FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

FIAT GOOD—INDEX
1AC/1NC/2AC Framework/FIAT Good
FIAT Good—Index...........................................................................................................................................1
Framework 1NC...............................................................................................................................................2
Observation ( ): the Framework (Long)...........................................................................................................4
Observation ( ): the Framework (Short)...........................................................................................................6
Framework 2AC...............................................................................................................................................7
Alternative Abuse 2AC.....................................................................................................................................8
Floating PICs 2AC...........................................................................................................................................9
Performative Contradiction 2AC....................................................................................................................10
Performative Contradiction (1AR—Negation Theory)..................................................................................11
Debate Good Ev—Rawls, Muir, & Kulynych................................................................................................12
Debate Good Ev—Joyner...............................................................................................................................13
Normativity 2AC............................................................................................................................................15
Generic Language/Representations Critiques 2AC........................................................................................18
Language/Representations Critiques 2AC(Generic Link/Perm Module)......................................................21
Language/Representations Critiques—Krishna Ev........................................................................................22
Language/Representations Critiques—Butler ...............................................................................................23
Language/Representations Critiques—Žižek.................................................................................................25

1
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

FRAMEWORK 1NC

A) INTERPRETATION: “RESOLVED” IN THE RESOLUTION IS A REFLEXIVE VERB AND OT MEANS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO
ESTABLISH A POLICY

MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY 1996 [HTTP://DICTIONARY.REFERENCE.COM/SEARCH?Q=RESOLVED, DOWNLOADED 07/20/03]

“6. To change or convert by resolution or formal vote; -- used only reflexively; as, the house resolved itself into a committee of the
whole.”

B) VIOLATION: THE PLAN DOESN’T FIAT A UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

C) FIAT GOOD:
1. FAIRNESS—FIATING IMMEDIATE PASSAGE OF THE PLAN IS THE ONLY WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY DOES
SOMETHING WHICH IS THE STARTING POINT FOR ALL NEGATIVE GROUND. THIS IS KEY TO ALL OUR DISAD UNIQUENESS AND LINKS AS WELL AS COUNTER-
PLANS WHICH AFFECT THE POLITICAL PROCESS. THERE ARE ALSO AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MOVEMENTS AND NO ONE WRITES CARDS ABOUT ACTIVISM
AT A DEBATE TOURNAMENT ON THIS ISSUE BY THEM. AT A MINIMUM, IT DOUBLE THE GROUND WE HAVE TO RESEARCH BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE TO
RESEARCH THE EFFECTS OF THEIR POLICY AND ITS ADVANTAGES AS WELL AS WHETHER OR NOT THEIR ACTIVISM TO DO THAT POLICY IS GOOD.

2. EDUCATION—FIAT IS KEY TO BEING INFORMED CITIZENS, WITHOUT IT WE NEVER LEARN ABOUT THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND DON’T TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE POSSIBLE BAD OUTCOMES OF OUR ACTIONS. SIMULATING POLICY SOLVES ALL THEIR OFFENSE, ALLOWING PEOPLE A SAFE
SPACE TO TEST NEW IDEAS

JOYNER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN, 1999 [CHRISTOPHER C., “TEACHING INTERNATIONAL LAW,” 5 ILSA J INT'L &
COMP L 377, L/N]
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 legalimplications of various foreign policy actions.
United States 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
In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult
lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein."
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.

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, theygain 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.

2
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

FRAMEWORK 1NC

3. EXTRA-TOPICALITY—THE AFFIRMATIVE ADDS NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTION TO THE RESOLUTION FROM WHICH THEY CLAIM ALL THEIR
ADVANTAGES, A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF EXTRA-TOPICAL ACTION GIVING THEM A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE IN THE DEBATE. EVEN IF WHAT THEY DO IS
PREDICTABLE, IT’S INFINITELY REGRESSIVE AND JUSTIFIES OTHER EXTRA-TOPICAL ACTIONS, AND PREDICTABILITY DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. THIS IS AN
INDEPENDENT VOTING ISSUE.

[4. THEY NEED A PLAN—THE PLAN IS THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE AND WITHOUT ONE WE DON’T HAVE ANY STABLE GROUND TO BASE OUR STRATEGY,
LINK DISADS, OR EVEN CRITIQUES. LACK OF A PLAN MAKES THEIR ADVOCACY VAGUE AND ALLOWS THEM TO STRATEGICALLY SHIFT OUT OF OUR
ARGUMENTS, MOOTING THE 1NC.]

D) IT’ A VOTING ISSUE:

1. SEVERING THEIR FRAMEWORK IS ILLEGIT, IT CREATES A MOVING TARGET AND FURTHER SKEWS OUR STRATEGY BY MAKING US DEBATE MULTIPLE
WORLDS AND THEY GET TO SPEAK LAST SO WE WOULD NEVER WIN.

2. KEY TO OBJECTIVITY—THEIR FRAMEWORK DEMANDS A JUDGE INTERVENING WITH HER OR HIS PERSONAL POLITICS WHICH REFLECTS EVERYONE’S
BIAS, MEANING DEBATE IS POINTLESS BECAUSE THE JUDGE WOULD ALREADY HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP. THE POINT OF FIAT IS TO SUSPEND OUR
BIASES SO WE CAN THINK ABOUT AND DEBATE OTHER WORLDS

—OH YEAH, AND DON’T FORGET FAIRNESS, EDUCATION, AND JURISDICTION—

3
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

OBSERVATION ( ): THE FRAMEWORK (LONG)

OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD COMPARE THE PLAN TO A COMPETITIVE POLICY OPTION AS IF THEY WERE ENACTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT VIA FIAT. WE’LL ISOLATE SEVERAL NET BENEFITS TO OUR VIEW:

FIRST, FAIRNESS:
A) THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FRAMEWORKS. ALLOWING THE NEGATIVE TO CHOOSE IN THE 1NC MEANS THE AFF. WOULD ALWAYS LOSE
BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T POETIC ENOUGH, THEY CONCEIVED OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WRONG, WE USED THE WRONG MOVEMENT, OR ANY
NUMBER OF THINGS. THEY COULD MAKE DEBATE AN IRON CHEF COMPETITION, AND WE DIDN’T BRING A KNIFE.

