introduce a debate on the debate
itself, which includes propositions of certain values,
philosophical and cultural systems of viewing the world.
Thus, kritiks stem from philosophical and value-based
arguments. While some people may reject kritiks because
of this value-based nature (―This is a policy debate
round!‖), I strongly believe that questioning such
underlying paradigms of values are more or just as
important as disadvantage and stock issues arguments as
to whether certain policies should or should not be
implemented—both in debate and the ―real world.‖
Types of Kritiks
Thinking or Implicit Assumption Kritiks. William
Bennett describes the function of this specific type of
kritik as ―look[ing] at presuppositions and assumptions
about rules, frameworks, structures, and systems of
thought.‖ It is very easy to see how negatives may use this
type of kritik against affirmatives that display certain
tendencies about political ideologies (liberalism,
conservatism, socialism, communism) and how they
cause oppression, death, poverty, dehumanization, etc.
 Rhetoric or Language Kritiks. These kritiks target
specific language used by the affirmative team. Popular
examples include sexist, racial, or exaggerated (nuclear
war, genocide, terrorism) language. Again, the argument
here is that by using such language, the affirmative is
utilizing a cultural/normative function that causes bad
impacts to occur.
Value or Ethics Kritiks. Certain systems of ethics,
values and/or morals are implemented in policy debate
rounds, specifically when contrasting impacts,
significance and harms. Value or ethics kritiks link to
these systems of thought and give reasons as to why they
ought to be rejected. The most common would be
arguments between deontological and consequential
forms of ethical analysis, which often turns into a debate
on topics such as the value of human life. In general these
kritiks often argue against the reasons as to why the
affirmative harms or bad. This involves an analysis into
the cultural paradigm that proclaims the significance of
such harms and why this is bad.
Hybrids. The three types of kritiks mentioned
above are in no way mutually exclusive. They often
overlap. Usually the more successful kritiks are hybrids
between at least two of the forms mentioned above. While
some affirmatives may question the negative in cross-
examination as to the type of kritik they are running, I
would not advocate it unless there are specific theory or
framework arguments against such certain types of kritiks
coming in the next speech by the affirmative.
The Structure
Shell. Almost every kritik includes a 1NC shell.
This shell is utilized in order to give a brief overview of
what the kritik is about. While most 1NC shells do cite
evidence, it is not required and scripts can be written in
order to explaining a general outlook on what the kritik is
arguing. The shell of a kritik functions like that of the
uniqueness card of the disadvantage.
Link. Kritiks link to affirmative cases like
disadvantage links but in a more diverse set of ways.
Rhetoric kritiks only need specific language used—
whether that happens in the evidence, scripts or cross-
examination of the affirmative—while value and thinking
kritiks usually are based off harms, significance, plan and
advantages. There are a more variety of ways that kritiks
link to affirmative cases than disadvantages, but the links
are usually not as specific. Because of this, kritiks are
often viewed as generic arguments because they might
only use general, resolution-based diction to make large
claims about impacts. In the 2010-2011 military
deployment topic, many kritiks will link to affirmatives
who claim advantages or to solve for United States
―hegemony.‖ This is a more specific link in comparison to
those kritiks who may link only by ―military.‖
Impact. The impacts of kritiks function just like
disadvantages. Some impacts are more policy based such
as governmental tyranny or global warming while others
may be more philosophically or value based impacts like
oppression or loss of individual agency. Nevertheless,
good negative teams will still give reasons as to why
certain impacts are bad and/or worse than the impacts the
affirmative is claiming to solve for.
Alternative. This is regarded as the most
interesting (read: highly debated) aspect of kritiks. While
kritiks analyze the presumptions of the affirmative‘s case,
kritiks are also expected to provide an alternative. This
alternative proposes ways in which the impacts may be
avoided. Example: instead of using sexist or patriarchal
language, affirmatives could/ought to use gender-neutral
language. Interestingly enough, the alternative does not
act as solvency like the solvency component of a
counterplan. However, kritiks are often used in tandem
with PIC counterplans, especially in rhetoric kritiks. Some
alternatives will simply be ―Reject.‖ This says that (1) the
or an alternative does not matter and/or (2) the affirmative
plan should simply be rejected because of the impacts.
Kritiks have become unpopular because of the Reject
Alternative, and enough framework and theory cards have
been written against this Alternative that most kritiks do
not use the Reject Alternative. Consequently, most judges
that are favors of kritiks do not vote for kritiks with such
an alternative. In general, the alternative of the kritik ties
it closely with counterplans in such a way that the
disadvantage – kritik – counterplan trio becomes very
powerful for negatives during debate rounds.
The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 13
 Southwest Debate Institute
July 19th – 31st, 2010
You like to debate? So do we. Come join us for a couple of
weeks in the Arizona Desert for the first annual SWDI
SWDI will be held at the Barrett Honors College campus at Arizona State
University in Tempe, Arizona. This brand-new facility is complete with
dormitories, technology labs, classroom and study areas, food services, and full
access to the world-class ASU Hayden Library. It is an ideal location for a cutting-
edge debate camp.

Tentative costs are as follows:

2-week programs (LD, Policy, Both PFD and Congress): $975 (incl. room/board)
or $750 (Commuter).

1-week programs (PFD or Congress alone): $650 (incl. room/board) or $550

(Commuter).

This covers the entire cost of the programs, including three meals a day. We will
not hit you with any additional fees.

