Interp: There is no interp on how many worlds are conditional.

Our interp is that

the neg should get two condo worlds to test the 1ac. A method test IE the K. An
Actor test IE the CP
1. Real orld ! Congresspersons typically discard amendments and"or #ills when
they reali$e they will not pass. Real world analogies are %ey to education #ecause
it&s the only way 'or us to use de#ate in conte(t
). Time s%ew ine*ita#le+i' we hadn&t run another ,policy option-. we would ha*e
/ust run another %ic%+a#le case arg- 0A or K argument- or we could ha*e /ust had
more arguments on another 'low
1
a. All arguments are conditional. The a'' will %ic% ad*antages and we can
concede disads. All o' their arguments pro*e the CP isn&t competiti*e #y
answering the net #ene'its.
b. If the negative claims that either of two policies is superior to the plan and one of
their policies is shown to be inferior, they can still logically win on the other
On perm and personal advocacy
BULLSHI
1. IT IS DIALOGUE IS HOW WE TRANSFORM THE WORLD WORDS THAT DO NOT ALLOW
FOR IT DO NOT EDUCATE OR HUMANIZE BY TRYING TO DOMINATE AND WIN THE
DEBATE SPEECH BECOMES AN ANTIDIALOGUE INCAPABLE OF CHANGE
Freire, 1970. Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder, Paulo Friere is a world-renowned
education theorist who studied law, education, and philosophy. Friere received his PhD in law at the niversity o! "e#re in
$ra%il and has written over &' (ooks on critical peda)o)y.
*s we atte+pt to analy%e dialo)ue as a hu+an pheno+enon, we discover so+ethin) which is the
essence o! dialo)ue itsel!: the word. $ut the word is +ore than ,ust an instru+ent which +akes
dialo)ue possi(le- accordin)ly, we +ust seek its constitutive ele+ents. .ithin the word we #nd two
di+ensions, re/ection and action, in such radical interaction that i! one is sacri#ced0even in part0the
other i++ediately su1ers. 2here is no true word that is not at the sa+e ti+e a pra3is. 2hus, to speak a true
word is to trans!or+ the world. *n unauthentic word, one which is una(le to trans!or+ reality, results
when dichoto+y is i+posed upon its constitutive ele+ents. .hen a word is deprived o! its di+ension
o! action, re/ection auto+atically su1ers as well- and the word is chan)ed into idle chatter, into ver(alis+, into
an alienated and alienatin) 4(lah.4 5t (eco+es an e+pty word, one which cannot denounce the world, !or
denuncia-tion is i+possi(le without a co++it+ent to trans!or+, and there is no trans!or+ation without action. 6n the
other hand, i! action is e+phasi%ed e3clusively, to the detri+ent o! re/ection, the word is converted into
activis+. 2he latter0action !or action7s sake0ne)ates the true pra3is and +akes dialo)ue i+possi(le.
8ither dichoto+y, (y creatin) unauthentic !or+s o! e3istence, creates also unauthentic !or+s o!
thou)ht, which rein!orce the ori)inal dichoto+y. Hu+an e3istence cannot (e 9silent, nor can it (e nourished (y
!alse words, (ut only (y true words, with which +en and wo+en trans!or+ the world. 2o e3ist, hu+anly, is to na+e the
world, to chan)e it. 6nce na+ed, the world in its turn reappears to the na+ers as a pro(le+ and re:uires o! the+ a new
na+in). Hu+an (ein)s are not (uilt in silence,; (ut in word, in work, in action-re/ection. $ut while to say the true
word0which is work, which is pra3is0is to trans!or+ the world, sayin) that word is not the privile)e o!
so+e !ew persons, (ut the ri)ht o! everyone. <onse:uently, ! !e "# $#% # &r'e (!r) #*!e+
!r "# $,e $#% i& -!r #!&,er. i # /re$"ri/&i0e #"& (,i", r!1$ !&,er$ !- &,eir (!r)$.
Dialo)ue is the encounter (etween +en, +ediated (y the world, in order to na+e the world. Hence,
dialo)ue cannot occur (etween those who want to na+e the world and those who do not wish this na+in)0
(etween those who deny others the ri)ht to speak their word and those whose ri)ht to speak has
(een denied the+. 2hose who have (een denied their pri+ordial ri)ht to speak their word +ust #rst reclai+ this ri)ht
and prevent the continuation o! this dehu+ani%in) a))ression. I- i& i$ i $/e#2i3 &,eir (!r) &,#& /e!/*e.