B) FIAT IS KEY TO A FAIR DIVISION OF GROUND, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO PRE-ESTABLISH WHAT GROUND THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS TO DEFEND. NEW
FRAMEWORKS MOOTS A 1AC PREPARED FOR DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, GIVING THE NEGATIVE AN EXTRA NINE MINUTES OF SPEECH TIME AND THE
ENTIRE BLOCK. IT’S LIKE WE COME TO PLAY BASKETBALL AND THEY TELL US THE GAME IS BASEBALL WHEN THEY SHOW UP

C) SAYING FIAT DOESN’T EXIST IS A NON-SEQUITUR—WE’RE NOT DUMB, WE KNOW THAT, BUT THEY’RE CRITIQUE ISN’T ANY MORE LIKELY TO
TRANSLATE BEYOND THIS DEBATE THAN OUR IS. FAIRNESS IS A GATEWAY, BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, WE CAN’T HAVE EDUCATIONAL OR PRODUCTIVE
DEBATES AND EVERYONE WOULD JUST QUIT. AT BEST, THEY CAN COMPARE THEIR CRITIQUE ALTERNATIVE TO OUR FIATED PLAN.

SECOND, EDUCATION:

A) POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—AND, EVEN IF WE DON’T BECOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SIMULATING THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS US
TO CHECK THE GOVERNEMNT VIOLENCE

RAWLS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1999 [JOHN, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, P. 54-57]

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.

4
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

OBSERVATION ( ): THE FRAMEWORK (LONG)

B) IMAGINING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD DO AND NOT WE WOULD DO IS THE EPITOME OF SWITCH-SIDE DEBATING. THIS IS KEY TO CRITIQUING OUR
OWN ASSUMPTIONS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]

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 u nderstand 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. <292-3>

AND, THIS INTERNAL LINK TURNS ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS BECAUSE WE JUST DEBATE THESE ISSUES, NOT NECESSARILY BELIEVE THEM, ALLOWING US A
SAFE SPACE TO EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]

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. <288>

C) OUR FRAMEWORK IS KEY TO GOOD ACTIVISM—ACTIVISTS MUST KNOW HOW THE STRUCTURES THEY WANT TO CHANGE OPERATE. POLICY
SIMULATION ALSO HAS PERMFORMATIVE BENEFITS FOR CHALLENGING EXPERT GOVERNANCE

KULYNYCH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, 1997 [JESSICA J., “PERFORMING POLITICS: FOUCAULT,
HABERMAS, AND POSTMODERN PARTICIPATION,” POLITY, VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 2]

When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance
and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or
controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical
debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The
existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert
policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens
out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions
continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding.

D) OUR FRAMEWORK MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE 1NC—ALLOWING THE NEG. TO ANSWER IT IN THE BLOCK SKEWS THE 2AC WHICH IS THE LAST
CHANCE FOR OFFENSE AND SAND-BAGS THE 1AR SO THAT I HAVE TO DROP STUFF

THIRD, IS THE STATE: [INSERT EVIDENCE]

5
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

OBSERVATION ( ): THE FRAMEWORK (SHORT)

OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD COMPARE THE PLAN TO A COMPETITIVE POLICY OPTION AS IF THEY WERE ENACTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT VIA FIAT. WE’LL ISOLATE SEVERAL NET BENEFITS TO OUR VIEW:

FIRST, FAIRNESS: THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FRAMEWORKS. ALLOWING

THE NEGATIVE TO CHOOSE IN THE 1NC MEANS THE AFF. WOULD
ALWAYS LOSE BECAUSE THEIR CHOICE ISN’T PREDICTABLE FROM THE RESOLUTION. THIS MOOTS A 1AC PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT DEBATE, GIVING
THE NEGATIVE AN EXTRA NINE MINUTES OF SPEECH TIME. FAIRNESS IS A GATEWAY, WITHOUT IT, WE CAN’T EVEN HAVE EDUCATIONAL DEBATES AND
EVERYONE WOULD JUST QUIT. AT BEST, THEY CAN COMPARE THEIR ALTERNATIVE TO OUR PLAN.

SECOND, EDUCATION:

A) POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—AND, EVEN IF WE DON’T JOIN CONGRESS, SIMULATING POLICY ALLOWS US TO CHECK GOVERNMENT
VIOLENCE AND PROMOTES PEACE

RAWLS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1999 [JOHN, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, P. 54-57]

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.

B) OUR FRAMEWORK IS KEY TO GOOD ACTIVISM—ACTIVISTS MUST KNOW HOW THE STRUCTURES THEY WANT TO CHANGE OPERATE. POLICY
SIMULATION ALSO HAS PERMFORMATIVE BENEFITS FOR CHALLENGING EXPERT GOVERNANCE

KULYNYCH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, 1997 [JESSICA J., “PERFORMING POLITICS: FOUCAULT,
HABERMAS, AND POSTMODERN PARTICIPATION,” POLITY, VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 2]

When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance
and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or
controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical
debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The
existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert
policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens
out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions
continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding.