Students who are unable to attend the entire camp are welcome to attend for a
portion of the time for reduced tuition.

We are committed to making camp affordable for all. Please do not let the cost
deter you from applying- if cost is a burden, please contact us about possible
discounts.

Contact: info@southwestdebateinstitute.org

www.southwestdebateinstitute.org
 POLICY OF REASON
PARADIGMS With the 2010-2011 policy debate topic centered around
military deployment, Cody Matthew London details some
of the United States federal government’s decisions
(including the seemingly contradictory ones) regarding the
War on Terror(ism?) in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11.

September 11th, 2001 marked the day millions
awakened to the realization that a war was being waged
against America by an organization that utilized fear as
its main tactic and approach. Following the attacks, the
Bush administration promptly answered back by
bombing Al-Qaeda strongholds, training bases, and
hide outs throughout Afghanistan. Soon thereafter US
forces invaded Afghanistan. The Bush Administration
seen it was necessary stating that the Afghanistan
regime, then headed by the Taliban, in Kabul was
facilitating and harboring terrorists in their country. The
objective then was not only hunting down and avenging
the fallen of 9/11, but then the men and women of the
US military were to help rebuild an entire country and
stabilize a legitimate democratic regime in the hopes
that Al-Qaeda would not have a safe haven to train for
future attacks on American soil.
The invasion was something not all that original to the
people of Afghanistan. They have endured the test of
time to the point where the country of Afghanistan is
often referred to as the ―death of empires‖. More
recently the U.S.S.R. found out the hard way with their
invasion and subsequent failed occupation in the
1980‘s. Nevertheless the US marched in swiftly not
realizing and forgetting the true cost of such an
adventure. One would think that given the past of costly
US foreign occupation and wars (Vietnam, Korea, etc.)
, leaders would be hesitant to send brave men and
women overseas to occupy a country for an indefinite
amount of time no matter how noble the cause.
Unfortunately the past lends itself unknown to many of
today‘s leaders.
The War in Afghanistan is being portrayed by the
Obama administration as the noble and just cause that
merits America‘s attention. However the irony is that
both Iraq and Afghanistan are counterinsurgency and
nation building projects—which then lends Iraq to be
the safer bet for sustained success due to their past
strong government. So no matter how the
The Bulletin
administration wants to spin it, Afghanistan given its
be the safer bet for sustained success due to their past
strong government. So no matter how the
administration wants to spin it, Afghanistan given its
past has a long way to go.
Popular support for the war continues. Especially when
compared to other seemingly failed excursions in the
region. As long as popular support continues the US
military will remain to finish the job. With that said, in
December of 2009 Obama put forth his surge plan for
Afghanistan. The plan calls for an additional 30,000
troops in the country bringing the total US troop
presence to over 100,000. The plan itself calls for
American troops to be concentrated along the Pakistani
border where most of the insurgents are located in the
hopes of stabilizing the area. The President‘s plan also
emphasized that the people of Afghanistan take up for
themselves and that American troops needed more time
helping train the Afghanistan military.
However, many lack the knowledge that the troop surge
of over 30,000 more troops will cost the taxpayer $30
billion extra a year. Keeping in mind that purging Al-
Queda as being the main objective, the $30 billion extra
a year to purge only, according to intelligence
estimates, 100 al Qaeda terrorists (1). These 100
terrorists are said to be along the border of Pakistan. So
in reality these terrorist are either in Pakistan or
Afghanistan. Pakistan, which by the way, is off limits
for our soldiers on the ground. Only drone missions are
currently allowed. In fact the biggest capture of the war
was not even by our troops. The capture of the Al-
Queda ―king-pin‖ Khalid Sheik Mohammed was made
by Pakistani officials. If anything our presence drove
the remaining Al-Queda into the highlands of the
unstable nuclear power Pakistan.
Vol. I Issue I 17
How exactly will an additional 30,000 troops help?
Sure they can help with securing against the
counterinsurgency of the Taliban. But are not the
members of Al-Queda the main enemy of this war? Are
they not the perpetrators who helped the mass killing
on 9/11?
Now many may argue that the Taliban is also the
enemy and according to Kenneth Katzman in a 2010
Congressional Research Report estimates an insurgent
amount to over 20,000 (2). How exactly does the
Taliban pose a threat to the United States? Sure the
military has to deal with them, but if anything the rise
in members of the Taliban are largely due to our
extended military occupation. Not to mention the fact
that US policy toward the Taliban, formerly the
Mujahedeen, once was considered beneficial back in
the Cold War era during the U.S.S.R. invasion. The US
government knowingly helped the Mujahedeen.
Since 2005 the numbers of Afghani‘s in the Taliban
have risen. According to the Karzai government,
Taliban operations were carried out in around 30% of
the country (2). The Taliban itself is said to control a The Russians would be enraged—and rightly so
minimal amount of four percent of territory or about 13 given that there is no justification for such violence.
out of 364 districts (2). With the rise of Taliban Would the Russians be justified in bombing US
involvement comes more violence. According to a cities, then occupying and reforming US lands
NATO report in 2009, there were approximately 7,000 because the US supposedly harbors terrorists that
IED attacks up from 4170 in 2008, 2,700 in 2007, and trained for their attacks? Would US citizens just sit
1,920 in 2006 (2). So there is a disturbing trend and an idly by and allow the Russians to destroy their
obvious common denominator. The longer the US farms and property? Of course they would not stand
remains in Afghanistan, the more violent it gets and the for such destruction. United States has every right
more the Taliban grows. to defend itself. Was it the bakery owner or the
teacher‘s fault that this terrorist committed the
Imagine if Russia experienced a long series of attacks attack? So why then is it justified for the United
from a particular group that operates and trains all over States to go into a country like Afghanistan and
the entire globe. One day some individual lone terrorist occupy for an indefinite amount of time? Sure the
from along the unstable border of the United States, people of Afghanistan did not exactly have it great.
who was also connected to this group, flown over to But how exactly is imposing a Western way of life
Moscow and blew up some buildings? going to better their country when they themselves
reject the very presence of the United States? It is
Cody London is currently a
like trying to fit the proverbial square peg into the
political activist at the round hole. Like with Vietnam, occupation just
University of Houston does not work or even end well.
majoring in political science
with minors in religious If the cultural argument is not enough, maybe a
studies, economics, and
history. He currently writes
monetary argument will. When evaluating policy,
and blogs for Young the policy maker tends to separate policies into
Americans for Liberty. On either foreign or domestic categories. Unfortunately
top of all that he is also a full this type of mentality is a fatal mistake. The
time uncle to his two year inherent problem with that line of thinking is that it
old niece.
neglects to recognize the very mechanism that
allows government policies to be implemented. It
forgets that there are actually limitations to policy
due to economic reasons. The United States and the
rest of the world are currently experiencing a
forgets that there are actually limitations to policy due to
economic reasons. The United States and the rest of the
world are currently experiencing a significant economic
downturn. The Bush and Obama administrations in the
Did you know
spirit of Keynesian economics decided to increase
spending in the hopes of jump starting the economy. that there are
Whether it was with two wars, the bailouts, the surge in
Afghanistan, or the stimulus package the current deficit
and debt the United States has taken on has sky-
now three
forensic
rocketed. In fact, Congress recently increased the debt
ceiling by 1.9trillion up to 14.3trillion(3). The current
level of spending is unsustainable. Sure the war in
Afghanistan takes a just a portion of the budget, but just
look at the worldwide US military commitment
publications?
currently. There are approximately 750 US military
bases in over 50 countries worldwide(4). If the United
States does not start to significantly cut its worldwide
commitments soon, it will inevitably have to bring the
troops home due to economic reasons. NFL’s Rostrum,
It seems like the most feasible means of accomplishing
the primary objective in Afghanistan would to stop the
costly wide spread occupation and rebuilding. If Dynasty Debate’s
anything the military should focus on a special
operations based strategy. This policy, while
coordinating with the leaders of Pakistan and
The Bulletin,
Afghanistan, would actually focus on getting rid of the
remaining Al-Qaeda members.
& The 3NR’s The
Looking at the current status of the troops in
Afghanistan, there are over 100,000 US military men
and women in Afghanistan that are having to deal with
Last Word
fighting off an increasing insurgency that would not be
violent if it were not for US occupation, helping train
Afghani soldiers that will eventually stabilize certain
regions of their country, finding a mere100 al-Queda
terrorists in unstable provinces along the border of a
nuclear powered country Pakistan, attempting to help
Visit all three
convert an entire people away from agrarian culture, and
all the while the US government digs deeper into debt? for submission
How again is this reasonable?

