VBI 2007 Top Lab Theory File

VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
THEORY INDEX
2
TOPICALITY
KRITIK OF TOPICALITY
LANGUAGE KRITIK OF TOPICALITY 8

A/T KRITIK OF TOPICALITY
CONDITIONALITY BAD
A/T CONDITIONALITY GOOD
A/T CONDITIONALITY BAD
CONDITIONALITY GOOD
A/T PARAMETRICS GOOD
PARAMETRICS BAD
PARAMETRICS GOOD
KRITIKS BAD
9
11
13
15
18
19
21
23
27
KRITIKS WITHOUT ALTERNATIVES BAD

A/T KRITIKS BAD
KRITIKS GOOD
A/T KRITIKS GOOD
KRITIK PERM
29
31
34
35
MICROPOLITICS BAD
NARRATIVES BAD
37
40
A/T NARRATIVES BAD

IRONY BAD
28
41
44
FAIRNESS IS A VOTER 46
FAIRNESS IS NOT A VOTER
47
49
TEXT TRUMPS EDUCATION/FAIRNESS 50
IN-ROUND ABUSE IS NECESSARY
51
POTENTIAL ABUSE IS A VOTER
52
EDUCATION IS A VOTER
53
FAIRNESS TRUMPS EDUCATION
A/T REJECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE DEBATER

CONTRADICTIONS BAD
55
MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS BAD

MULTIPLE A PRIORIS BAD
54
59
57
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
60
SPEED GOOD BECAUSE OF EDUCATION

SPEED GOOD BECAUSE OF FAIRNESS
SPEED BAD
A/T SPEED BAD
65
67
64
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Topicality
Interpretation:
Provide counter definition and implications
Violation:
Their definition doesnt meet this definition/implication. Being non-topical means the
affirmative is never fulfilling the burden given by the words in the resolution.
Standards:
1. Ground standards
A. Limits: Non-topical definitions not only thwart the responses one can reasonably make
to a position but also gives the affirmative debater the ability to exclude me from the round by
making arguments that dont relate to the resolution. This allows the affirmative to claim impacts
that arent affirmative ground within the text of the resolution. In terms of fairness this is the
worst violation insofar as it takes away significant if not all portions of negative ground.
B. Division of Ground The affirmative interpretation defines affirmative and negative
ground in such a way where the affirmative is placed in a more preferable position. <Explain
why your ground is bad vis--vis the affirmative.> An unfair division of ground links to fairness
in so far as starting the round with unfair positions skews the substantive debate in such a way
where even superior debating cannot compensate for the relative starting points.
C. Moving target: The affirmative interpretation is so vague that it allows her to morph
her advocacy so as to link out of specific responses to it and other negative positions. This is the
worst violation of fairness insofar as it completely restricts my ability to respond to the
affirmative. It disables me from being able to predict the function of affirmative arguments or the
content of the affirmative advocacy.
D. Time skew The affirmative interpretation creates an unfair time burden on the
negative strategy by requiring me to respond to multiple sufficient methods of affirmation that
she can sever out of in the next speech, collapsing down to one. This prevents me from
constructing a positional strategy against a stable advocacy, setting unfair terms for the debate.
2. Predictability Standards
A. topical literature: by allowing them to falsely define the definitions in the resolution
its no longer predictable insofar as the topical literature is no longer applicable. This allows
them to draw upon whatever sources they want, which allows them to use obscure argumentation
and that possess no link to the resolution. This is no longer fair insofar as it takes away the ability
for the negative to answer the affirmative under the scope of the resolution. This is also links
back to education insofar as its no longer education because we cant make substantive,
developed, and supported arguments.
B. resolutional text: they no longer are restricted by the text of the resolution and so are
allowed to use impacts and arguments that are extra-resolutional meaning theres no way I can
predict what arguments theyre going to make nor how they will function in the round. This
impacts back to fairness because theres no way of knowing what facet of the resolution they will
chose to focus in on. Its also uneducational because it shifts the focus of the resolution away
from the topic at hand and allows the affirmative to make random arguments that arent logically
warranted and compatible with the topic were trying to debate.
C. Precision The negative interpretation is more precise than the affirmative one, taking
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
into account the context of the resolution as well as the nuances of the terms used in comparison
to the affirmative interpretation. This makes it more predictable as well as more educational for
the round.
D. Over or Under Specific: Allowing them to chose a random definition thats vague or
hyper specific limits my ability to make responsive arguments and precise arguments because I
no longer know what I need to link to. This is no longer insofar as I dont know how to impact
back and where the clear division of ground is. Its also no longer educational insofar as I cant
make substantive responses and have any direct clash that generates an educational discussion.
Voters: (look to section about why fairness and education are voters)
Weighing between standards (if your opponent is winning some and so are you):
Predictability is a more important standard than the division of ground because it is the basis of
any resolutional interpretation and is therefore the most stable and fundamental part of the
debate. Further, predictability is more important in terms of education because it is the only thing
that allows us to engage is substantive and well-prepared debate because any meaningful depth
of argumentation requires the ability to prepare it pre-round. Predictability is also more important
in terms of fairness because its the mechanism by which we hold debaters to the text of the
resolution, which is the only stable concept offered. If debaters are allowed to expand or shrink
the resolution, they have an advantage that could have never been foreseen, so there is no way
for the negative to challenge or prepare for it. Even if I can respond, I will be at a deficit given
that my opponent can prepare for the unpredictable interpretation.
Fair division of ground is more important than predictability because our ability to debate the
conflicting sides of the resolution is dependent upon the ability of each side to garner offense
which wed then evaluate. Its always better for education because each side has a fair position to
uphold. This is the only way to ensure direct clash, which requires the debaters to warrant and
develop arguments more fully. Its also a fundamental part of fairness because when Im denied
ground, Im at a disadvantage from the outset. Unpredictable arguments still allow us to engage
in the debate, especially since generic positions can still link. Comparatively, an unfair of
division of ground cannot be overcome or prepared for in any way.
Implications: (same as voter section)
[REJECT THE DEBATER:
-You reject the debater for reasons of fairness and education and the fairness or educational
aspects of the activity come before the truth value of the resolution insofar as they dictate how
we determine the validity of the resolution.
-you should also reject the debater in order to deter rather than endorse a continuation of this
practice. The way arguments are run, for example acceptable definitions of evaluative terms such
as ought, are influenced by what judges deem as acceptable. Therefore in order to prevent further
abusive practices you should reject the debater. Moreover, abusive practices create a disincentive
to debate insofar as no one wants to play a game where they have no chance of winning.
REJECT THE ARGUMENTS:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
-this means that all of their arguments are linking back to a flawed conception of the resolution
and therefore not truly affirming the resolution. This means you should a) reject the arguments
and b) theyre no longer meeting their fundamental resolutional burden. At this point the
affirmative has failed to meet their burden of proof and you should presume negative.
Time skew: I was forced into either accepting their biased definition which they could extend to
exclude all negative offense in which case I had to spend time running the T. The time I spent
running T prevented me from making substantive responses that could have already won me the
round, either way, I was placed into an unfair double bind. This is the worst violation of fairness
insofar as the negative is forced into a lose lose situation and fundamentally fairness ensures that
there is a chance for both sides to win.
]
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritik of Topicality
1. Topicality is a non-falsifiable claim insofar as its impossible for me to prove that my
interpretation provides sufficient ground for my opponent for two reasons. First, theres an
infinite amount of ground otherwise theyd have to prove that there are a finite number of
arguments. Second, its always in my opponents interest to deny that they have any ground. So
the T violation is a non-falsifiable claim insofar as theres no way to prove it false. Moreover it
never justifies why you should completely pull the trigger.
Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime?- 1985Clarifying Water Policy BY Dough Sigel,
professor at Northwestern University
There are three reasons why the largely rational process of debate judging breaks down under the
punishment paradigm. First, it is very difficult to decide when a practice does and does not
deserve punishment. Cindy Leiferman pointed to this problem when she noted that "since Sigel's
essay on punishment, nearly every issue is a 'voter.'" 3 The punishment tag-line has been thrown
out in more and more rounds against the most harmless practices. There is no logical way for a
judge to decide whether a tactic is bad enough to cross a threshold which requires punishment.
The problem really is that there is only one punishment --a loss--that a judge can impose. Many
practices may be questionable but it is difficult to tell when the "death penalty" for the round is
warranted.
2. No objective way to resolve: non-falsifiable, no reason to vote on a non-falsifiable claim. For
you to vote on topicality would automatically force you as a judge to intervene on an issue that
can never truly be resolved in the round. Reasons to prefer are not sufficient reasons to drop me
as a debater because there are many interpretations and claiming that one debater ought be
dropped for having an alternate interpretation is illogical. Even if you dont particularly like my
interpretation its not a reason to drop me; this is analogous to claiming that one debater ought be
dropped because of the quality of evidence. Furthermore, all independent reasons to drop me are
nothing more than assertions about your role as s judge that arent true to what your actual role in
this round is. It is absolutely impossible for you to adjudicate topicality arguments objectively so
you should use this as one of the last resort mechanisms for evaluating the round if at all.
3. Topicality is being used as a tool to win your ballot but is actually a self-defeating argument.
Topicality is meant to return our focus on the specific substance of the resolution but topicality
arguments do nothing more than actually distract us from the constraints and context that the
resolution presents us with. At the very least, topicality is not a reason to vote against me simply
for trying to address the resolution from a different perspective. In fact, it would make more
sense for you as a judge to reward me as a debater for presenting you with unique argumentation
that is actually distinct from the same hackneyed argumentation that attempts to defined the
resolution in the most unoriginal way possible.
TI : Definition and Its Problems FT : AU : Dubs, Homer H. SO : The Philosophical Review
Definition is not itself a discipline that exists for its own sake. Definitions are made for use in
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
connection with some purpose. They are subservient to other logical or practical interests. Hence
there can hardly be only one definition that is best. In some cases such might indeed be the
case, but in most cases there would seem to be several best definitions, each one being best
for some particular purpose. The classic statement, that definition is a statement of a things
essence must then be given up. Essence is vague and no one type of definition is always
best.
-
theres no objective way to determine the best definition and its impossible to determine
which definition is the best or primary one because it depends on the purpose. Therefore
you should prefer the affirmative definition because its contextually warranted and links
more directly to the resolution (or whatever warrant for your interpretation) and also to
combat the time disadvantage. The affirmative already has a time skew and if you except
their definition it excludes 6 minutes of my analysis, the AC, or justifies voting me down,
which is nonsensical (see reasons above)
The card can also be used to say that we should look simply to logical justifications or the
truth value of definitions to determine which one to use. This means that reasons of
fairness and education arent ways to determine the best interpretation/definition.
DROP MY OPPONENT BECAUSE