C) OUR FRAMEWORK MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE 1NC—ALLOWING THE NEG. TO ANSWER IT IN THE BLOCK SKEWS THE 2AC WHICH IS THE LAST
CHANCE FOR OFFENSE AND SAND-BAGS THE 1AR SO THAT I HAVE TO DROP STUFF

THIRD, IS THE STATE: [INSERT EVIDENCE]

6
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

FRAMEWORK 2AC

OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD COMPARE THE PLAN TO A COMPETITIVE POLICY OPTION AS IF THEY WERE ENACTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT VIA FIAT. WE’LL ISOLATE SEVERAL NET BENEFITS TO OUR VIEW:

FIRST, FAIRNESS: THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FRAMEWORKS. ALLOWING

THE NEGATIVE TO CHOOSE IN THE 1NC MEANS THE AFF. WOULD
ALWAYS LOSE BECAUSE THEIR CHOICE ISN’T PREDICTABLE FROM THE RESOLUTION. THIS MOOTS A 1AC PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT DEBATE, GIVING
THE NEGATIVE AN EXTRA NINE MINUTES OF SPEECH TIME. FAIRNESS IS A GATEWAY, WITHOUT IT, WE CAN’T EVEN HAVE EDUCATIONAL DEBATES AND
EVERYONE WOULD JUST QUIT. AT BEST, THEY CAN COMPARE THEIR ALTERNATIVE TO OUR PLAN.

SECOND, EDUCATION:

A) POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—AND, EVEN IF WE DON’T JOIN CONGRESS, SIMULATING POLICY ALLOWS US TO CHECK GOVERNMENT
VIOLENCE AND PROMOTES PEACE

RAWLS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1999 [JOHN, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, P. 54-57]

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.

B) OUR FRAMEWORK IS KEY TO GOOD ACTIVISM—ACTIVISTS MUST KNOW HOW THE STRUCTURES THEY WANT TO CHANGE OPWERATE. POLICY
SIMULATION ALSO HAS PERMFORMATIVE BENEFITS FOR CHALLENGING EXPERT GOVERNANCE

KULYNYCH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, 1997 [JESSICA J., “PERFORMING POLITICS: FOUCAULT,
HABERMAS, AND POSTMODERN PARTICIPATION,” POLITY, VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 2]

When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance
and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or
controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical
debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The
existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert
policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens
out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions
continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding.

C) OUR FRAMEWORK MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE 1NC—ALLOWING THE NEG. TO ANSWER IT IN THE BLOCK SKEWS THE 2AC WHICH IS THE LAST
CHANCE FOR OFFENSE AND SAND-BAGS THE 1AR SO THAT I HAVE TO DROP STUFF

7
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

ALTERNATIVE ABUSE 2AC

( ): ALTERNATIVE ABUSE:

A) NO TEXT—THIS ALLOWS THEM TO ARBITRARILY SHIFT AND REARTICULATE THEIR ALTERNATIVE WHENEVER THEY WANT, WHICH HURTS ARGUMENT
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREVENTS US FROM GENERATING OFFENSE.

B) IT’S CONDITIONAL—THEY CAN KICK IT ANYTIME AND GO FOR THE STATUS QUO [OR THE CP]. THIS IS AN ARBITRARY STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE AND
MEANS THEY LINK AS WELL BECAUSE OF INSINCERITY.

C) IT’S A VOTING ISSUE FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION.

8
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

FLOATING PICS 2AC

( ): FLOATING PICS BAD:

A) INFINITELY REGRESSIVE—JUSTIFIES PICKING OUT OF ONE WORD, MISSPELLINGS, AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND AND
HURTS TOPIC EDUCATION.

B) STEALS OUR GROUND—THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS NO ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE AND CANNOT PREPARE TO DEFEND EVERY WORD IN THE 1AC.
THEY CAN HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT OUR PLAN.

C) MOVING TARGET—THEY NEVER SPECIFY WHAT EXACTLY THEIR ADVOCACY IS WHICH ALLOWS SHIFTING. THIS CRUSHES DEBATABILITY AND
ARGUMENT RESPONSIBILITY AND MEANS WE CAN’T GENERATE OFFENSE.

D) IT’S A VOTING ISSUE FOR FAIRNESS EDUCATION.

9
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION 2AC

( ): PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION:

A) [EXPLAIN LINK]

B) IT MAKES US DEBATE AGAINST OURSELVES—TO ANSWER ONE ARGUMENT WE HAVE TO LINK TO THE OTHER, MEANS WE ALWAYS LOSE.

C) IT’S CONDITIONAL—THEY GET TO PICK WORLD THEY GO FOR. THIS GIVES THEM AN ARBITRARY ADVANTAGE AND HURTS ARGUMENT RESPONSIBILITY.

D) TURNS THEIR OWN CRITIQUE—THEY LINK, WE LINK, MEANS VOTE AFFIRMATIVE FOR OUR ADVANTAGES BECAUSE THE CRITIQUES A WASH AND THEIR
LINKING IS WORSE BECAUSE THEY KNEW ABOUT THE K BEFOREHAND.

E) IT’S A VOTING ISSUE FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION.

10
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION (1AR—NEGATION THEORY)

1. JUST CONDITIONALITY IN DISGUISE—IT’S AN ARBITRARY STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE, PREVENTS US FROM GENERATING OFFENSE, AND HURTS EDUCATION
THROUGH ARGUMENT IRRESPONSIBILITY.

2. JUSTIFIES HYPO-TESTING—IF THE NEG. IS JUST TESTING THE AFF., THEN THE AFF. IS JUST TESTING THE RESOLUTION. THIS JUSTIFIES COUNTER-
WARRANTS, PLAN-PLAN DEBATES, AND SEVERING THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN.