References
guidelines and
1- Esposito, Richard, Matthew Cole, Brian Ross. ―President
Obama‘s Secret: Only 100 Al-Qaeda Now in
deadlines and
Afghanistan‖ABCNewsOnline. 2 December, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/president-obamas-secret-
100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861
get your voice
2- Katzman Congressional Report:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf
3- Dinan, Stephen "Senate OKs new debt limit, raised by
heard!
$1.9T‖ Washington Times. 29, January 2010
4- Young Americans for Liberty Foreign Policy Handbook at
YALiberty.org

The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 19

 EASTERN PHILOSOPHY
& DEBATE
PARADIGMS The importance of understanding philosophical systems in
LD debate is key component to both the educational value
as well as the strategy of winning rounds. Ravi Thakral
introduces Eastern Philosophy in this article and details how
it relates to the two aforementioned aspects of LD debate.

Learning about philosophy is essential to the study of
academic debate. This is a highly suitable prerequisite to
learning debate. High school debaters are very well versed
in various ethical theories. Many of these theories are
Western theories. To make this philosophy education more
complete, students should also learn and research Eastern
philosophy. I advocate the use, study, and teaching of
Eastern Philosophy in LD debate. The goal of this article
is to encourage a movement for Eastern philosophy in
debate by discussing various theories that are good starting
places for research, and to give arguments for why any
debater or coach should even bother with Eastern
philosophy.
Trends in the debate world are hard to miss. In fact, we‘re
always seeing some trend or another dominating in debate
rounds. Sometimes we‘ve seen that the literature that
makes it into the final rounds of the TOC become rather
popular. Trends can start in all sorts of ways. Sometimes it
is hard to trace the origin of these trends. In the debate
world, we‘ve seen many things become popular—like
Social Contract theory and Post-Modern Critical theory.
Debaters, more than most people in this world, are familiar
with the deepest answers to the most difficult ethical
questions. For example, John Rawls‘ ―A Theory of Justice‖
is required reading for most of our budding debaters, John
Stuart Mill‘s ―Utilitarianism‖ is well understood and
argued well amongst debaters, and nowadays many have
the opportunity to appreciate the Hermeneutic tradition.
The trends that have hit us are indeed of a particular kind
of diversity, but is there more for us to explore?
The question ―What should I do?‖ is a question
that Eastern philosophers took very seriously and
was a driving force in the history of Eastern
philosophy (The Eastern tradition also tends to
focus highly on the question ―What am I?‖). The
East captures the tradition of philosophical
exploration in many engaging ways. As members
of the debate community, we are interested in
whatever keeps the debates strong. We are
especially interested in the content of those
debates. Of particular interest to debaters are two
forms of literature: the epic poem and the
philosophical treatise. I will now bring forth and
present some basic positions from Eastern
philosophy to further encourage our tradition of
encouraging strong debates. First, I will discuss
the importance of the epic poem and the relevance
of ethical storytelling to debaters. Then, I will
suggest some philosophical positions from
various Eastern treatises. I will discuss some
classical theories about action—from the
Bhagavad Gita and from Buddhism. Finally, I
will end with some arguments for the use of
Eastern philosophy in academic debate.
Recap: The Bhagavad Gita is a sacred Hindu text of some
700 verses and is part of a larger text, the Mahabharata.
Both are considered as some of the most important
philosophical and literary texts ever to exist, especially due
to their influence in Southeast Asia.
There is a large canon of literature dedicated to moral
dilemmas. Epics like the Mahabharata and the
Ramayana, in a very artful manner, investigate moral
dilemmas. Because of their very nature, Eastern epic
poems are good candidates for research in
constructing metanarratives. The metanarrative is a
unique 1AC strategy that is becoming more and
popular. Philosophers have noted that the deepest
investigations about ethics can come from meaningful
narratives—in particular epic poems. Other
investigations about ethics come from ―dry‖
statements like ―Morality is the greatest good for the
greatest number.‖ Not only do metanarratives note
these ―dry‖ statements, they do an excellent job of
showing how serious moral conflict is. For this
reason, and many others, using narrative arguments in
general are beneficial to the debater. Epics capture
moral conflicts in a way that ordinary philosophical
writing cannot. Across Eastern philosophy, in
particular the two epics I‘ve mentioned, there are
many instances of moral conflict. The Mahabharata
is filled with instances where it is very much not all at
clear about how one should act. It puts moral
intuitions to a challenge. The Ramayana is filled with
instances where it is more so clear how one should
act, but the choices are nonetheless very difficult.
Exploring these sorts of epics is helpful, in particular,
with problems pertaining to the relation between the
individual and society or the relation between the
individual and the state. Arguments can be
constructed based on how the characters in these epics
answered back to the moral dilemmas. The stories can
be viewed as arguments for different moral views.
The epic literature of the East is extensive. There are
many places to look. The Mahabharata alone is said
to be ten times longer than the Illiad and Odyssey
combined. Interestingly, unlike the epics of Western
tradition, the Eastern epics are not considered to be
―tragedies‖—they seem to end in non-tragic senses.
This is one way to improve the practice of using
metanarrative 1AC‘s and to incorporate the depth of
Eastern philosophies into academic debate.
Ravi Thakral is a second year philosophy major
at the University of Texas at Austin with
interests in Metaphysics, Philosophical Logic,
and Non-Western Philosophy. He debated for
four years at George Bush High School where he
was debate captain for two years.
The concept of dharma is of particular interest to
debaters. Dharma means ―moral duty.‖ Classical