1. [If it is read off a piece of paper]: the topicality interpretation of my case is clearly reasonable
if my opponent knew before the round to prepare a topicality violation against it. Drop my
opponent for reasons of education because he/she knew that this argument was relevant to the
topic and instead of actually doing meaningful research on the subject, he/she decided to write a
topicality violation. Our focus has now been detracted from actual education and shifted towards
making out of round arguments that dont actually further help debate as my opponent implies
but actually harm the activity by substituting topicality arguments for meaningful argumentation.
Turn any implications of education or fairness against him/her because Im actually furthering
education by discussing something both unique and predictable and Im not trying to use
arguments solely for the sake of winning your ballot.
2. Roland Bleiker writes: [Professor of International Relations. Popular Dissent, Human Agency,
and Global Politics. Cambridge University Press. 2000 p. 216]
And yet, language is not just a form of domination that engulfs the speaker in a web of
discursive constraints, it is also a terrain of dissent, one that is not bound by the political
logic of national boundaries. Language is itself a form of actiona place where possibilities
for social change emerge, where values are slowly transformed, where individuals carve out
thinking space and engage in everyday forms of resistance. In short, language epitomizes
the potential and limits discursive forms of transversal dissent.
What this means is that the concept of topicality or preferring one definition over another based
on education or predictability restrains minority definitions and their ability to dissent since their
thoughts and opinions are restricted in terms of how they can express it or the definitions of
words. By preferring an argument based on whats most educational or predictable you prefer the
most dominant perspective and therefore silence minority voices. Presuming the supremacy of
one definition over another is the same mindset that justifies excluding minority voices. There
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
are two impacts. First, you prefer my definition because it allows for the spread of minority
voices. Second, you vote on discursive arguments and impacts before theoretical objections
insofar as the impact and application of these arguments affect a much broader scope and provide
some real-world meaning for debate.
3. Herbert Hirsch elaborates,
"Steiner (1971) writes: "The apostle tells us that in the beginning was the Word. He gives us no
assurance as to the end" (p. 12). If the twentieth century is any indication, the end may result
from words used to motivate, justify, and rationalize murder on a scale unprecedented in human
history. Words can killor at least motivate a person to kill. It is through language that the
primal impulses, the likes and dislikes, the hatreds and enmities, the stereotypes and degrading
and dehumanizing characterizations of those who are not desirable or are rivals for political or
economic power or status are transmitted. The socialization process, which will be examined in
chapter 10, is the psychological process of transmission, but words are the carriers of deeds.
Language, like memory, is a powerful political tool."
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Language Kritik of Topicality

[Do not run this in conjunction with any of the other violations.]
The notion of topicality is inherently flawed, because the idea that there is one word or meaning
that can be preferred as an interpretation of a signified, maintains the illusion that we can find
correct interpretation in any one signified. Which is to say, that the
detachment between the notion of a sign and a signifier, make debate over which ought to take
priority irrelevant.
Derrida explains why
The substitute does not substitute itself for anything which has somehow existed before it.
Henceforth, it was necessary to begin thinking that their was no center, that the center could not
be necessary to being thinking that there was no center, that the center
could not be thought in the form of a present being, that the center had no natural site, that it was
not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of nonlocus in which an infinite number of singsubstitutions came into play. This was the moment when language invade the universal
problematic, the moment when in the absence of a center or origin everything became discourse
provided we can agree on this wordthat is to say, a system in which the central signified, the
original or transcendental signified is never absolutely present outside a system of differences.
The absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of the signification
infinitely.
1. Because Derrida's argumentation renders language functionally meaningless, it voids the
entire purpose of debate, defeating the purpose of language as any sort of persuasive tool,
especially one
that can proe a distinct truth.
2.This argument is self defeating because if language contains no intrinsic meaning, the kritik
itself can never be construed as an effective takeout of any AC argumentation.
3.Derrida's argumentation would only void prioritizing definitions in terms of their intrinsic
meanings. External standards such as fairness still manage to give priority to certain terms of the
resolution, despite whether the terms themselves remain interchangeable.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Kritik of Topicality

Make sure to provide contextual responses in addition to these limited generic ones.
1. A/T: topicality non-falsifiable: the particularities of ground skew dont matter, you can
tell when youve been egregiously violated or shut out of the round and that doesnt
require a briteline. Insofar as a vast majority of topical arguments are excluded, its
abusive and a very clear briteline.
2. A/T: topicality is non-topical: It doesnt make sense to have an abusive debate and at the
point where the definition prevents me from clashing, the only way to allow for this clash
that we both want is by running topicality and using it as a check on abusive definitions.
3. A/T: no way to look to the best definition: at this point if there is no way to define a term
in the resolution, the resolution becomes impossible to debate so the affirmative can
never meet their burden and you should negate. But if you try to weigh between which
interpretation should be preferred theoretical objections come before the truth value of
the resolution insofar as they dictate how we evaluate the resolution.
4. A/T: drop my opponent b/c they read a sheet of paper: I can have a general T shell
without a specific interpretation yet. Moreover, an argument may be somewhat
predictable but that doesnt deny that its abusive or doesnt apply to topical literature.
5. A/T: Bleiker/Hirsch, exclude minority voices: Debate is a terrible avenue for micropolitics because only looking to why arguments are wrong and the flaws whereas they
arent looking to the validity of the political ideas. Moreover, no one sees the ballot
except the participants and judge so its ineffective in spreading change. Finally, its
contradictory insofar as you manipulate a political cause for your own purposes to win a
round and incorporate it as a strategy. Clearly this was a pre-thought strategy rather than a
genuine attempt, thats why they carded the argument.
6. A/T: Derrida: this means that we can never affirm because it says that language is
functionally meaningless in ever proving something true.
7. A/T we need to protect discourse
a. Debate is a terrible environment for any discursive benefit because
b. debaters are trained, not to listen to the substance of arguments, but instead look for
its flaws. Therefore, any political implications of discourse are nullified through a
debate context.
c. Discourse in debate loses all meaning unto itself because it is used towards an end
goal of procuring a ballot. The language itself therefore loses any intrinsic value,
become a tool, a weapon, a means to an end that it loses itself in. It never changes
minds, but that of which name the judge chooses to circle.
d. Turn it. Nontopical definitions actually steer debate away from any discursive benefit
because they decentralize the discussion from the preprepared topic. This makes the
content of any discussions on the topic far less substantive because their content can
not be refuted or added to by the negative debater. Instead it functions to engineer an
affirmative monologue that has cannot be challenged or qualify, making any progress
made by the affirmative totally unquantifiable
e. A/T: topicality non-falsifiable: the particularities of ground skew don't matter, you
can tell when you've been egregiously violated or shut out of the round and that
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
doesn't require a briteline. Insofar as a vast majority of topical arguments are
excluded, it's abusive and a very clear briteline. The claim that my argument is nonfalsifiable has no real impact because there's no reason why I need to use falsifiable
claims to make my opponent's burden conceivably easier and there are multiple ways
to discuss language; my point is that some are better than others and allow us to have
a better debate. Claiming that an argument is non-falsifiable just grants that my
arguments are true. This isn't a reason to drop me; in fact, it's a reason that you ought
prefer my arguments since they are actually verifiably true according to my
opponent.
f. A/T: topicality is non-topical: It doesn't make sense to have an abusive debate and at
the point where the definition prevents me from clashing, the only way to allow for
this clash that we both want is by running topicality and using it as a check on
abusive definitions. The point of running topicality was that the neg. already
removed us from the context of the resolution by incorrectly or unfairly using the
phrasing of the resolution to his/her advantage. I didn't actually detract from the
debate; my opponent did when he/she ran non-topical arguments and tried to gain an
unfair advantage so I had no choice but to attempt to bring our focus back to the
substance of the debate. Topicality actually is topical because it attempts to address
the truth of the resolution as it is phrased; the phrasing of the resolution is contingent
on the way the words in it are defined and thus I am actually having a debate about
the statement made in the resolution that my opponent refuses to engage in by
actually discussing these interpretational issues.
g. A/T: no way to look to the best definition: at this point if there is no way to define a
term in the resolution, the resolution becomes impossible to debate so the affirmative
can never meet their burden and you should negate. But if you try to weigh between
which interpretation should be preferred theoretical objections come before the truth
value of the resolution insofar as they dictate how we evaluate the resolution. If we
don't actually have the rational capacity to evaluate which definitions are better than
others than debate becomes meaningless. As a debater I have to appeal to your
reason as a judge and if we can't rely on the ability to make some warranted but
subjective arguments then there is no conceivable way in which we can resolve the
debate.
h. A/T: drop my opponent b/c they read a sheet of paper: I can have a general T shell
without a specific interpretation yet. Moreover, an argument may be somewhat
predictable but that doesn't deny that it's abusive or doesn't apply to topical literature.
Just because I knew my opponent was going to be running a bad interpretation
doesn't change the fact that it is unreasonable for me to write cases to all conceivable
nonsensical positions. Also, predictability standards don't only apply to whether or
not I knew my opponent was going to be running a particular interpretation but also
to the fact that my ability to respond to arguments would have been limited at best.
This would harm the debate because if I have to prepare myself to face the most
outrageous positions possible then no one will ever engage in a meaningful debate.
Finally, even if I can predict the interpretation, I should not be expected to prepare
material against all conceivable positions, only the predictable ones. That is to say,
that it is easy to prepare T against many fringe positions, but not an entire strategy.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Conditionality Bad
[this is if they arent accepting the harms of args that fall outside their conditional advocacy]
I.
II.
III.
Interpretation:
a. The resolution is a categorical truth statement.
Violation
a. The affirmative is conditional because (they are picking and choosing to deal with
X aspect of the resolution, while ignoring Y & Z)
Standards
a. Predictable division of ground. (Internal Link to the interp:) If my opponent can
pick and choose aspects of the resolution, there is no way to predict before the
round which elements of the resolutions they will advocate.
i. A predictable division of ground is key to fairness because conditional
advocacies explode research burdens since the aff need only research one
specific part of the topic. This renders all non-specific neg pre-round prep
useless, whereas I have to prepare in depth responses to an infinite number
of possible conditional positions the 1AC could run.
b. Strategy skew. (Internal Link to interp.) Since the resolution is a statement of
truth, disproving one part of the statement warrants a negation, which is why the
negative can logically be conditional. However, the affirmatives conditional
advocacy means that I have to be categorical because it is impossible to resolve
competing conditional advocacies since they operate in completely separate
spheres. It was impossible for me to form a strategy prior to the round to deal with
this since the only predictable thing that both debaters have to base their strategy
on is the resolution. By denying the logic of the resolution, the AC denies the
negative the ability to create a cogent strategy which is unfair since it makes all of
my pre-round preparation useless
c. Preventing moving targets. (internal link to the interp) If my opponent can pick
and choose aspects of the resolution, they can kick out of any substantive
arguments I run against their case by narrowing their advocacy. For example,
(with native Americans, if I run a disadvantage to that advocacy, then the
affirmative can simply say Im talking about the Navajo and get out of my
arguments.
i. This unfair because the aff can sever out of every piece of offense.
d. Textual Primacy: The resolution doesnt place any conditions on the terms in the
resolution. This means that the only interpretation that retains textual primacy
addresses the entirety of the resolution. Textual primacy is more important than
any other standard because the resolution is the only universal, static, predictable,
fair thing about the debate. Since the affirmative isnt retaining textual primacy
since s/he is adding his/her own words, you cannot accept any of the affirmative
argumentation.
e. Fair division of ground: Any resolution has extreme examples that bolster each
side. That is why we weigh disadvantages and advantages. Allowing the
affirmative to pick and choose (her/his) advocacy allows (him/her) to choose the
most extreme example on the topic. Since the aff wants to win, giving the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
affirmative the jurisdiction to choose (his/her) ground as opposed to making
her/him defend the entirety of the topic destroys a fair division of ground. Without
fair ground there is no way to make equally substantive arguments, making the
round unfair. In addition, the affirmative can choose one example that has such a
huge impact and focus all his/her time on this argument. This allows the aff to
explode the impact scenarios into something that is uncontestable, thus making it
impossible and unfair for the negative to have an equal chance to win.
f. Since the resolution has no limiting qualifiers, and the affirmatives natural
burden is to prove the resolution true, the only appropriate affirmation would
involve meeting what the resolution specifies. However, since the affirmative
adds words to the resolution to make it easier to affirm, it fails to meet its implicit
resolutional burden and thus is never sufficient to affirm. Thus, you can negate
defensively.
i. Discussion of how conditionality interacts with the affirmative burden to
prove the resolution true.
Implications:
a. You should reject all arguments that are conditional because they
a. Are inherently abusive and
b. Deny the logical structure of the resolution
b. You should reject the debater. The affirmative's conditional interpretation puts me in a
double-bind: either I grant their advocacy and dont run conditionality in which case they
can extend their definition in the 1AR to delink all of my ground (or insert other standard
here), OR I am forced to run conditionality and waste a lot of my 1NC time just in order
to make sure that he/she doesnt abuse me later. Either way, the affs interpretation
massively skews my time, preventing me from making substantive responses. So there is
REAL abuse that has ALREADY occurred in the round and the only way to rectify this is
to vote on fairness/education.
c. Potential abuse. Even if this debate hasnt been irreparably harmed by the conditional
advocacy in this round, the argument still shouldnt be accepted because it opens up the
possibility for this type of argumentation to be used in other rounds in which it could
constitute serious abuse.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Conditionality Good