3. IT’S ALSO A VOTING ISSUE.

4. IT PROVES THERE’S NO ALTERNATIVE TO THEIR CRITIQUE, MEANS WE OUTWEIGH

11
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

DEBATE GOOD EV—RAWLS, MUIR, & KULYNYCH

POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—AND, EVEN IF WE DON’T JOIN CONGRESS, SIMULATING POLICY ALLOWS US TO CHECK GOVERNMENT
VIOLENCE AND PROMOTES PEACE

RAWLS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1999 [JOHN, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, P. 54-57]
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.

IMAGINING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD DO AND NOT WE WOULD DO IS THE EPITOME OF SWITCH-SIDE DEBATING. THIS IS KEY TO CRITIQUING OUR
OWN ASSUMPTIONS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]
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 u nderstand 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. <292-3>

AND, THIS INTERNAL LINK TURNS ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS BECAUSE WE JUST DEBATE THESE ISSUES, NOT NECESSARILY BELIEVE THEM, ALLOWING US A
SAFE SPACE TO EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]
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. <288>

OUR FRAMEWORK IS KEY TO GOOD ACTIVISM—ACTIVISTS MUST KNOW HOW THE STRUCTURES THEY WANT TO CHANGE OPERATE. POLICY SIMULATION
ALSO HAS PERMFORMATIVE BENEFITS FOR CHALLENGING EXPERT GOVERNANCE

KULYNYCH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, 1997 [JESSICA J., “PERFORMING POLITICS: FOUCAULT,
HABERMAS, AND POSTMODERN PARTICIPATION,” POLITY, VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 2]
When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance and disruption that bring the
invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or controlling the outcome of the policy
debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy
commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically
dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily
recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as
passive clients. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions
are non-binding.

12
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

DEBATE GOOD EV—JOYNER

SIMULATED SWITCH-SIDE DEBATING DOES NOT CREATE PASSIVE CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION, BUT ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
IT ALSO INSTILLS A CRITICAL VIEW TOWARDS U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND ALLOWS PEOPLE A SAFE SPACE TO TEST, AND CHANGE, THEIR VIEWS

JOYNER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN, 1999 [CHRISTOPHER C., “TEACHING INTERNATIONAL LAW,” 5 ILSA J INT'L &
COMP L 377, L/N]

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.

13
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

DEBATE GOOD EV—JOYNER

DEBATE’S SIMULATION STOPS USELESS PONTIFICAITON AND EXPOSES US TO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THROUGH RESEARCH

JOYNER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN, 1999 [CHRISTOPHER C., “TEACHING INTERNATIONAL LAW,” 5 ILSA J INT'L &
COMP L 377, L/N]

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.

SIMULATING FOEIGN POLICY IN DEBATES BREEDS EDUCATIONAL COLLABORATION AND TEACHES US HOW ADVOCACY WORKS

JOYNER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN, 1999 [CHRISTOPHER C., “TEACHING INTERNATIONAL LAW,” 5 ILSA J INT'L &
COMP L 377, L/N]

A debate exercise is particularly suited to an examination of United States foreign policy, which in political science courses is usually studied from a
theoretical, often heavily realpolitik perspective. In such courses, international legal considerations are usually given short shrift, if discussed at all. As a result, students
may come to believe that international law plays no role in United States foreign policy-making. In fact, serious consideration is usually paid by government officials to
international law in the formulation of United States policy, albeit sometimes ex post facto as a justification for policy, rather than as a bona fide prior constraint on
consideration of policy options. In addition, lawyers are prominent advisers at many levels of the foreign-policy-making process. Students
should appreciate the relevance of international law for past and current US actions, such as the invasion of Grenada or the refusal of the United
States to sign the law of the sea treaty and landmines convention, as well as for [*387] hypothetical (though subject to public discussion) United States
policy options such as hunting down and arresting war criminals in Bosnia, withdrawing from the United Nations, or assassinating Saddam Hussein.

Through collaborative learning students become problem solvers, contributors and analytical discussants . The more undergraduate students learn
through these exercises to form and test their own ideas about international law, the more significant the professor's role becomes as the class mentor and source of
authority in the learning process. Teaching international law offers a unique opportunity to depart from the traditional approach to classroom learning from lecture and
rote regurgitation of dates, events and situations. The interactive quality of the learning environment allows for students to move from a strategy
of peer competition to one of peer collaboration. Participation in these exercises can be important for the learning process, particularly since students are
encouraged to develop keener judgment on the merits of legal questions, gain insights into the potential of group decision-making, and acquire greater self-confidence
about their contribution to planning and decision-making for the class presentation.

14
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

NORMATIVITY 2AC

1. NO LINK: SCHLAG ASSUMES LEGAL SCHOLARS PUBLISHING IN LAW REVIEWS—WHILE HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE MIGHT HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES, IT’S
NOT THE SAME BECAUSE WE DON’T PRETEND LIKE OUR PRESCRIPTIONS WILL REALLY GET PUT INTO ACTION LIKE THE PROFESSORS WHO SCHLAG
DESCRIBES ASSUME. INSTEAD, OUR PURPOSE IS EDUCATION

2. TURN/: THEY DON’T INDICT OUR PLAN, THEY’RE JUST GIVING YOU AN FYI ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. VOTE AFFIRMATIVE UNTIL THEY NEGATE OUR
PLAN IN THE HYPOTHETICAL WORLD IN WHICH IT OPERATES. EVEN IF THEY WIN WE HAVE NO ADVANTAGE, WE STILL LEARNED ABOUT STUFF WHICH IS
GOOD, AND WE ENJOY DEBATE

3. TURN/: NORMATIVITY GOOD:

A) RULES ON DISCOURSE ARE INEVITABLE—THERE’S NO DEBATE WITHOUT THEM AND THIS PROVES THEY LINK AS WELL; THEY ALSO FOLLOW NORMS
SUCH AS TIME CONSTRAINTS, READING EVIDENCE, SPEED, AND GOING NEGATIVE