theorists have put together different theories of
action—most take up the concept of dharma. First, I
will discuss the relevance of the Bhagavad Gita for
debaters. Most generally, the Bhagavad Gita is a
treatise about selfless action. For debate, we are
interested its theory of ―ethical intuitionism.‖ A
central theme of the Bhagavad Gita is that there is a
right choice to make in moral dilemma—it gives us a
realist position to use in debate. If an agent is faced
with some set of choices {a, b, c…n} then there is an
objective fact of the matter, knowable by intuition,
that there is a right choice to act upon. In this sort of
framework, performing actions is important. Another
point to add about the Gita’s intuitionism is that it
does not advocate absolute moral rules. Moral
considerations are made with regard to intuition and
circumstance. For an action‘s moral worth to be
dependent on circumstance is to say that we must
deny general moral principles under reasonable
circumstances. Also, the dependence relation on
circumstance suggests that the agent‘s position in
society is a relevant factor if we were to make moral
judgments. Dharma also has a dependence
relationship with circumstance. In my view, this
intuitionist position recognizes variety in the human
condition and that in many cases a set of moral
standards may not apply to every agent in every
circumstance. This sort of view is useful in academic
debate—it allows debaters to investigate what exactly
it is that makes ethics so difficult. Perhaps the Gita’s
intuitionism is comparable to the intuitionism of
William David Ross. Except in the Gita, intuition
comes from yoga practice and contemplating about
the ―Good.‖ For intuition to come from yoga practice
is to say that contemplation and acquiring knowledge
is key for having knowledge about morality. This
does not imply that doing physical exercise (the
ordinary common usage of the term in the West) tells
us about what is morally right. The important idea is
that the Gita suggests that it is metaphysically
23
The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I
possible to know moral truths and to know what
choice from a set of choices is the correct one to take.
It puts emphasis on circumstance and gives us a theory
of realism. These are places to begin fruitful discourse
about morality. For LD debate in particular, the
options are plenty. I suggest that using the Gita’s
intuitionism is particularly useful for topics pertaining
to the conflict between the individual and the state.
Additionally, this theory is useful as a Just War
theory. It is up to debaters to use the Bhagavad Gita
and the vast secondary literature pertaining to it where
they see best fit.
Recently, due to human rights violations in the
invasion of Tibet and due to the problems of
dictatorship in Burma, the world has noted a more
―socially concerned‖ Buddhism. Before such issues,
Buddhist philosophy was viewed as a system that did
not concern itself with ethical matters. After all, it is in
fact true that there is less literature about ethical
theory as opposed to metaphysical theory (in general)
in the East. Despite this, there exists profound ethical
theory in Buddhism that debaters cannot ignore.
Buddhist philosophers, like philosophers of other
schools in the East, advocate a theory of ahimsa (non-
harming). Ahimsa has been emphasized and brought to
life across Eastern philosophies. One aspect of ahimsa
theory that we should concern ourselves with is a
Buddhist theory of human rights. Normally, we think
of ―rights‖ as a purely Western concept. Though
Sanskrit shares the same Indo-European ancestry, it is
true that in Sanskrit (or in Pali) there exists no word
that expresses the same ―subjective entitlement‖ that
the notion of rights conveys in the English language.
Similar roots or primary derivatives exist in Latin and
in Sanskrit for ―straight, or upright.‖ The word
―rights‖ comes from the Latin root ―rectus‖ which
means ―straight, or upright.‖ The equivalent of this
root in Sanskrit is ―rju.‖ Despite there being no
common word for ―rights‖ in the ancient languages of
Buddhism, many argue that the concept of ―rights‖
exists in the Buddhist classical period. The literature
makes for an interesting place to start research. It is
argued that the Buddha explains to the world a social
order where individuals have obligations to each other.
This idea is rooted in the concept of dharma. The roles
individuals play are all ―reciprocal‖ and here is where
we get the notion of ―subjective entitlement‖
that the notion of rights convey. It is argued that in
the notion of rights is implicit in the notion of
‗reciprocal duty.‘
A theory of ahimsa is a good example of a value
criterion that debaters can use in debate rounds.
The debater who can show that they are harming
less beings is meeting a standard from which we
can give a clear impact calculus to adjudicate the
round. The reason to prefer ahimsa as a standard is
because of the amount of philosophical literature
that tells us about ahimsa. In Buddhist literature,
the warrants for a theory of ahimsa are plentiful.
The debate community should pursue research and
teach non-western philosophy to the students.
Using Eastern philosophy enhances the philosophy
education that is required for becoming a
competitive debater. To explain why I take this
view I need to pose a couple of questions: What is
most important about debate? What is the reason
one should pursue debate? There are several
common responses to these sorts of questions.
Oftentimes these responses are used in theory
structures or as voting issues. Debate is important
because it educates students. It helps them think
and reason critically, it allows them to investigate
the world, and it helps improve speaking skills.
The reasons for why one should pursue debate are
the same as the answers to the question, ―What is
most important about debate?‖ These are just
some standard responses to the two questions. If it
is true that education is important for debate, then
this implies that this education should be enhanced
to the greatest extent possible. The amount of
literature is just too great to miss.
 MODERN DEBATE:
EDUCATIONAL OR NOT?
PARADIGMS An ongoing controversy exists within the forensic
community concerning the educational aspects of debate
due to the rise of kritiks, policy-specific jargon, etc. Here,
Danny Abraha makes a case for the Kritik as a higher
intellectual interpretation of debate.