AT: Depth is more important than breadth
1. Breadth is better than depth in terms of education since, by running the conditional
advocacy, it is necessarily to the exclusion of key topic ground things that are
intuitively based in the topic and things that are prevalent in topic specific literature.
This harms education since conditionality forces us to exclude relevant academic
literature by qualified authors that would only be pertinent under a non-conditional based
paradigm.
2. Breadth is better than depth in terms of education since it allows us to apply our
knowledge into more aspects of our lives comparatively more than depth as the deeper
you are into a topic the more specific the inquiry will have to be for the new information
to be relevant. Education only matters to the extent that knowledge gained can be applied
outside of debate rounds, so breadth of issues is comparatively better than depth.
3. Breadth is more accessible than depth since a general knowledge can be acquired much
more easily with the prevalence of new information technologies like free encyclopedias,
but intensely specific literature generally is reliant on information technology that is
exclusive and generally has to be paid for. (I.E. specific legal literature requires buying
access lexis-nexis.) Accessibility is key to education because excluding exterior
perspectives narrows the range of opinions were exposed to in debate rounds and
excludes outside perspectives.
AT: Exclude minority voices
2. Conditional advocacies exclude more minority voices than non-conditional advocacies
since conditional advocacies exclude all minorities except [Insert case-specific link],
whereas non-conditional advocacies derive inherent aspects of all social groups to
discuss.
3. The exclusion of minority voices is always going to be outweighed on predictability
because its impossible for me to know which minority voice the 1AC is going to pick.
Predictability is a prerequisite for eduction as negative debaters have to have some ability
to know what to research in order to have any type of substantive discussion on any topic,
since most of the educational function of debate occurs while preparing.
4. Trying to prove the resolution categorically true is not preclusive of running positions
that include minority voices. While it may prevent the affirmative from claiming a
totalizing impact from a minority viewpoint, there is always at least the possibility of
running that minority viewpoint as an impact to a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
AT: Impossible to prove any statement categorically true or else there would be no point in
debating
1. My argument isnt that the 1AC has to defend a non-falsifiable advocacy; just that it has
to appeal to prove the truth of the categorical statement. That is, standards and values are
acceptable because they tell us the mechanism by which we achieve the truth of a
statement; conditional advocacies are not because they dont appeal to the truth basis of
the resolution since they place conditions on that truth claim.
2. That might be true in a real world context, but within the confines of a debate round we
can prove the categorical truth of a statement by the merits of the arguments presented by
each debater. Moreover, there is always conflicting topic-specific literature, so just by
presenting said literature, we still cant come to an inherent conclusion about the truth of
the proposition.
AT: Neg can conditionally negate (reciprocal burdens)
1. The most reciprocal burdens in the debate round are requiring the aff to prove the
resolution true and the neg to proving the resolution false. This burden is also the more
predictable since the resolution as written is the only thing both debaters have in preround prep, so burdens specific to the advocacies would take away the predictability of
the rounds burdens. The fact that the negative can be conditional and the aff not being
able to is merely a byproduct of the burdens in that there is always more ways to say no
to something than to say yes.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Conditionality Bad

AT: Predictable division of ground
1. No Link: this argument assumes that a) there is a finite division of ground and b) an
ability to distinguish between predictable and non-predictable division of ground.
Because there are infinite numbers of unique to prove a resolution true, it is impossible to
quantify the number of positions or the ability to predict certain positions in comparison
to others.
2. There is no brightline for when the taking of ground is sufficient to vote against the
debater. Every argument in the debate that is offensive takes away my opponents ground
(i.e. extending a deontological standard to exclude utilitarian impacts).
3. Research burdens arent infinite since the neg should just run arguments that disprove the
resolution. (my opponent should choose better arguments) --- Prep skew is non-unique:
the AC has just as much time as the NC to answer the arguments presented in the NC. I
dont know the NC arguments before the round starts, so I have to come up with just as
many deep and substantive arguments that might not link to every NC advocacy.
AT: Cant weigh competing conditional advocacies
1. This isnt true and this is why we have standards in LD to actually compare the impacts
of conditional advocacies. This argument assumes that there is some fundamental
difference between arguments with conditions and arguments without said conditions
other than the conditions. However, both still have impacts that can be weighed against
each other (i.e. a conditional impact of Nuclear War may outweigh a categorical impact
of punching people), so you would still vote off of it.
AT: Moving target
1. This argument only matters to the extent that Im de-linking negative arguments since
that is the only way I can actually narrow my advocacy any more than it is presented in
the 1AC. Insofar as this isnt true, this standard is irrelevant.
2. Theres no brightline for how much of a moving target is actually abusive. That is, people
can kick arguments that have defense attached to them and that is a shift in advocacy but
not abuse, just strategic.
AT: Adding words to resolution, so harming textual primacy
1. The ability to debate comes before all other standards since they all only exist to make
debate as fair/educational as possible. However, its impossible to prove any statement
completely, categorically, and 100% true; if we could then there would be no point in
debating, since the absolute truth of the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia
and the same side would win every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the
ground in order to discuss it.
2. Every argument in debate serves to constrain and interpret the resolution, such as
framework arguments, spikes, contentions, and even the criterion. Thus, the only reason
you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful brightline
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
between my advocacy and any of those commonly acceptable scope-narrowing
mechanisms.
AT: Fair division of ground
mechanisms.
2. Dont punish me for running smart and strategic arguments; affirming is already hard
enough with the structural time disadvantage (4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech),
any being strategic by taking as much ground as possible is a form of balancing that
disadvantage.
AT: Resolution doesnt imply conditional affirmation
1. This is predicated on a logical interpretation but theory frames what logical
interpretations of the resolution are admissible. Meeting the burden of proof through
conditional advocacies is justified because:
a. Conditionality allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by narrowing the scope
of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it has more educational
value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is when we can apply it to
other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot be made from a disjointed
collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book than the first page of 100
books) (remember that just because you are talking about one specific instance of
the resolution in your affirmative case, other people will affirm differently, so you
arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
b. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
because such a broad analysis requires that we view things only from the
perspective of the majority to gain the biggest impacts. In addition, any time we
try to take a sweeping view of an issue we are forced to focus on the majority. [for
example, when we evaluate the demographics of India, we would notice it was
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number
of Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
historically continue to be shunned in contemporary discussion. This is uneducational because our conception of how we ought to debate a) always reenforce the majority ideology and b) we marginalize the voices of minorities, thus
excluding meaningful topic-specific arguments from ever entering a debate round.
c. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
if we could then there would be no point in debating, since the absolute truth of
the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia and the same side would win
every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the ground in order to
discuss it. Moreover, every argument in debate serves to constrain the resolution,
such as framework arguments, spikes, and even the criterion. Thus, the only
reason you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful
brite-line between my advocacy and any of these commonly acceptable scopenarrowing mechanisms.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
d. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
number of ways by conditionally negating or disproving any presupposition of the
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to be conditional does not
completely rectify this huge ground skew by still giving the negative the ability to
question every pre-supposition to takes a step to balance out the burdens. Just as
all arguments can be weighed at the criterion level when affirmative and negative
offense is speculative, competing conditional advocacies can be weighed in terms
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Conditionality Good
I.
II.
III.
definition
violation
standards
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number of
Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Parametrics Good