HABERMAS, PROFESSOR AT GOETHE UNIVERSITY IN FRANKFORT, 90 [THE COMMUNICATIVE ETHICS CONTROVERSY; EDITED BY BENHABIB AND
DALLMAYR]
The second school of thought saddles transcendental pragmatics with a far-reaching claim to `ultimate justification’. Ultimate justification is, as W. Kuhlmann
emphasizes, supposed to create an absolutely secure basis of unerring knowledge, a basis that is immune to the fallibilism of all experiential knowledge:
What I cannot meaningfully dispute (i.e., without contradicting myself) because it is necessarily presupposed in a process of
meaningful argumentation, and what for the same reason I cannot meaningfully justify by deriving it deductively (except at the price of a petitio principis), is
therefore a secure, unshakable basis. As participants in a process of argumentation, we have necessarily always already accepted the
propositions and rules that belong to these presuppositions. We are unable to question them skeptically, either to dispute their validity or to adduce
reasons for their validity.
In other words, the type of
argument that H. Lenk calls petitio tollendi serves only to demonstrate the inevitability of certain conditions and
rules. It can be used only to show an opponent that he makes performative use of a tollendum, that is, of the thing he [OR SHE] wants to
negate.

B) LIMITS ON DISCOURSE AND A STRUCTURED TOPIC ARE ESSENTIAL BECAUSE DISORGANIZATION INVITES INTERFERENCE AND CO-OPTION OF
EDUCATION AND CHANGE.

HABERMAS, PROFESSOR AT GOETHE UNIVERSITY IN FRANKFORT, 90 [THE COMMUNICATIVE ETHICS CONTROVERSY; EDITED BY BENHABIB AND
DALLMAYR]
Discourse take place in particular social contexts and are subject to the limitations of time and space. Their participants are not Kantian
intelligible characters but real human beings driven by other motives in addition to the one permissible motive of the search for truth.
Topics and contributions have to be organized. The opening, adjournment, and resumption of discussions must be arranged. Given all
this, institutional measures are needed to neutralize empirical limitations and avoidable internal and external interference sufficiently
that the idealized conditions always already presupposed by participants in argumentation can at least be adequately approximated.
The need to institutionalize discourses, trivial though it may be, does not contradict the partly counterfactual content of the presuppositions
of discourse. To the contrary, attempts at institutionalization are subject in turn to normative conceptions of their goal, which spring
spontaneously from our intuitive grasp of what argumentation is. This assertion can be verified empirically by studying the
authorizations, exemptions, and procedural rules that have been used to institutionalize theo retical discourse in science or
practical discourse in parliamentary activity. To avoid the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, one must differentiate carefully
between rules of discourse and conventions serving the institutionalization of discourses, con ventions, that is, which help to
actualize the ideal content of the presuppositions of argumentation under empirical conditions.
If, after these cursory remarks and pending a more detailed analysis, we accept the rules tentatively set down by Alexy, we have at our disposal, in conjunction with
a weak idea of normative justification (i.e., one that does not prejudge the matter) premises that are strong enough for the derivation of the
universalization principle 'U'.

If every person entering a process of argumentation must, among other things, make presuppositions whose content can be
expressed in rules (3.1) to (3.3), and if further, we understand what it means to discuss hypothetically whether norms of action ought
to be adopted then everyone who seriously tries to redeem normative claims to validity in a discursive way intuitively accepts
procedural conditions_which amount to an implicit acknowledgment of 'U'.

15
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

NORMATIVITY 2AC

4. PERMUTE: ENDORSE THE AFF. AND INCORPORATE NORMATIVE AND NON-NORMATIVE STYLES OF DEBATING

5. PERMUTE: ENDORSE THE AFF. NON-NORMATIVELY—WHETHER VIEWED AS A DEMAND OR A PERFORMANCE, OUR AFFIRMATIVE STILL HAS SOME
VALUE AND SOME RISK OF SOLVING EVEN IF IT’S ONLY THROUGH EDUCATING US ABOUT HE ISSUES FOR FUTURE ACTION

6. FIAT IS GOOD—OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD COMPARE THE PLAN TO A COMPETITIVE POLICY OPTION AS IF THEY WERE
ENACTED BY THE GOVERNMENT VIA FIAT. WE’LL ISOLATE SEVERAL NET BENEFITS TO OUR VIEW:

A) FAIRNESS—SAYING FIAT DOESN’T EXIST IS A NON-SEQUITUR—WE’RE NOT DUMB, WE KNOW THAT, BUT THEIR CRITIQUE ISN’T ANY MORE LIKELY
TO TRANSLATE BEYOND THIS DEBATE THAN OUR IS. THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FRAMEWORKS. ALLOWING THE NEGATIVE TO CHOOSE IN THE
1NC MEANS THE AFF. WOULD ALWAYS LOSE BECAUSE THEIR CHOICE ISN’T PREDICTABLE FROM THE RESOLUTION. THIS MOOTS A 1AC PREPARED FOR
A DIFFERENT DEBATE, GIVING THE NEGATIVE AN EXTRA NINE MINUTES OF SPEECH TIME. FAIRNESS IS A GATEWAY, WITHOUT IT, WE CAN’T EVEN HAVE
EDUCATIONAL DEBATES AND EVERYONE WOULD JUST QUIT. AT BEST, THEY CAN COMPARE THEIR ALTERNATIVE TO OUR PLAN. THEY ALSO REQUIRE
JUDGE INTERVENTION BECAUSE DEBATE BECOMES NON-HYPOTHETICAL AND THUS DEPENDS ON PERSONAL OPINION