The throw down on one of the most controversial issues in
competitive academic policy debate itself comes to
Dynasty-Debate. Traditional vs. Modern. Kritiks vs. stock
issues. UIL vs. TFA. Is one really more educational then
the other? To answer this one needs to evaluate a number
of things; first of all, what exactly are the differences
between traditional and modern debate?
Let‘s begin with modern. The most debated issue about
modern debate is definitely the speed. Kids speaking 300 to
400 words a minute at almost incomprehensible speeds, to
the average listener, but the best evidence available
indicate that speedy speaking actually makes you smarter.
Speech rate determines working memory capacity and
working memory capacity is a critical component of
cognitive ability as shown by research in cognitive
psychology, more specifically, ―Psychology Today‖ in
October of 92. Speech rate is a strong index of short term
memory span, ‗Therefore, the faster you can talk, the
greater your short-term memory,' according to Adrian
Raine, PhD, a University of Southern California
psychologist. The dwindling audience participation has
shown that it takes more than the ―average‖ listener
nowadays to even begin to understand debate. Although
speed definitely plays a big part, another difference
between the modern and traditional is just acceptance.
Acceptance of arguments, of diversity, and change.
Modern debate is willing to accept this change, traditional
wont. It can be argued that any form of debate that limits
thinking or argumentation can only be less educational then
one that would allow such arguments, assuming the
arguments are within reason. Arguments such as kritiks,
are not only frowned upon, but shunned in the ‗traditional‘
form.
Traditional debate can be summed up in 3 words:
uneducational stock issues. In the world of ―traditional‖
debate
debate, debaters can lose if their tie isn‘t straight,
shoes aren‘t polished, or the judge didn‘t like
your hair. Professionalism is held high above the
educational aspect of debate, and will certainly
give you a competitive edge over your opponent.
Several types of things are looked down upon
such as speed reading, counterplans and kritiks. In
this realm of this ―traditional‖ debate it‘s hard to
learn about some of the greatest things debate has
to offer, such as learning about philosophy,
theory, and an overall better understanding of the
world around us. This form of debate not only
limits thinking, but keeps one from expanding
mentally. If one were to approach a ‗traditional‘
debater and ask about ontology, Foucault,
Nietzsche or Lacan, you‘d get a blank stare. The
recent turn toward more critical arguments in
policy debate has been sought as, by some, as the
beginning of the end for traditional policy debate.
Many of the arguments being run by some of the
most successful teams in both high school and
college debate shows us that the kritik has
become incredibly popular since its introduction
into the debate community in the early 90s. While
a number of teams still rely on traditional policy
arguments such as disadvantages and oncase
arguments(not that that‘s a bad thing), it would be
insane to claim that traditional policy debate is
what it once was. The number of teams that run
arguments like kritiks and other critical arguments
has skyrocketed, as well as the variation in type of
kritiks that are run. Although many judges dislike
the kritik and all its various forms, they‘re
continuously deployed throughout rounds. Many
kritiks and the theory/literature behind are, are
sometimes just simply complicated. Not that they
should be easy, but many debaters when trying to Conclusion: The fact is plain and simple, many
explain the criticism fail to do so adequately, causing schools (or more specifically coaches) aren‘t willing
judges to dislike them. Kritiks are ran on both sides of to learn about the evolving nature of debate, critical
the debate, whether you‘re affirmative or negative, all arguments, adjust to spreading and move beyond the
of which raise unique theoretical questions. Some voting 100% on stock issues. This tremendously
question the underlying assumptions or beliefs behind hampers out the potential success of the students as
certain acts or concepts while some look through the they aren‘t allowed to expand their knowledge, debate
lens of philosophers‘ such as Zizek and try to figure some of the best teams in the state, or simply given a
out what exactly is wrong with the world. Still these chance to succeed.
are but a few of the diverse types of kritiks that have
made their way into the policy debate community.
Many think these arguments are helping to undermine
the competitive and educational goals of debate.
These people think that policy debate is actually in a
deteriorating state as a result of the increasingly
widespread adoption of certain particular types of Agree?
critical arguments. Kritiks often times don‘t tell the
judge to vote negative because the plan itself is a bad
idea, but instead ask the judge to vote for them
Disagree? Have a
different
regardless because the offending team‘s rhetorical
choices become the focus of the debate. Often times
there isn‘t even an alternative associated with this
type of argument, other than the critiquing team
calling for a rejection of the practice that they indict. perspective?
Certain members of the debate world recognize the
need for an evolving debate and more critical
arguments, others wish to place traditionalism above
education so that new forms of the activity (such as
criticisms) can‘t flourish. While this is Respond to this
understandable, unfortunately it overlooks the
primary function of debate itself which is to serve as
an outlet for students who seek competition,
article or write on a
education and clash. Second, this section will seek to
explain why the traditional debate model provides the
different topic and
best educational benefits to the participants of the
activity. While each of the many forms of debate your own piece for
have their own unique educational benefits, there are
several educational goals that are fulfilled by critical Issue 2 of The
arguments, and from an education perspective, make
policy debate the best model. These benefits include a Bulletin (September
range of academic, professional, and social skills.
There is no denying that ―traditional‖ debate does
2010). See the next
exclude certain styles of argumentation, however, that
does not mean that it excludes all forms of critical
page for more
argumentation. In fact, there are many critical
arguments that can, and should, have a role in details!
―traditional‖ policy debate such as UIL, as long as
they answer the question:is the affirmative plan a
desirable policy option compared to the status quo or
other competing policy options?