AT: Parametrics Good
1. Group the first two. Both internally consistent ground and lack of advocacy shift can be
achieved without a parametricized case. Just because its a plan, that doesnt mean that
things we would expect in a normal case become reasons to prefer it. If anything you
would prefer a non-parametricized case because it can have the same consistent ground
and advocacy while having the benefit of being more predictable since it explicitly
answers the question asked by the resolution without adding any words or assuming any
context, which is what is necessary in order to parametricize the topic.
AT: Depth is more important than breadth
1. Breadth is better than depth in terms of education since, by running the parametric
advocacy, it is necessarily to the exclusion of key topic ground things that are
intuitively based in the topic and things that are prevalent in topic specific literature.
This harms education since parametricizing forces us to exclude relevant academic
literature by qualified authors that would only be pertinent under a non-parametric based
paradigm.
2. Breadth is better than depth in terms of education since it allows us to apply our
knowledge into more aspects of our lives comparatively more than depth as the deeper
you are into a topic the more specific the inquiry will have to be for the new information
to be relevant. Education only matters to the extent that knowledge gained can be applied
outside of debate rounds, so breadth of issues is comparatively better than depth.
AT: Exclude minority voices
exclusive and generally has to be paid for. (i.e. specific legal literature requires buying
2. Parametric advocacies exclude more minority voices than non-parametric advocacies
since parametric advocacies exclude all minorities except [Insert case-specific link],
whereas non-parametric advocacies derive inherent aspects of all social groups to discuss.
3. The exclusion of minority voices is always going to be outweighed on predictability
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
because its impossible for me to know which minority voice the 1AC is going to pick.
Predictability is a prerequisite for eduction as negative debaters have to have some ability
to know what to research in order to have any type of substantive discussion on any topic,
since most of the educational function of debate occurs while preparing.
4. Trying to prove the resolution categorically true is not preclusive of running positions
that include minority voices. While it may prevent the affirmative from claiming a
totalizing impact from a minority viewpoint, there is always at least the possibility of
running that minority viewpoint as an impact to a standard.
AT: Impossible to prove any statement categorically true or else there would be no point in
debating
1. My argument isnt that the 1AC has to defend a non-falsifiable advocacy; just that it has
to appeal to prove the truth of the categorical statement. That is, standards and values are
acceptable because they tell us the mechanism by which we achieve the truth of a
statement; parametric advocacies are not because they dont appeal to the truth basis of
the resolution since they place parametric on that truth claim.
2. That might be true in a real world context, but within the confines of a debate round we
can prove the categorical truth of a statement by the merits of the arguments presented by
each debater. Moreover, there is always conflicting topic-specific literature, so just by
presenting said literature, we still cant come to an inherent conclusion about the truth of
the proposition.
AT: Neg can parametrically negate (reciprocal burdens)
1. The most reciprocal burdens in the debate round are requiring the aff to prove the
resolution true and the neg to proving the resolution false. This burden is also the more
predictable since the resolution as written is the only thing both debaters have in preround prep, so burdens specific to the advocacies would take away the predictability of
the rounds burdens. The fact that the negative can be parametric and the aff not being
able to is merely a byproduct of the burdens in that there is always more ways to say no
to something than to say yes.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Parametrics Bad
I. Interpretation:
a. The resolution is a categorical truth statement.
II. Violation
b. The affirmative is parameterized the resolution because of X (running a plan)
III. Standards
c. Predictable division of ground. (Internal Link to the interpretation) If my
opponent can pick a specific aspect of the resolution and advocate that we pursue
a particular course of action pertaining to that aspect, there is no way to predict
what it will be before the round.
d. A predictable division of ground is key to fairness because parametric advocacies
explode research burdens by allowing the affirmative to research one specific part
of the resolution; because this gives me only the ability to run specific advantages
and disadvantages against the case. This renders all non-specific negative preround prep useless, whereas I have to prepare in depth responses to an infinite
number of possible parameterized positions the 1AC could run.
e. Textual Primacy: The resolution doesnt place any conditions on the terms in the
resolution. This means that the only interpretation that retains textual primacy
addresses the entirety of the resolution. Discussing specific plans of actions and
forms of implementation effectively limits the debate by placing words in the
resolution Textual primacy is more important than any other standard because the
resolution is the only universal, static, predictable, fair thing about the debate.
Since the affirmative isnt retaining textual primacy since s/he is adding his/her
own words, you cannot accept any of the affirmative argumentation.
f. Fair division of ground: Any resolution has extreme examples that bolster each
side. That is why we weigh disadvantages and advantages. Allowing the
affirmative to arbitrarily select (her/his) advocacy allows (him/her) to choose the
most favorable argument for her on the topic. Since the affirmative wants to win,
giving the affirmative the jurisdiction to choose (his/her) ground as opposed to
making her/him defend the entirety of the topic destroys a fair division of ground.
Without fair ground there is no way to make equally substantive arguments,
making the round unfair. In addition, the affirmative can choose one example that
has such a huge impact and focus all his/her time on this argument. This allows
the affirmative to explode the impact scenarios into something that is
uncontestable, thus making it impossible and unfair for the negative to have an
equal chance to win.
g. Since the resolution has no limiting qualifiers, and the affirmatives natural
burden is to prove the resolution true, the only appropriate affirmation would
involve meeting what the resolution specifies. However, since the affirmative
adds words to the resolution to make it easier to affirm, it fails to meet its implicit
resolutional burden and thus is never sufficient to affirm. Thus, you can negate
defensively.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
ii. Discussion of how parametric interacts with the affirmative burden to
prove the resolution true.
Implications:
Licensing parameterization allows the affirmative to choose from a spectrum. Therefore we have
a biased evaluation of resolutions.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Parametrics Good
I. definition
II. violation
III. standards
a. Internationally Consistent Ground: Parametrics are more likely to be internally
consistent because the evidence in the case must be specific to the narrow
interpretation of the topic and the affirmative can be held to the explicit AC
rhetoric. Comparatively, vague interpretations of the topic allow the affirmative to
advocate multiple contradictory interpretations because they all link back to the
framework. Internally consistent ground is key for fairness because I cannot
answer arguments if there is no coherent argument coming out of the AC.
b. Preventing advocacy shifts: Parametricizing forces the affirmative to clearly
articulate his/her advocacy and the ways in which (s)he will achieve it. This
means the affirmative will not be able to shift ground because there is a clear
conception of an affirmative world, whereas a general interpretation of the topic
gives the affirmative large potential to shift links to different ideas that still fit
under the large interpretation. Preventing advocacy shifts is key to fairness
because knowing what arguments my opponent can extend is a pre-req for having
an equal opportunity to win the round.
c. Parametricizing the resolution allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by
narrowing the scope of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it
has more educational value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is
when we can apply it to other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot
be made from a disjointed collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book
than the first page of 100 books) (remember that just because you are talking
about one specific instance of the resolution in your affirmative case, other people
will affirm differently, so you arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
d. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number of
Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
e. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
f. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to parametricize does not
offense is speculative, competing parametricized advocacies can be weighed in
terms of a standard.
AT: Predictable division of ground
1. No Link: this argument assumes that a) there is a finite division of ground and b) an
ability to distinguish between predictable and non-predictable division of ground.
Because there are infinite numbers of unique to prove a resolution true, it is impossible to
quantify the number of positions or the ability to predict certain positions in comparison
to others.
2. There is no brightline for when the taking of ground is sufficient to vote against the
debater. Every argument in the debate that is offensive takes away my opponents ground
(i.e. extending a deontological standard to exclude utilitarian impacts).
3. Research burdens arent infinite since the neg should just run arguments that disprove the
resolution. (my opponent should choose better arguments) --- Prep skew is non-unique:
the AC has just as much time as the NC to answer the arguments presented in the NC. I
dont know the NC arguments before the round starts, so I have to come up with just as
many deep and substantive arguments that might not link to every NC advocacy.
AT: Cant weigh competing conditional advocacies
1. This isnt true and this is why we have standards in LD to actually compare the impacts
of conditional advocacies. This argument assumes that there is some fundamental
difference between arguments with conditions and arguments without said conditions
other than the conditions. However, both still have impacts that can be weighed against
each other (i.e. a conditional impact of Nuclear War may outweigh a categorical impact
of punching people), so you would still vote off of it.
AT: Moving target
1. This argument only matters to the extent that Im de-linking negative arguments since
that is the only way I can actually narrow my advocacy any more than it is presented in
the 1AC. Insofar as this isnt true, this standard is irrelevant.
2. Theres no brightline for how much of a moving target is actually abusive. That is, people
can kick arguments that have defense attached to them and that is a shift in advocacy but
not abuse, just strategic.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
AT: Adding words to resolution, so harming textual primacy
1. The ability to debate comes before all other standards since they all only exist to make
debate as fair/educational as possible. However, its impossible to prove any statement
completely, categorically, and 100% true; if we could then there would be no point in
debating, since the absolute truth of the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia
and the same side would win every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the
ground in order to discuss it.
mechanisms.
AT: Fair division of ground
mechanisms.
2. Dont punish me for running smart and strategic arguments; affirming is already hard
enough with the structural time disadvantage (4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech),
any being strategic by taking as much ground as possible is a form of balancing that
disadvantage.
AT: Resolution doesnt imply parametric affirmation
1. This is predicated on a logical interpretation but theory frames what logical
interpretations of the resolution are admissible. Meeting the burden of proof through
conditional advocacies is justified because:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number
of Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritiks Bad
1. Interpretation: the debate should be predicated on a clash of ideas.
2. Violation: The kritik destroys clash in the debate round
1. Time skew Excluding kritiks is the only way to balance our speaking time. The 6
minutes of the AC become irrelevant when the K is run since it operates on a
completely separate level and winning my offense doesnt matter if Im losing the
K since it challenges peripheral assumptions of the case rather than engaging in the
topic. Time skew is detrimental to fairness since it structurally disadvantages me in
that I have only 7 minutes to engage the k while the neg has 13 minutes to defend it.
2. Reciprocal burdens Kritiks let the neg criticize any assumption made by the
resolution, while I have to defend the text in its entirety. Every statement relies on
an infinite number of assumptions and forcing me to defend every one of them
creates a massive burden skew. This harms fairness by forcing me to defend far
more than the neg, putting me at a structural disadvantage since theres a whole
level of ground I cant generate offense on but need to beat to get any chance to
win.
3. Predictability there are an infinite amount of assumptions that any statement relies
and the negative can pick any one and use it as a reason to negate, without being
topic specific. For instance, a Nietzsche kritik criticizing objectivity could be run on
any topic. Thus, theres no way coming into round I could be expected to predict
that a K will be run or what its content will be. Topic specificity narrows scope of
argumentation to the specific content that will generate topic specific learning.
Predictability is key to fairness because if arguments arent predictable it severely
hurts my ability to engage them on a substantive level and education because
unpredictability arguments encourage non-responsive blocks and off case which
results in debaters reading positions and arguments without having to debate the
merits of the argument for which I invested 6 minutes of time.
4. Research burdens since any argument relies on an infinite number of assumptions,
like the existence of the universe, the kritik could deal with anything regardless of
its link to the topic. That forces me to research an infinite number of arguments to
be prepared for what (s)he might run in the round, while she has infinite prep time
to write the argument of his/her choice. Equal research burdens are key to fairness
since without them one debater is inherently disadvantaged before entering into the
round by being expected to fulfill a much larger burden.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritiks without Alternatives Bad