B) EDUCATION—FIAT IS KEY TO BEING INFORMED CITIZENS, WITHOUT IT WE NEVER LEARN ABOUT THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND DON’T TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE POSSIBLE BAD OUTCOMES OF OUR ACTIONS. SIMULATING POLICY SOLVES ALL THEIR OFFENSE, ALLOWING PEOPLE A SAFE
SPACE TO TEST NEW IDEAS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]

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 u nderstand 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. <292-3>

AND, THIS INTERNAL LINK TURNS ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS BECAUSE WE JUST DEBATE THESE ISSUES, NOT NECESSARILY BELIEVE THEM, ALLOWING US A
SAFE SPACE TO EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS

MUIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AT GEORGE MASON, 1993 [PHILOSOPHY & RHETORIC, V.26, N.4]

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. <288>

16
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

NORMATIVITY 2AC

C) ACTIVISM—ACTIVISTS MUST KNOW HOW THE STRUCTURES THEY WANT TO CHANGE OPERATE. POLICY SIMULATION ALSO HAS PERMFORMATIVE
BENEFITS FOR CHALLENGING EXPERT GOVERNANCE

KULYNYCH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, 1997 [JESSICA J., “PERFORMING POLITICS: FOUCAULT,
HABERMAS, AND POSTMODERN PARTICIPATION,” POLITY, VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 2]

When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance
and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or
controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical
debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The
existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert
policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens
out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions
continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding.

7. TURN/: POLICY DEBATERS BECOME POLICY MAKERS—AND, EVEN IF WE DON’T BECOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SIMULATING THE GOVERNMENT
ALLOWS US TO CHECK THE GOVERNEMNT VIOLENCE—THIS MEANS WE CAN ACCESS ALL OF OUR 1AC ADVANTAGES EVEN IF THE PLAN DOESN’T HAPPEN

RAWLS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1999 [JOHN, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, P. 54-57]
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.

[INSERT THEORY]

[ALSO, YOU CAN INSERT THE KETELS EVIDENCE IF YOU WANT—IT CAN ADD MORE ANSWERS TO SCHLAG’S CRITIQUE OF THE SUBJECT AND
HUMANISM ]

17
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

GENERIC LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES 2AC

1. NO LINK: WE DIDN’T MEAN FOR THE WORDS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT WAY AND WE DON’T ENDORSE THE DOMINATION THAT ARE ONLY AN EFFECT OF
THOSE WORDS

2. THE GOOD DISCOURSE OF OUR AFF. SHOULD BE EVALUATEDR AND THEY CAN’T ADVOCATE OUR AFF. BECAUSE FLOATING PICS ARE BAD:
A) INFINITELY REGRESSIVE—JUSTIFIES PICKING OUT OF ONE WORD, MISSPELLINGS, AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEND AND
HURTS TOPIC EDUCATION.

B) STEALS OUR GROUND—THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS NO ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE AND CANNOT PREPARE TO DEFEND EVERY WORD IN THE 1AC.
THEY CAN HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT OUR PLAN.

C) MOVING TARGET—THEY NEVER SPECIFY WHAT EXACTLY THEIR ADVOCACY IS WHICH ALLOWS SHIFTING. THIS CRUSHES DEBATABILITY AND
ARGUMENT RESPONSIBILITY AND MEANS WE CAN’T GENERATE OFFENSE.

D) IT’S A VOTING ISSUE FOR FAIRNESS EDUCATION.

3. PERMUTE: ENDORSE THE AFF. AND THE POLITICS OF THEIR ALTERNATIVE—OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS SINGLE LINGUISTIC ISSUE DOES NOT MEAN
THEIR ENTIRE POLITICAL AGENDS IS INCONSISTENT WITH OURS

4. T U RN /: T H E I R C R I T I C I S M ' S TOTALIZING POSITION SHUTS DOWN MOVEMENTS ; ENDORSING BOTH STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE CREATES SPACE
FOR AN ACTIVIST POLITICS

K RISHNA , P ROF ESSOR OF P OLITICAL S CIENCE AT THE U NIVERSITY OF H AWAI ’ I AT M ANOA , 1993 [SANKARAN, ALTERNATIVES,
SUMMER , P. 400-401]
Chaloupka centers this difference between his own supposedly total critique of all sovereign truths (which he describes as nuclear
criticism in an echo of literary criticism) and the more partial (and issue-based) criticism of what he calls "nuclear opposition"
or "antinuclearists" at the very outset of his book. (KN: xvi) Once again, the unhappy' choice forced upon the reader is to join
Chaloupka in his total critique of all sovereign truths or be trapped in obsolete essentialisms.

This leads to a d isastrous politics, pitting groups that have the most in common (and need to unite on some basis to be effective)
against each o ther. Both Chaloupka and Der Derian thus reserve their most trenchant critique for political groups that should, in
any analysis, be regarded as the closest to them in terms of an oppositional politics and their desired futures. Instead of finding ways
to live with these differences and to (if fleetingly) coalesce against the New Right, this fratricidal critique is politically suicidal. It
obliterates the space for a political activism based on provisional and contingent coalitions, for uniting behind a common cause
even as one recognizes that the coalition is compromised of groups that have very differing (and possibly unresolvable) views of
reality. Moreover, it fails to consider the possibility that there may have been other, more compelling- reasons for the "failure" of
the Nuclear Freeze movement or anti-Gulf War movement. Like many a worthwhile cause in our times, they failed to garner
sufficient support to influence state p olicy. The response to that need not be a totalizing critique that delegitimizes all narratives.

The blackmail inherent in the choice offered by Der Derian and Chaloupka, between total critique and "ineffective" partial
critique, ought to be transparent. Among other things, it effectively militates against the construction of provisional or strategic
essentialism in our attempts to create space for an activist politics. In the next section, I focus more widely on the genre of
critical international theory and its impact on such an activist politics.