The Bulletin Vol. I Issue I 27

 CALL FOR PAPERS
NEWS: Descriptions of forensics-related news events, such as the NDT, are welcomed. There is no minimum or
maximum word limit.

POLICY DEBATE: This issue will be published during the beginning of the military deployment topic for 2010-
2011. So, we want to know your thoughts on different aspects of the topic, including but not limited to

 Possible affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans and kritiks, including their relevance to the topic,
strengths and weaknesses.
 Unique perspectives on the resolution, specifically interesting topicality arguments

Articles for this section should be between 800 and 2,000 words. They may be written in an op-ed style (first person)
or an academic style (third person, in-text citations, endnotes, bibliography).

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE: This issue will be published after NFL has released the 10 possible NFL LD
topics for 2010-2011. So, we want to know your thoughts on different topics, such as different affirmatives and
negatives that can arise from each of the different topics. Articles for this section should be between 800 and 2,000
words. They may be written in an op-ed style (first person) or an academic style (third person, in-text citations,
endnotes, bibliography).

EDUCATION: In this issue we want to provide articles in our Education section that focus on the relationship
between pedagogy, debate, agency and ideology. Topical suggestions are listed below, though contributors should
not view this as a strict guideline:

 Academic debate's influence in different regions of the world and/or the United States
 A contrast between the pedagogy of academic debate and secondary institutions
 How academic debate could function more efficiently, either in its current or a different form
 The ways in which academic debate are interwoven with ideology (liberalism, fascism, communism),
socioeconomic systems (capitalism, socialism) and/or cultural myths (truth, fairness, justice, democracy) in
judge paradigms, regional debate circuits, coaching styles, certain arguments, etc.
 Perspectives on academic debate and personal creativity

Articles for this section should be between 800 and 2,000 words. They may be written in an op-ed style (first person)
or an academic style (third person, in-text citations, endnotes, bibliography).