1. Interpretation: the debate should be predicated on a clash of ideas.
2. Violation: The kritik doesnt offer an alternative, so there is no neg world
1. Time skew Excluding kritiks is the only way to balance our speaking time. The
6 minutes of the AC become irrelevant when the K is run since it operates on a
completely separate level and winning my offense doesnt matter if Im losing the
K since it challenges peripheral assumptions of the case rather than engaging in
the topic. Time skew is detrimental to fairness since it structurally disadvantages
me in that I have only 7 minutes to engage the k while the neg has 13 minutes to
defend it.
2. Reciprocal burdens Kritiks let the neg criticize any assumption made by the
resolution, while I have to defend the text in its entirety. Every statement relies on
an infinite number of assumptions and forcing me to defend every one of them
creates a massive burden skew. This harms fairness by forcing me to defend far
more than the neg, putting me at a structural disadvantage since theres a whole
level of ground I cant generate offense on but need to beat to get any chance to
win.
3. Predictability there are an infinite amount of assumptions that any statement
relies and the negative can pick any one and use it as a reason to negate, without
being topic specific. For instance, a Nietzsche kritik criticizing objectivity could
be run on any topic. Thus, theres no way coming into round I could be expected
to predict that a K will be run or what its content will be. Topic specificity
narrows scope of argumentation to the specific content that will generate topic
specific learning. Predictability is key to fairness because if arguments arent
predictable it severely hurts my ability to engage them on a substantive level and
education because unpredictability arguments encourage non-responsive blocks
and off case which results in debaters reading positions and arguments without
having to debate the merits of the argument for which I invested 6 minutes of
time.
4. Research burdens since any argument relies on an infinite number of
assumptions, like the existence of the universe, the kritik could deal with anything
regardless of its link to the topic. That forces me to research an infinite number of
arguments to be prepared for what (s)he might run in the round, while she has
infinite prep time to write the argument of his/her choice. Equal research burdens
are key to fairness since without them one debater is inherently disadvantaged
before entering into the round by being expected to fulfill a much larger burden.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Kritiks Bad

1. Time skew1) By running a kritik, Im not skewing time. My opponent has the chance to defend her/his
position in the 1AR and beat the K. The AC can play a role within the round if the
affirmative attempts to defend it and show why it is still relevant/why it doesnt bite into
the K. I dont put the affirmative at a structural disadvantage by running a strategic
position.
2) Theres no brightline on time skew- an infinite number of things can skew time. For
example, if my opponent runs an AC with multiple preclusive arguments that restrict how
I spend my time in the NC, we wouldnt consider that time skew. Also, various other
factors influence how we spend our speech time, including the speed of delivery and
number of arguments on the flow. The implication of there being no brightline means
this standard should be rejected.
2. Reciprocal burdens1) The argument says that the K is abusive since it lets me access an area of the topic not
available to the aff. Thats fundamentally untrue, though, since (s)he has access to
arguments like discourse which operate before the text of the topic in the same way the
kritik does.
2) There is always some burden skew because of what the resolution implies, ie, some
resolutions clearly imply a categorical affirmation, which sets up non-reciprocal burdens.
3. Predictability
1) Theres no brightline for how predictable an argument needs to be to be fair. Strategic
cases will use diverse and unique warrants which nobody would consider abusive. Just
because nobody else is running the K doesnt mean its abusive.
2) Predictability decreases education by forcing us to only deal with arguments inside of the
stock topic area. Running unpredictable arguments introduces new arguments that wed
never hear if predictability were an absolute constraint on argumentation. Breadth
outweighs depth since it introduces to lots of different topics that we can substantively
engage in out of round where most of our learning is done, so introducing new diverse
arguments into round.
3) The structure of debate is designed to account for unpredictable arguments. If all
arguments were totally predictable everyone would have prewritten blocks to every
argument ever run, we wouldnt have a need of cross examination or prep time. The fact
that both of these systems exists is a structural check to stop unpredictable arguments
from being unfair.
4) Kritiks are more predictable than any topic specific argument since theyre run on every
resolution and thus are used more in debate than the arguments that rely on the topic.
Thus, if predictability matters you negate since my advocacy is more predictable than
anything (s)he running.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
4. Research burdens
1) Everybody has the same research burden because anyone can run a kritik. Just because
you had to research a lot to engage the kritik doesnt mean there are unfair research
burden. I had to research a lot to justify and run this Kritik as well as a lot to defend
against others.
2) Theres no reason why research is necessary to engage the argumentation of the Kritiks.
Kritiks function on analytical arguments so there are easy to engage even without
preround research on the subject.
3) Reading certain schools of philosophy that are used in Ks such as postmodernism, NeoMarxism, and semiotics are considered part of necessary reading for understanding
arguments run in debate rounds. Thus because it is generally known that Ks are based on
these and similar schools of thought everyone has the same burden to research them.
A/T Kritiks harm education
1. T/Running kritiks engages the resolution on a new level by evaluating it critically rather than
just accepting all the assumptions we usually operate under. Henry Giroux1 explains that
education relies on constant critique. He writes: Education as a critical practice could
provide[s] the means for disconnecting commonsense learning from the narrowly
ideological impact of mass media, the regressive tendencies associated with hypermasculinity, the rituals of everyday violence, the inability to identify with others, as well
as from the pervasive ideologies of state repression and its illusions of empire. Adorno's
response to retrograde ideologies and practices was to emphasize the role of autonomous
individuals and the force of self-determination, which he saw as the outcome of a moral and
political project that rescued education from the narrow language of skills, unproblematized
authority, and the seduction of common sense. Self-reflection, the ability to call things into
question, and the willingness to resist the material and symbolic forces of domination
were all central to an education that refused to repeat the horrors of the past and
engaged the possibilities of the future. Adorno urged educators to teach students how to be
critical, to learn how to resist those ideologies, needs, social relations, and discourses that led
back to a politics where authority was simply obeyed and the totally administered society
reproduced itself through a mixture of state force and often orchestrated consensus. Freedom
in this instance meant being able to think critically and act courageously, even when
confronted with the limits of one's knowledge. Without such thinking, critical debate and
dialogue degenerate into slogans, and politics, disassociated from the search for justice,
becomes a power grab.
2. Kritiks increase the types of argumentation in debate which means we get a wider scope of
education. This doesnt trade off with the depth of education we get on other parts of the
resolution because there are still plenty of debates that occur on stock positions. The content
of Kritiks is arguments that we do not traditionally engage within the confines of debate.
Kritiks uniquely add a new type of educational position to the activity.
3. Kritiks force debaters to be accountable for their arguments and understand their
implications. Running the K will teach debaters to increase research of positions and to learn
the impacts of their arguments before using them in the round.
1
Henry A. Giroux, What Might Education Mean After Abu Ghraib: Revisiting Adorno's Politics of Education,
"Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24.1 (2004) 3-22"
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritiks Good
1. Kritiks force us to deal with the actual impacts of our arguments rather than being
disengaged spectators just playing a game. Gordon Mitchell2 notes: While an isolated
academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment
has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the
academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing
implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the
academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers
demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow
taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions,
argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with
students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical
thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds
outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students
witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no
apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995;
1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted
during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or
misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of
human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest
round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such
evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For
example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a
disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical
parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator"
mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary
education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind
of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of
our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute
and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8) Kritiks
remove us from the game of debate and let us address the actual harms of advocacies.
Were humans before were debaters, so the kritik is inherently valuable. Kritiks let us
recognize the people actually impacted by the arguments were willing to defend in
abstraction. Jayan Nayar3 writes: Located within a site of privilege, and charged to
reflect upon the grand questions of world-order and the human condition as the third
Christian Millennium dawns, we are tempted to turn the mind to the task of abstract
imaginings of "what could be" of our "world," and "how should we organize" our
"humanity." Perhaps such contemplations are a necessary antidote to cynicism and
skepticism regarding any possibility of human betterment, a necessary revitalization of
critical and creative energies to check the complacencies of the state of things as they are.
2
Mitchell in 98 [Gordon R., Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh, PEDAGOGICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR
ARGUMENTATIVE AGENCY IN ACADEMIC DEBATE Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p41-60]
3
Nayar in 99 [Jayan, Fall, School of Law, University of Warwick Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems
Orders of Inhumanity]
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
n1 However, imagining [*601] possibilities of abstractions--"world-order,"