18
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

GENERIC LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES 2AC

5. TURN/: THE REFUSAL TO REAPPROPRIATE EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IS POLITICALLY PARALYZING DOGMATISM

BUTLER, CHAIR OF THE RHETORIC DEPARTMENT AT U.C.-BERKLEY, 1997 [JUDITH, EXCITABLE SPEECH, P. 162]
Such dogmatism appears as well in the effort to circumscribe speech that injures, excites, threatens, and offends. Whether it is the
censorship of particular kinds of representation or the circumscription of the domain of public discourse itself, the effort to tighten the
reins on speech undercuts those political impulses to exploit speech itself for its insurrectionary effects. The intellectual opposition to
questions that destabilize a sense of reality seems a mundane academic case in point.

To question a term, a term like "the subject" or "universality," is to ask how it plays, what investments it bears, what aims it achieves,
what alterations it undergoes. The changeable life of that term does not preclude the possibility of its use. If a term becomes
questionable, does that mean it cannot be used any longer, and that we can only use terms that we already know how to master?
Why is it that posing a question about a term is considered the same as enacting a prohibition against use? Why is it that we
sometimes do feel that if a term is dislodged of its prior and known contexts, that we will not be able to live, to survive, to use
language, to speak for ourselves? What kind of guarantee does this effort to refer the speech act back to its originating context
exercise, and what sort of terror does it forestall? Is it that in the ordinary mode, terms arc assumed, terms like "the subject" and
"universality," and the sense in which they "must" be assumed is a moral one, taking the form of an imperative, and like some moral
interdictions, a defense against what terrifies us most? Are we not paralyzed by a fear of the unknown future of words that keeps us from
interrogating the terms that we need to live, and of taking the risk of living the terms that we keep in question?

6. TURN/: EXORCISING DIRTY WORDS ONLY SERVES AS A MASK FOR AGGRESSIVE HUMILIATION; IT IS NOT THE WORDS WHICH WOUND, BUT HOW WE
MAKE THEM MEAN

ŽIŽEK, SENIOR RESEARCHER AT THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL STUDIES(LJUBLJANA), 1999 [SLAVOJ, THE TICKLISH SUBJECT, P.253-4]

Take politically correct probing into hate speech and sexual harassment: the trap into which this effort falls is not only that it makes
us aware of (and thus generates) new forms and layers of humiliation and harassment (we learn that 'fat' , 'stupid', 'short-sighted' …are
to be replaced by 'weight-challenged', etc.); the catch is, rather, that this censoring activity itself, by a kind of devilish dialectical
reversal, starts to participate in what it purports to censor and fight - is it not immediately evident how, in designating somebody
as 'mentally challenged' instead of 'stupid', an ironic distance can always creep in and give rise to an excess of humiliating
aggressivity - one adds insult to injury, as it were, by the supplementary polite patronizing distension (it is well known that aggres -
sivity coated in politeness can be much more painful than directly abusive words, since violence is heightened by the additional contrast
between the aggressive content and the polite surface form ...). In short, what Foucault's account of the discourses that discipline and
regulate sexuality leaves out of consideration is the process by means of which the power mechanism itself becomes eroticized,
that is, contaminated by what it endeavours to 'repress'. It is not enough to claim that the ascetic Christian subject who, in order to
fight temptation, enumerates and categorizes tile various forms of temptation, actually proliferates the object he tries to combat:
the point is, rather, to conceive of how the ascetic who flagellates in order to resist temptation finds sexual pleasure in this
very act of inflicting wounds on himself.

19
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

GENERIC LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES 2AC

7. TURN/: QUIBBLING OVER UNDECIDABLE LANGUAGE CHOICES DIVERTS USE FROM REAL ISSUES AND BLOCKS SOCIAL CHANGE

CHRUCHILL, COORDINATOR OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, 1996 [WARD, “SEMANTIC MASTURBATION ON THE
LEFT,” FROM A NATIVE SON, P. 460]

20
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES 2AC(GENERIC LINK/PERM MODULE)

( ): NO LINK: WE DIDN’T MEAN FOR THE WORDS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT WAY AND WE DON’T ENDORSE THE DOMINATION THAT ARE ONLY AN
EFFECT OF THOSE WORDS—YOU SHOULD WEIGH THE GOOD REPRESENTATIONS OF THE 1AC AS WELL

( ): PERMUTE: ENDORSE THE AFF. AND THE POLITICS OF THEIR ALTERNATIVE—OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS SINGLE LINGUISTIC ISSUE DOES
NOT MEAN THEIR ENTIRE POLITICAL AGENDS IS INCONSISTENT WITH OURS

21
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES—KRISHNA EV.

T U RN /: T H E I R C R I T I C I S M ' S TOTALIZING POSITION SHUTS DOWN MOVEMENTS ; ENDORSING BOTH STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE CREATES SPACE
FOR AN ACTIVIST POLITICS

K RISHNA , P ROF ESSOR OF P OLITICAL S CIENCE AT THE U NIVERSITY OF H AWAI ’ I AT M ANOA , 1993 [SANKARAN, ALTERNATIVES,
SUMMER , P. 400-401]
Chaloupka centers this difference between his own supposedly total critique of all sovereign truths (which he describes as nuclear
criticism in an echo of literary criticism) and the more partial (and issue-based) criticism of what he calls "nuclear opposition"
or "antinuclearists" at the very outset of his book. (KN: xvi) Once again, the unhappy' choice forced upon the reader is to join
Chaloupka in his total critique of all sovereign truths or be trapped in obsolete essentialisms.