REVIEWS: Reviews of debate businesses, debate camps, debate organizations and debate books are welcomed.
There is no minimum or maximum word limit.

COACH SPOTLIGHT: Send us a nomination for a coach to conduct and publish and interview with!

ARTWORK: Photography and other art forms are highly suggested. Remember that they must be forensics-related!
All images should be in JPEG/JPG format. Multiple submissions encouraged.

All final versions of submissions are due no later than August 22, 2010. Interested? Email us at
administrator@dynasty-debate.com to save your spot in the second issue!
 INVERTING THE TOPICALITY
TRADITION
PARADIGMS While T-arguments take up most of our time during rounds,
Remington Robertson argues that most of these time
sucks are due to the classical logic behind the resolution.
He proposes a ―paraconsistent‖ approach to the resolution,
re-visiting the merits of extra-topicality.

The resolution is the fulcrum of all debates. Topicality
Handbooks are published each year with lists of different
interpretations of each word or phrase and Theory
Handbooks are constructed in order to give debaters the
ability to stand up and say ―I redefine ‗Sub-Saharan
Africa‘ as this room!‖ Debaters, coaches and researchers
are all trying to tackle the nature of the resolution and what
can be done with it. In this essay I want to suggest a
different approach to the resolution—not an approach that
is overwhelmingly new but rather an approach that is
rarely viewed in debate rounds. But to get there, let‘s start
with the negative. Oftentimes the first speech from the
negative (1NC) sets the tone as to how the resolution will
be interpreted and implemented in a given debate round.
Yes: the infamous topicality violation.
A topicality violation states that the affirmative is not
meeting the definitions of the words in the resolution, is
going ―outside‖ of the resolution, is taking too many steps
to achieve the resolution, etc. Implicit in all of these
conceptions of the resolution is a certain logical
foundation – albeit the same logical foundation that makes
up the United States legal system.
The modern conception of the resolution in policy and
Lincoln-Douglas debate revolves around classical logic.
Classical logic says if A and not A both exist in the same
argument then the argument leads to a paradox. Classical
logic stems from Aristotelian ontology that proclaims one
cannot be (read: exist) and not be (read: not exist) at the
same time. On the surface most of the logic makes
complete sense, but the separation of A and not A in the
same syllogism leads to many different paradoxes that the
system, by its own postulates, cannot solve.
This is the same system of logic that is typically used in
policy and Lincoln-Douglas debates regarding the use of
the resolution.
of the resolution. The negative is quick to point
out if the affirmative commits any paradoxes of
classical logic: ―The affirmative meets the
resolution but also is extra-topical and goes
outside the resolution, causing abuse to the
negative!‖; ―The affirmative meets the resolution
but takes too many steps to achieve it, and is
thereby non-topical!‖; and so on. It is usually
about this point that infamous topicality violations
start getting messy: standards and counter-
standards, voters and competing definitions are all
read in order to persuade the judge of a very static
interpretation of the resolution.
What I have outlined thus far is the traditional
conception of the resolution through classical
logic and can be reduced to the phrase: the
affirmative cannot be topical and non-topical at
the same time. Many problems arise from this, but
I would like to outline only two of them.
First, classical logic loses its application to the
real world. That is, while classical logic is used in
law and educational debate, it does not completely
describe events in what we think of as the ―real
world.‖ For instance, the idea that A must be A or
that A must not be A and that there is no in-
between is false: I can stand with one leg in a pool
of water and one leg on dry land and be both in
the pool and outside the pool. In this example I
am neither completely in the pool (A) nor
completely outside the pool (not A), but rather
both (A and not A). This is how classical logic
fails in its application to the real world—it
describes the world in a black-and-white
paradigm without any room for grey. In debate,
however, we can see that this inverts our
understanding of how affirmatives ―are‖ or ―are
not‖ topical under the resolution.
understanding of how affirmatives ―are‖ or ―are not‖
topical under the resolution.
The second problem with classical logic is its
application from the macro-political perception (―The
Law says this…‖) to its micro-political
implementation (―You went to jail because of
this…‖). This is the traditional problem in the
relationships between theory and practicality,
generality and specificity, etc. This is viewed as an
inconsistency since the vagueness of the law has
different implications when directly applied to those it
governs. Oren Perez, a paraconsistent logician,
describes the difference between a macro-political
conception of the law and its micro-political
implementation, saying:
Vagueness makes inconsistency – and
consequently, the paradox – less noticeable. It
allows the law to apply what looks like a
single concept across diverse cases, altering at
the same time the meaning of this concept at
the application stage – maintaining in this way
a façade of consistency (Perez 127).
In debate the resolution is this single concept that is
inconsistent and vague yet projects some form of
consistency. This creates many problems for both the
affirmative and the negative. For the negative, the
vagueness of the resolution allows affirmatives to
almost literally construct any 1AC that they prefer, as
long as they, under the many interpretations of the
wording in the resolution, provide definitions that fit
their case. The vagueness of the resolution allows
affirmatives a very expansive ground to construct a
case—so much ground with infinite prep time that it
is burdening—although highly educational—towards
the negative. However, the negative has an advantage.
It could be said, in comparison to the statement from
Perez, that the negative takes the general, vague
resolution and compares it to affirmative cases. And
as Perez mentioned, this application from a single
concept to the cases it is applied to will prove to be
inconsistent. Thus the negative has the ability to show
that the affirmative—in multiple ways—is extra-
topical, effects-topical, non-topical, etc. It is the
nature of the resolution that produces this effect: that
affirmatives can virtually design any case and make it
fit with specific definitions of the words/phrases in
the resolution and that negatives have the ability to
pick apart affirmatives to show how they are not
completely topical.
So we come to the paradox of the resolution in acade-
The Bulletin
-mic debate. Affirmatives have lots of ground and
negatives can show how affirmatives are not—
cannot—be topical under the classical system of
logic. It is interesting because this situation would
mean that successful negative teams would run
topicality arguments almost indefinitely in every
round. However, judges seem to have discarded the
merit of topicality arguments (―time-sucks‖) in the
past few years—probably because of this problem (or
paradox, as logicians call it). If all judges took
topicality arguments from negatives to their upmost
seriousness, one could argue that negatives should
never lose!
Thus the resolution does not provide a ―fair‖ or equal
ground for the negatives and affirmatives to debate.
What are we to do in the debate world? Change the
resolution? No. I propose that we change our system
of logic in approaching the demon of vagueness that
we call the resolution.
I suggest that we search for a paraconsistent approach
to the resolution. Paraconsistent logic rejects the
binary (A, not A) tradition of classical logic and
instead prefers a triad (A, not A, both A and not A).
Michael Da Silva notes ―this three-valued
paraconsistent approach to logic more adequately
describes reality than the classical approach‖ (Silva
1). In the realm of debate this is much more realistic:
expecting affirmatives to rigidly fit their cases inside
the resolution is tragically unattainable. So, let‘s view
the resolution on a more realistic basis; or, as Graham
Priest says
[T]rying to solve the paradoxes may be the
wrong thing to do. Suppose we stop banging
our heads against a brick wall trying to find a
solution, and accept that paradoxes as brute
facts. That is some sentences are true (and true
only), some false (and false only), and some
both true and false (Priest 220)!
While I agree with Priests comment, it has been my
experience (as I have outlined in this essay) that it is
virtually impossible for affirmative cases to be
completely, only topical. However, I am hopeful that
a paraconsistent approach to the resolution will allow
a much more educational experience in policy and
Lincoln-Douglas debate and equal out the fairness for
both sides to debate.
Ideally a strong paraconsistent approach to the
resolution would eliminate most topicality arguments.
One of the few standards I find valid from the
Vol. I Issue I 31
negative is the destruction of grounds for the negative
to run disadvantages or any other off-case arguments.
It is my personal belief that a 1AC is topical enough
if negatives can run any arguments at all besides
topicality violations. Nevertheless, this is more of an
ideal situation, and is not reasonable in our current
conception of the resolution in policy and LD debate.
We still have the problem of the resolution—and it
seems we will for a long time to come. I am hopeful
that topicality arguments will dwindle since I find
them to be an inherent advantage over the affirmative.
And as the difference between policy and LD debate
shows us, changing the length or scope of the
resolution has no effect on the inherent damage it
forces onto both the affirmative and the negative.
References
Perez, Owen. "The Institutionalization of
Inconsistency: From Fluid Concepts to
Random Walk." Paradoxes and
Inconsistencies in the Law. Eds. Oren Perez
and Gunther Teubner. Portland: Hart
Publishing, 2006. 119-143.
Priest, Graham. "The Logic of Paradox." Journal of
Philosophical Logic (1979): 219-241.
Silva, Michael Da. "In Search of a Paraconsistent
Approach to the Law." Sapere Aude (2009): 1-
20.