1% #4i3 &,e (!r*). &r#$-!r4 i&. )i#*!3'e i4/!$e$ i&$e*- #$ &,e (#% 1% (,i", &,e%
#",ie0e $i3i5"#"e #$ ,'4# 1ei3$. Di#*!3'e i$ &,'$ # e6i$&e&i#* e"e$$i&%. *nd
$i"e )i#*!3'e i$ &,e e"!'&er i (,i", &,e 'i&e) re7e"&i! #) #"&i! !- &,e
)i#*!3'er$ #re #))re$$e) &! &,e (!r*) (,i", i$ &! 1e &r#$-!r4e) #) ,'4#i8e). this
dialo)ue cannot (e re duced to the act o! one persons 4depositin)4 ideas in another, nor can it
(eco+e a si+ple e3chan)e o! ideas to (e 4consu+ed4 (y the discussants. N!r %e& i$ i& # ,!$&i*e.
/!*e4i"#* #r3'4e& 1e&(ee &,!$e (,! #re "!44i&&e) neither to the na+in) o! the world, nor to
the search !or truth, (ut rather &! &,e i4/!$i&i! !- &,eir !( &r'&,. $ecause dialo)ue is an encounter
a+on) wo+en and +en who na+e the world, it +ust not (e a situation where so+e na+e on
(ehal! o! others. I& i$ # #"& !- "re#&i!9 i& 4'$& !& $er0e #$ # "r#-&% i$&r'4e& -!r &,e
)!4i#&i! !- !e /er$! 1% #!&,er.
). T2E 3T45E O6 0E7ATE 3PEEC2 I3 65AE0: 0E7ATE I3 8OT A 0IA5O9:E- 7:T A8 A8TI0IA5O9:E
AI;E0 AT T2E 0O;I8ATIO8 O6 T2E OT2ER 3I0E ! T2I3 32IT I38T E0:CATIO8A5 A80 T:R83 T2EIR
E8TIRE AR9:;E8T
Anderson and ;allin )%- !arrin and Irwin, "Inviting #onstructive $rgument,% $rgumentation and $dvocacy v&'.&, p.()*, +rofessors
of #ommunication Studies at #olorado State University and Indiana University, ,ort -orth.
raditional argumentation, as typified by intercollegiate debates and courtroom practice, is too often an adversarial,
monological process. Indeed, law students are taught that the .cardinal rule. of moot court advocacy is to ./g0o for the
1ugular vein. 2Board of Student $dvisers, Harvard Law School, (34(, p. (&56, while high school debaters are taught that ./a0n
understanding of how to attac7 evidence, premises and inferences is fundamental to the processes of
argumentation. 28iegelmueller, Harris, 9 Bloomingdale, (335, p. 5(6. he claims advanced by the other side are thus not
viewed as potentially legitimate concerns that deserve to be addressed but as statements that must be defeated,
by showing them to be fallacious, false, or irrelevant. Under this orientation, the goal is not to persuade the other side 2who is presumed to
be intractable6 but to persuade a third party, such as a 1udge or 1ury. $ccordingly, one engages not in a dialogue with the other
side, but in a series of monologues with the third p arty. $ rhetorical, constructive view, however, as typified by, e.g.,
Bur7e 2(3'3: (34;6 and +erelman and Olbrechts<yteca 2(3'36 casts the parties to a dispute not as opponents but as
collaborators, both wor7ing toward solving a problem. Instead of engaging in competing monologues, these
arguers engage in a dialogue. Instead of treating the claims each other ma7es as statements to be refuted or
dismissed, these arguers treat those claims as representations of legitimate interests, and wor7 toward solutions
that will satisfy those interests.
! T2EIR 3PEEC2 ACT CRITICA5 CO83I3CIO:38E33 CRAP I3 A CO;P5ETE A33 P:55
+ 0E7ATE I3 I82ERE8T54 :80IA5O9IC
! I;PO33I75E 6OR T2EIR R2ETORIC TO TR:54 E0:CATE ! T2EIR A66 I3 CRAP A80
;EA83 8OT2I89 I8 REA5 5I6E
< I, H=> O?L> SOL@= I? ,I$ H=? H= +=AB CO=S? -OA! D IB+OSSIBL= O
BUA? $?C BUILC $ H= S$B= IB= D =IH=A ,$A OA BUA+ BU >OU #$? CO
BOH