"international society," "the global village," "the family of humankind," etc.--does carry
with it a risk. The "total" view that is the take-off point for discourses on preferred
"world-order" futures risks deflection as the abstracted projections it provokes
might entail little consequence for the faces and the names of the humanity on whose
behalf we might speak. So, what do we do?
Kritiks increase critical education by encouraging in depth discussions of critical thought
that we normally do not encounter through debate. While we understand the stock
arguments on topics after hearing a few rounds, kritiks provide a new type of argument
dont normally engage in. Stock arguments are easy to understand and we get
diminishing returns from hearing them repeated in every round. Kritiks provide us with a
new type of education that we normally arent able to engage in within our rounds.
Kritiks challenge the ways in which we traditionally frame our view of the world around
us and challenge the assumptions we have coming into the round. {But moreover, critical
arguments are more complex than classic stock arguments so theyll inevitably take more
time to explain, justifying using all my speech time on the K and not directly engaging the
AC}.
Kritiks more accurately reflect the real world. In academics, one must be prepared to
defend ones position not only against conventional criticism but also against critical
challenges to the assumptions of ones position. In the end, debate is an activity designed
to foster education and promote the tools that will be necessary to succeed in life. It
would be unrealistic to exclude a certain type of argumentation that challenges a position
simply because it questions a different part of the position.
Kritiks let us recognize the impacts our language has on real life. Albert Yee4 writes:
Besides vocabularies, languages also supply rules and conventions that govern the
speech or utterances that are possible and hence in part the political actions that can
ensue. In some well-defined instances, these speech acts are themselves actions that
perform illocutionary functions (i. e., the utterances themselves are doing
something). More generally, however, speech acts produce perlocutionary effects (i.
e., the effects of utterances on listeners) only within "the structure of the discoursive
interaction." This structure consists not only of the context or "situation," but also
"the sequence of discoursive moves."
Kritiks have out of round implications that outweigh in round argumentation. When a
Kritik is won, it generates a lot of hype and attention and spreads the critical thought
beyond the mere confines of the round. Kritiks help frame the way in which we view the
world and can restructure the thought processes of those around us. This is more
important that the imaginary arguments that we construct about how the world ought to
be because Kritiks actively change the way the real world functions by changing the
beliefs systems of those who live in it.
Kritiks are predictable negative ground. Coming into the round, the only thing both my
opponent and I knew was that there would be a debate about the resolution. Kritiks
challenge the assumptions that are presented by the resolution. Therefore the only
predictable division of ground would allow for Kritiks which question the underlying
assumptions of the resolution as it reflects the negative burden to show that the resolution
Albert Yee, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, Winter
1996, p.95. (MHSOLT1214)
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
can not be proved true. Predictability is key to fairness because if arguments arent
predictable it severely hurts my ability to answer them and education because it is a
prerequisite substantive clash in the round. If arguments or strategies arent predictable it
forces us to read generic responses and off case. Without clash debates become
meaningless as debaters read arguments without have to understand them or debate their
merits.
7. Kritiks force debaters to be accountable for the entirety of their arguments including the
assumptions that their arguments rely on. This increases education because there will be a
shift towards more in depth research on arguments and positions as debaters will have to
be able to defend them.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Kritiks Good

1. A/T Kritiks provide us with a new critical type of argumentation we normally dont encounter
1. This logic justifies including any type of argumentation as long as we dont normally
debate about it. This results in a decrease in education because it encourages debaters to
use arguments that do not apply to the resolution. People will be discouraged from doing
topic specific research if they can just apply old arguments and claim that it increases
education because we normally dont encounter it.
2. We here the same kritiks over and over again theres no reason why kritiks are a new
concept in debate.
3. Theres nothing inherently critical to the format of a Kritik. While there are authors
that are traditionally used in Ks, any argument can form the basis of a Kritik, even the
most stock positions.
2. A/T Kritiks are more real world
1. Thats not true. When we present a position or advocacy in the real world we debate its
merits under the assumption that the question itself makes sense. For example, if I ask
you if you want to play basketball it would not be an acceptable response to say I would
really love to play but I cant determine the ontological status of the basketball.
2. Debate is supposed to give us the educational tools to be successful in the real world
but we dont debate under a model that reflects it. In the real world we dont read our
positions at an extremely fast rate or monitor our word economy or card authors etc.
3. Kritiks are predictable because the negate the text of the resolution
1. There are an infinite number of assumptions in a resolution that can be subject to a Kritik,
therefore there would be no possible way to predict the innumerable amount of Kritiks
that could be run.
2. Kritiks are just a form of argumentation, but the actual argumentation in the Kritik isnt
any more or less predictable than any other form of argument.
3. The resolution clearly uses certain terms to refer to a specific real world conflict, not a
general abstract philosophical argument such as the value of morality itself. Therefore it
is inherently more predictable to refer to topic specific literature that contains many of the
key concepts and terms of the resolution.
4. The format of Kritiks are empirically less predictable, it is a fact that Kritiks are run far
far less often than a traditional NC case structure.
4. Kritiks force debaters to defend all of their arguments
1. Kritiks do not change the way that people write cases or do research. Regardless of how
many times a Nietzsche K is run some form of morality will still be relied on in debate
cases.
2. You dont make debaters accountable for their position, the proliferation of Kritiks just as
easily leads to the proliferation of more theory argumentation.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritik Perm
By making reject the AC on face and refusing to enter into discussion about it, the kritik
identifies a particular viewpoint which excludes others at all cost. John Goldhamer notes: "A
one-sided viewpoint always creates conflict. By identifying with one position we automatically
make an enemy out of any opposing position...Being caught in one viewpoint breads war and
violence on every levelOne-sidedness demands struggle against some perceived enemy who
must...be destroyed.
Perm: Hold the aff and neg in a non-violent collision of opposites. Holding conflicting
ideas in a state of tension starts a process of individuation which is the only way to avoid the
harms of one-sidedness. John Goldhamer5 notes: "The unconscious responds to such on-sided
identification...with violent emotions...lack of control...outbursts of rage coupled with lack of
self-criticism and the misjudgments, mistakes, and delusions which this entailsOne-sided
identification with a groups mission or belief system activates a silent agony of existential
despair, which, through the psyches compensatory nature, must eventually burst into outer
consciousness as rage against what we have done to our selves. The remedy for such one-sided
identification depends upon brining the repressed side of the personality to consciousness; it
means undertaking a conscious process of individuation in order to lift the psyche out of a state
of identification with some idea or leader. This requires a confrontation and collision of
opposites, which one must...tolerate as a necessary part of the...process to greater...awareness."
The perm accepts the kritik without rejecting the AC, thus avoiding one-sided identification. You
vote aff (1) to stop the real-world harms of the K and (2) since once you buy the perm the K
gives you no reason to reject the AC or vote neg.
5
John Goldhamer (PhD, psychoanalyst), Under the Influence," p. 89

FIND THE FULL TEXT OF THE CARD BEFORE RUNNING
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Micropolitics Bad
1. Debate is the wrong medium for political change because the political sphere is distinct
from the debate sphere judges are expected to enter rounds with no biases on the
resolution, whereas there are no such prohibitions on their political beliefs. Judges are
thus unlikely to be swayed from their political beliefs, nullifying the impacts of
micropolitics.
2. Micropolitics is only used as a tool to win the ballot, because in order for debaters to
prove that they actually care about the political issue, they would have to forfeit all of
their (neg) rounds to avoid contradicting themselves. Insofar as the debater debates both
sides, you ought to drop him/her because they either face an ideological conflict or they
prove that theyre only using micropolitics without believing in the idea.
3. TURN: If a debater wanted to create effective political change, the better alternative
would be to lobby Senators or join a protest because the scope of people affected is larger
than two people in a debate round, increasing the likelihood for political change.
Additionally, changing the forum has the propensity to reach more politically powerful
characters as opposed to a college-aged judge with little ability to create change.
4. TURN: Voting on micropolitics creates a false sense of efficacy because the debaters feel
as if using the ballot as a tool creates real change. Instead, the ballot serves as nothing
more than a win or a loss for one side, creating a ruse of solvency that can never be
fulfilled, making the micropolitics argument senseless.
5. TURN: Taking micropolitical action desensitizes us to the political issues when we view
them as a tool to win the round, which stops individuals from caring about the issues in
the real-world context. This outweighs the micropolitics insofar as this has an impact on
us outside of the debate context.
6. Political action in debate rounds denies the existence of a stable symbolic order and
prioritizes issues into a priori matters as opposed to recognizing their contingency. Zizek
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
in 2004 writes:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
7. Since context doesnt matter for micropolitical actions, debate rounds dont uniquely
foster any kind of benefit in terms of the political issue. Laclau in 2000 writes:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Narratives Bad
1. Narratives fail to make explicit claims. At most, they suggest conclusions, but the
conclusion is ultimately in the hands of the judge, not the debaters. This means that
A. The narrative doesnt directly [affirm/negate] the resolution, so it doesnt matter in terms of
the round, and
B. The judge has to determine the narratives impact in terms of the ballot, which constitutes
intervention.
2. In every round, debaters tell stories in one way or another, whether they are emotional or
if they describe a causal chain of events. Narrative is a broad form of argument that extends
beyond fiction or personal testimonial. But my use of narrative is superior because it involves
explicit discursive claims, and articulates explicit reasons to vote.
3. If I were to run a counter-narrative, which the affirmative would consider a proactively good
thing, there is no standard to resolve the discussion, so the judge is forced to decide arbitrarily.
Thus, in order to avoid intervention, you should accept my arguments and reject the narrative.
4. Privileging one side of a binary of subordination is a reversal of the relation, not a challenge to
its logic. This means that the narrative only reinscribes the logic of domination by privileging
one side of the binary, so it doesnt effectively challenge what it means to stop.
5. Bringing a real-world narrative into the sterile academic environment of debate destroys its
political value. The AC gives the false impression that it is sufficient to hear the voice in the
debate round, but in reality those voices are not really helped by voting either way. This makes
solvency a ruse and simultaneously precludes real solvency. We become complacent under the
narrative framework since we come to erroneously believe that exposing silenced voices is
enough.
6. Narratives essentialize subordinated groups. The narrative gives the impression that all
members of the group share a certain experience, and that defines them. This polices differences
within groups, destroying agency and the potential for progressive action to break down
stereotypes and biases.
7. The narrative can be cooped by the oppressors, because the state can use narrative to fuel
public fears through descriptions of impending disaster. This turns the narrative, because it only
reinforces the situation of domination.
8. The narrative presupposes the legitimacy of the hermeneutical tradition, which attempts to
discover a meaning or implication from the text. But Hermeneutical interpretation of texts
cripples critical resistance. David Couzens Hoy, Critical Resistance, Pg. 32-33
The idea that there is no interpreted bedrock to anchor interpretation raises the specter of
relativism. If critique is a matter of interpretation, and if interpretation goes all the way down,
then hermeneutics would not appear to be a sufficient basis for critical resistance. If there are no
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
limits to what interpretations can say, critique becomes vacuous and resistance becomes
directionless.
9. Storytelling kills public discourse.
Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Professors of Law, 1997, Beyond All Reason, 11
Second, radical multiculturalism lends to disturbing distortions in scholarship and public
discourse. Because they reject objectivity as a norm, the radicals are content to rely on personal
stories as a basis for formulating views of social problems. These stories are often atypical or
distorted by self-interest, yet any criticism of the stories is inevitably seen as a personal attack on
the storyteller. More generally, because radical multiculturalists refuse to separate the speaker
from the message, they can become sidetracked from discussing the merits of the message itself
into bitter disputes about the speakers authenticity and her right to speak on behalf of an
oppressed group. Criticisms of radical multiculturalism are seen as pandering to the power
structure if they come from women or minorities, or as sexist and racist if they come from white
men. This makes dialogue difficult at best.
A/T Narratives Bad