When it comes down to the wire, debate is still an

educational event. My personal solution to the
tyranny of the resolution is to vote on teams based on
how they debate during the round—a very simple
conception of debate that I think many of us have
walked away from. In legal situations, laws are
hundreds of pages long and are in the tradition of
hundreds of years of other legal texts. It takes much
longer to explain the conditions of a law than simply
reducing it down to one phrase like the resolution.
Despite whether or not the resolution is inherently
flawed due to the paradigm of classical logic, debaters
can experience and learn for themselves the same
problem of classical logic that paraconsistency tries to
show. If anything, in the end, let‘s allow debaters to
learn how the classical logical system is flawed and
give them the experience, the knowledge and the tools
to go out into the world and try to create a better
alternative. It is with this paradigm that we can see
how the classical logical system will, hopefully, one
day undermine itself; the educational simulation of
debate can allow alternative logical systems to be
processed and assessed, and maybe one day a realistic
alternative can be constructed in the real world.
 Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Bulletin:
Forensics in the 21st Century!
The Bulletin is a tri-annual forensic magazine publication with news, articles and advertisements
from and to those in the forensic world in the United States. "The Bulletin" was the original name of
the now-famous National Forensic League magazine Rostrum. This publication, put together by
Dynasty Debate, sets out to provide similar information like that in the monthly issues of Rostrum
but as an alternative that seeks to further enhance the breadth, depth and importance of forensics
in secondary and higher education. The Bulletin is published online at Dynasty Debate and
elsewhere in other blogs for free viewing by any persons. It is our hope that The Bulletin will
impact both those inside and outside the forensic community and enhance the pedagogical
importance of debate.

www.dynasty-debate.com