This leads to a d isastrous politics, pitting groups that have the most in common (and need to unite on some basis to be effective)
against each o ther. Both Chaloupka and Der Derian thus reserve their most trenchant critique for political groups that should, in
any analysis, be regarded as the closest to them in terms of an oppositional politics and their desired futures. Instead of finding ways
to live with these differences and to (if fleetingly) coalesce against the New Right, this fratricidal critique is politically suicidal. It
obliterates the space for a political activism based on provisional and contingent coalitions, for uniting behind a common cause
even as one recognizes that the coalition is compromised of groups that have very differing (and possibly unresolvable) views of
reality. Moreover, it fails to consider the possibility that there may have been other, more compelling- reasons for the "failure" of
the Nuclear Freeze movement or anti-Gulf War movement. Like many a worthwhile cause in our times, they failed to garner
sufficient support to influence state p olicy. The response to that need not be a totalizing critique that delegitimizes all narratives.

The blackmail inherent in the choice offered by Der Derian and Chaloupka, between total critique and "ineffective" partial
critique, ought to be transparent. Among other things, it effectively militates against the construction of provisional or strategic
essentialism in our attempts to create space for an activist politics. In the next section, I focus more widely on the genre of
critical international theory and its impact on such an activist politics.

22
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES—BUTLER
TURN/: THE REFUSAL TO TURN EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE AGAINST EXCLUSION IS POLITICALLY PARALYZING DOGMATISM

BUTLER, CHAIR OF THE RHETORIC DEPARTMENT AT U.C.-BERKLEY, 1997 [JUDITH, EXCITABLE SPEECH, P. 162]
Such dogmatism appears as well in the effort to circumscribe speech that injures, excites, threatens, and offends. Whether it is the
censorship of particular kinds of representation or the circumscription of the domain of public discourse itself, the effort to tighten the
reins on speech undercuts those political impulses to exploit speech itself for its insurrectionary effects. The intellectual opposition to questions
that destabilize a sense of reality seems a mundane academic case in point.

The
To question a term, a term like "the subject" or "universality," is to ask how it plays, what investments it bears, what aims it achieves, what alterations it undergoes.
changeable life of that term does not preclude the possibility of its use. If a term becomes questionable, does that mean it cannot be used
any longer, and that we can only use terms that we already know how to master? Why is it that posing a question about a term is considered the
same as enacting a prohibition against use? Why is it that we sometimes do feel that if a term is dislodged of its prior and known contexts, that we will not be
able to live, to survive, to use language, to speak for ourselves? What kind of guarantee does this effort to refer the speech act back to its originating context exercise,
and what sort of terror does it forestall? Is it that in the ordinary mode, terms arc assumed, terms like "the subject" and "universality," and the sense in which they
"must" be assumed is a moral one, taking the form of an imperative, and like some moral interdictions, a defense against what terrifies us most? Are we not
paralyzed by a fear of the unknown future of words that keeps us from interrogating the terms that we need to live, and of taking the
risk of living the terms that we keep in question?

GIVING WORDS STATIC MEANING PREVENTS FIGHTING THE OPPRESSIVE STRUCTURES EMBODIED BY THOSE WORDS ON ALL LEVELS

BUTLER, PROFESSOR AT UC-BERKLEY, 1997 [JUDITH, EXCITABLE SPEECH, P. 93]

23
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES—BUTLER

WORDS ARE NOT PROPERTY, NO ONE OWNS THEM; INSTEAD, WE GIVE THEM THE MEANING THEY HAVE, AND OUR JOB IS TO TRANSFORM THAT MEANING
TO WORK AGAINST EXCLUSTION

BUTLER, PROFESSOR AT UC-BERKLEY, 1997 [JUDITH, EXCITABLE SPEECH, P. 161]

24
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES—ŽIŽEK

TURN/: EXORCISING DIRTY WORDS ONLY SERVES AS A MASK FOR AGGRESSIVE HUMILIATION; IT IS NOT THE WORDS WHICH WOUND, BUT HOW WE MAKE
THEM MEAN

ŽIŽEK, SENIOR RESEARCHER AT THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL STUDIES(LJUBLJANA), 1999 [SLAVOJ, THE TICKLISH SUBJECT, P.253-4]

Take politically correct probing into hate speech and sexual harassment: the trap into which this effort falls is not only that it makes
us aware of (and thus generates) new forms and layers of humiliation and harassment (we learn that 'fat' , 'stupid', 'short-sighted' …are
to be replaced by 'weight-challenged', etc.); the catch is, rather, that this censoring activity itself, by a kind of devilish dialectical
reversal, starts to participate in what it purports to censor and fight - is it not immediately evident how, in designating somebody
as 'mentally challenged' instead of 'stupid', an ironic distance can always creep in and give rise to an excess of humiliating
aggressivity - one adds insult to injury, as it were, by the supplementary polite patronizing distension (it is well known that aggres -
sivity coated in politeness can be much more painful than directly abusive words, since violence is heightened by the additional contrast
between the aggressive content and the polite surface form ...). In short, what Foucault's account of the discourses that discipline and
regulate sexuality leaves out of consideration is the process by means of which the power mechanism itself becomes eroticized,
that is, contaminated by what it endeavours to 'repress'. It is not enough to claim that the ascetic Christian subject who, in order to
fight temptation, enumerates and categorizes tile various forms of temptation, actually proliferates the object he tries to combat:
the point is, rather, to conceive of how the ascetic who flagellates in order to resist temptation finds sexual pleasure in this
very act of inflicting wounds on himself.

25
FRAMEWORK ADI 2008

LANGUAGE/REPRESENTATIONS CRITIQUES—CHURCHILL

TURN/: QUIBBLING OVER UNDECIDABLE LANGUAGE CHOICES DIVERTS USE FROM REAL ISSUES AND BLOCKS SOCIAL CHANGE

CHRUCHILL, COORDINATOR OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, 1996 [WARD, “SEMANTIC MASTURBATION ON THE
LEFT,” FROM A NATIVE SON, P. 460]

26