1. A/T Narratives dont make specific claims, so they dont warrant a ballot and force the
judge to intervene in the round.
Narratives make very specific claims they examine a single real life scenario and apply it to the
text of the resolution in an attempt to show its truth or falsity. This means that as long as you
understand the analysis in my case as to why affirming/ negating is the logical consequence of
the narrative, my narrative clearly affirms/ negates and there is no reason why you should have to
intervene in the round.
2. A/T Narratives are a broad form of argumentation that go beyond fiction, and because
debaters tell stories through their debating, you prefer the negative since it engages more
issues.
The claim that narratives are a broad form of argument is pure assertion. Dictionary.com defines
narrative as a story or account of events, experiences, or the like. This means that debaters
dont tell narratives in the context of making normal argumentation because A. they discuss a
resolution that makes a broad, even categorical claim, and B. they dont communicate accounts
of events or experiences, rather they debate about the consequences of future actions. Thus the
narrative is completely separated from normal modes of debate.
3. A/T No standard to determine which narrative is better
We can weigh between the political or social implications of accepting one narrative or another;
we dont necessarily need a standard to impact to without being able to weigh in the round. Even
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
if this werent true, the fact that the negative didnt run a narrative in round in the same sense
that I did in actually telling the story of events that took place in the real world means that the
objection doesnt matter/ has no impact.
4. A/T Privileging one side of an oppressive binary doesnt solve for oppression, it just reentrenches the binary
Privileging one side of an oppressive binary DOES mitigate the oppression caused by the binary
because it gives voice to oppressed groups and confirms their plight as being subjected to unfair
cruelty. The oppressors dont NEED to have their side of the story heard because they already
have the political clout and representation necessary to attain representation. Moreover, even if
my narrative does privilege the oppressed over the oppressors to the point that the binary of
oppression is reversed, we would still favor this outcome over allowing the oppressors to
continue dominating because such a tradeoff would allow for equality in access to agency and
discourse. Insofar as oppression should be fought, we should still try to help people who are
being unfairly oppressed even if we cant destroy the binary.
5. A/T Narratives kill the academic value of debate people think its enough to hear a
voice when its really not
Bringing a narrative into the realm of debate actually increases the academic value of the activity
because it broadens the scope and perspective of the type of discourse introduced into the round.
Rather than couching the activity in banality, the narrative broadens debate through its
introduction of ideas and/or methods rarely used in an academic forum. Further, the argument
being made assumes that my advocacy is that the only affect of my reading the narrative is that
people in round hear it; however, this ignores the other implications of the narrative that I explain
in case and is therefore non-responsive.
6. A/T Narratives essentialize subordinated groups
My narrative does not claim to represent all the members of a minority it simply tells the story
of a particular individual and applies it to the resolution. Even if this were not the case, you
would still prefer the narrative because it at least gives voice to minorities that otherwise might
have absolutely no recourse through traditional political modes, even if it cannot recognize every
nuance of every individual within that minority.
7. A/T Narratives can be co-opted by the oppressors
Anything can be co-opted this harm is not unique to the narrative itself, so you have no reason
to exclude the narrative on this basis alone; the narrative bad answers themselves could be coopted. Furthermore, the idea that we should avoid potentially liberating actions for fear that the
oppressors will respond in some way is a nihilistic attitude that entrenches oppressive norms by
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
eliminating the possibility for political activism on the part of the oppressed.
8. A/T Story telling interpretations of text cripples critical resistance
Anti-oppression movements gain momentum and credence by allowing relative perspectives to
play a roll in the movement because individuals will feel included in the process of resistance
and rebellion against the oppressors. Rather than claiming a single objective truth, the narrative
seeks to understand situations from an individualistic perspective that broadens the scope of
discourse and allows the possibility for a redress of harms. Moreover, rather than making
resistance directionless by articulating the specific circumstances of a situation and explaining
how such an articulation warrants political or micro-political action, the narrative directs
resistance of oppressive norms towards a very specific end.
9. A/T Storytelling kills public discourse
I dont advocate conflating the situation of the author with the author themselves the fact that
Im running this narrative in a debate round implies that substantive discourse is the object of my
reading the narrative. This means that there is no reason why the narrative itself cannot be
discussed on a level different from those involved in the narrative and thus still be the legitimate
object of societal discourse. Additionally, the fact that Im making substantive responses to the
takeouts of the narrative empirically denies the idea that all advocates of narratives simply appeal
to the authority of the subject of the narrative and preclude discussion. Moreover, for centuries
storytelling has been a key method within societies for communicating advocacies or ideals to
individuals, especially in the days before technology had progressed to a point that allowed
convenient physical recording of a story. For example, Aesops fables have been discussed for
centuries as bearing important lessons crucial for individuals in a functioning society to be aware
of. Thus, rather than killing public discourse, storytelling arouses the publics interest and sparks
further discourse on the subject matter dealt with in the story.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Irony Bad
1. Irony as an effective political tool would require the judge to share the debaters
predispositions about the nature of certain ideologies. This is true because arguments can
only appear ironic if both the debater and judge believe that the implications of certain
arguments are able to be mocked via their annunciation. This puts the (Aff/Neg) in a
double bind. Either:
a. No one gets the irony and it loses its political/discursive value.
b. The judge already recognizes the value in criticizing certain ideologies and thus
the (AC/NC) isnt actually subversive.
2. Stating that ones position is ironic eliminates the subversive aspects of irony. Gordon
Teskey explains: Of course one cannot really use irony: it is not an implement but an
ethical category. One can be ironic, like Socrates, or a little like him. But when irony is
objectively determined by markerschanges of expression and tone, or the marginal
notation ironice- it spoils. Thus, because the (AC/NC) is recognizing itself as ironic, it
ceases to actually trick or subvert dominant ideologies in that it no longer is covertly
exposing their flaws, rendering irony as a tool useless.
3. If engaging in actions that are unexpected and subversive is truly an ideal course of
action, then you would always vote for me because the ultimate irony would be to vote
for the person who is being unironic.
4. If the (aff/neg) truly thought that discursive arguments were valuable, and that we ought
to subvert dominant ideologies; instead of reading semi-humorous debate cases for six
minutes they would be out on the streets doing random acts like staging ironic proexploitation rallies or crapping on sidewalks.
5. Using irony presupposes the truth of certain social conditions, thus becoming self
defeating in that it fails to allow resistance to oppressive aspects of society. David J.
Amante explains: Ironic speech acts clearly are indirect speech acts, ones that
communicate their covert negatives using seemingly normal speech acts as a vehicle.
Knowledge of the social system, manners, principles governing conversations and
knowledge of speech acts all contribute to our awareness of irony. Even in the minimal
form of irony like sarcasm, there is a place for, a necessity for, these different kinds of
linguistic and social facts. Thus, recognition and knowledge of preexisting conditions is
intrinsic to the expression of ironic arguments, mitigating the political value of irony.
6. There is no intrinsic weighing mechanism for determining the amount of ideological
disruption that needs to occur in order to justify voting for an ironic position. Any critical
argument could theoretically have some political implication, and without any standard to
calculate or weigh between such competing advocacies you will never be able to vote for
an ironic position because its benefits are speculative at best.
IRONIC RESPONSES TO IRONY. (Purposely blippy. Will also seriously fuck with 1ars.,,)
1. The eternal golden rule dictates that thou ought treat people how thou wishes to be
treated meaning that the AC shouldnt be mean and criticize things so vote the bastard
down.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
2. Wrong forum, everyone in the debate community is conservative so they will all just
ignore you.
3. All of the warrants are just FIVE WORDS LONG. No one even cares about FIVE
WORD warrants. Irony cases suck.
4. Irony can be funny, NOT! Debate cases cant be funny. Only movies, comics, and interp
rounds can be funny. Thus the real irony is in ironys unfunniness.
5. Irony is unfair because some jokes arent funny and you are privileging people with good
senses of humor which is unfair and kills all of my ground and I cant debate anymore
and I have infinite research skew because I need to do infinite research because aliens
might have different senses of humor and fairness is a gate way issue.
6. The ultimate irony would to be to vote for me because the affirmative wouldnt even
expect it, thus tricking HIM or HER.
7. There is no brightline for irony in that it is vague and unweighable and cant be
quantified but at the very least respecting rights as side constraints comes as a
prerequisite because tortured people dont think stuff is funny.
8. Why dont we all just watch Comedy Central? Wouldnt that be ironic? That we join
debate for the sake of being educated but simply just go back to watching the television.
Bet you didnt think about that one did you?
Irony, Allegory, and Metaphysical Decay

Gordon Teskey
PMLA > Vol. 109, No. 3 (May, 1994), pp. 397-408
Of course one cannot really use irony: it is not an implement but an ethical category. One can be
ironic, like Socrates, or a little like him. But when irony is objectively determined by markerschanges of expression and tone, or the marginal notation ironice- it spoils.
The Theory of Ironic Speech Acts
David J. Amante
Poetics Today > Vol. 2, No. 2, Narratology III: Narration and Perspective in Fiction (Winter,
1981), pp. 77-96
Ironic speech acts clearly are indirect speech acts, ones that communicate their covert negatives
using seemingly normal speech acts as a vehicle. Knowledge of the social system, manners,
principles governing conversations and knowledge of speech acts all contribute to our awareness
of irony. Even in the minimal form of irony like sarcasm, there is a place for, a necessity for,
these different kinds of linguistic and social facts.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Fairness is a Voter
1. Fairness guarantees that every debater comes into the round without any structural
advantages. This is important as debate is a game of skill for three reasons
1. Tournaments are run on the basis of wins and losses as well as ballots say who the better
debater is and not who was most educational, etc.
2. We craft arguments so that we win easier rather than discuss the best issues
3. If debate werent a competitive activity, people would stop playing.
So, vote on fairness as if ensures an equal footing to all debaters, leading to the most skilled
debater winning.
2. Fairness is a voting issue because unfair debates cannot be objectively evaluated. This is
evaluated before any other ________ position because theory frames the way all other
arguments are evaluated and creates the context for the round. Vote here because the violation
nullifies all other arguments because it shifts the context of the round
3. Fairness is a prerequisite to having acceptable rounds because if both sides dont have a
reasonably equal chance to win the round, rounds get decided by pairings, rendering the
competition meaningless. Thus, fairness is a constraint.
4. Procedural checks on debaters are key or else I could keep on talking after my time goes out,
tear up my opponents cases, or get up and sign the ballot for myself right now.
5. Unfair standards skew the adjudication of the round as they encompass more than the
resolution, meaning one side has to defend things out of the scope of the resolution. Since a
judge is by definition supposed to be neutral, accepting unfair frameworks maligns adjudication
as you there is a bias to one side.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Fairness is not a Voter

1) Fairness as a standard detracts from truth-seeking as theory asks us to reject certain
arguments, not because they are false, but rather because they make it harder for one side to win.
Limiting what arguments can be run limits our ability to find truth.
2) Arguments against skewing ground assume that there is a fixed amount of ground for each
side. Since there are an infinite number of arguments that could be conceivably made, there is no
way for a judge to know when one debater has more ground than the other.
3) A check on fairness already exists in debate as both debaters have a total of thirteen minutes to
explain their positions. This provides both sides with an equal opportunity to make any
arguments they wish. Just because one debater exploits this advantage more than the other is not
sufficient grounds for throwing an argument out of the round.
4) Fairness isnt inherent to a debate round anyway. Each person has different speech times and
advantages afforded by the topic. Debate rounds allow us to exploit such advantages in clever
ways. Fairness is self-checking as while we may be abused in one round, we are on the opposite
side in the next, meaning we can run the same arguments as those which screwed us.
5) In order to have a debate one must evaluate what different arguments mean for the round.
However, debate can still occur without arbitrary intervention that is designed to correct for
inequalities of ground. Thus fairness isnt necessary for debate, while the evaluation of
arguments that could be perceived as unfair is.
6) Fairness is subjective, asking the judge to vote on it is bad as they will inevitably interject
their own biases into the decision meaning that when we ask teh judge to vote on fairness we
effectively ask them to intervene.
7) Fairness is self-checking. When a debater runs abusive arguments, despite winning, he
becomes stigmatized within the community as a squirrely debater. This means that people will
develop their own ways to cope with it once it is out, meaning that judge intervention is not
necessary
Education is not a voter
1. Education is always subjective. What my opponent values as educational could be and is in
this round very different from my own, thus, their objection to my argument. This means that any
decision by the judge to vote on this argument is intervention on behalf of their ideal conception
of education. This is proven by the fact that some people value learning one thing in depth is
more valuable that learning many things on a superficial level or the other way around.
2. Any position run in a debate round has some educational value, insofar as they are based in
rational argumentation and in academic literature. Also the topics that we debate are
predetermined to have some educational merit so any arguments that play out in a round will be
based in educational idea. Because my opponent does not designate a bright line for how much
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
education is acceptable in a round there is no way for the judge to arbitrarily vote on some
decrease in education, as it would only be infusing their own subjective conception of education
into the round.
3. This argument is non-unique. By my opponents conception in every round one position will
be less educational than the other, meaning every round would be decided on a debate about
whose case is educational which would destroy the educational value of debate in the first place.
In order to vote on theory there must be some sort of minimum threshold for education
established by opponent otherwise debates would always be decided purely based on whose
position was more educational. This undermines education itself because we are not able to
discuss positions, think critically about arguments and we never have an incentive to read topic
literature.
4. Education as a voting issue legitimizes reading positions that have absolutely nothing to do
with the resolution, i.e. they could randomly get up and read out of their physics textbook. This
logic destroys the educational value of debate from the beginning because it destroys the ability
for a clash of ideas to ever take place in the round because there is no way to predict an
opponents advocacy.
5. Theory is by nature un-educational because it keeps us from actually debating real issues and
real ideas about the topic. Because of the ridiculousness of theory itself, I have to waste my time
reading this block and writing it beforehand as opposed to doing research and writing about this
topic. In order to vote on theory there must be some sort of minimum threshold for education
established by opponent otherwise debates would always be decided purely based on whose
position was more educational. This undermines education itself because we are not able to
discuss positions, think critically about arguments and we never have an incentive to read topic
literature because it would benefit us as debaters in any way.
6. This argument presumes that the goal of debate is to be educational. The motivation to join
the activity varies from person to person, some debate just to win or because they enjoy it. Any
decision by the judge to vote on education is imposing their ideal motivation onto debaters,
which is not their role. Just like referees dont throw athletes out of the round for playing only for
the money a judge cannot vote against a debater because they disagree with their idea of what
debate is about.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Fairness Trumps Education

1) Fairness is necessary for education insofar as each side must have an equal opportunity to
make educational arguments. To deny someone that opportunity in the pursuit of education is to
deny them the validity of another educational argument. This is comparatively worse for
education as my opponent wants to toss certain arguments.
2) The reason that people do debate is because of the competitive nature of the activity, as
evidenced by my opponents arguments for the ballot. Some debaters will run any argument, no
matter how false, to win the ballot. As such, we must make sure that we are fair before we are
educational as not everyone cares about education and yet we have to care about fairness in order
to ensure competitive equity.
3) Education is a more subjective standard than fairness. The judge can evaluate how easy it is
for each debater to win the round, and yet any standard of education is based upon a subjective
idea of what is important to know about.
4) Education is not the primary purpose of debate. Even if one of my opponents arguments were
true, I would not concede it because it helped us understand the topic. Instead, debaters make
arguments based upon what helps them win, and the only way to objectively determine this is
with a fair round.
5) If education were really the paramount value, then it would follow that judges should
determine each round based upon how educational each debater was, not who actually won the
round. However, this is self-defeating- the real education comes from having a vigorous debate
about the issues, and in order for this to happen we need to have fairness.
6) Running theory is actually counter-productive to education because it sucks time away from
truly educational debate. Since my opponent chose to run theory rather than talk about the real
issues, it shows that s/he cares more about winning the round than learning per se. Since my
opponent and I care most about winning, you should concentrate on trying to make the round
fair.
7) Fairness is a much more pressing concern than education since debate rounds start out
inherently fair before both sides make arguments. The round doesnt become educational until
after arguments have been made. This means that unfair arguments are proactively abusive,
whereas uneducational arguments simply dont teach as much as they could. Thus, it makes more
sense to punish a debater for being proactively abusive and unfair than not teaching us as much
as possible because one was an error of omission and the other of commission.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Text Trumps Education/Fairness

1) The only static rule in debate is that we must talk about the resolution. Judges should be
expected to follow the rules of debate, because otherwise decisions would be completely
unpredictable and thus unfair. Thus the text of the resolution should be prioritized first.
2) What is fair or educational is extremely subjective insofar as all people have different ideas
about what fairness and education are. The only objective standard is the one provided at the top
of the judges ballot- the resolution itself.
3) Operating off of the resolution provides for the most fair interpretation of the round since an
infinite number of syllogisms can be made proving why an argument is unfair, and yet there are
only a finite number of arguments that can be made to prove the resolution true or false. This
makes the round more predictable and thus fairer because predictability is key to doing research
on the topic.
4) For education to occur there must be a shared understanding of what is being discussed in
order for meaningful dialogue to take place. The only understanding that will always be common
to both debaters is the resolution itself. Thus one must look to textual primacy before education.
5) The judge only has jurisdiction over the resolution because a ballot only allows h/im to vote
for or against the resolution. While a judge may have an opinion about who was fairer or more
educational, s/he has no reason for conveying this sentiment through the decision calculus.
6) The judge is under a contractual obligation to vote based upon who better upheld their side of
the round. This is the job that s/he was either paid or volunteered to do. Nothing in the rules
stipulated that the judges job was to uphold fairness and education. Textual primacy therefore
should be the main concern of the debaters who want the judges ballot.
7) Debaters have no way of predicting what judges would like to see unless there is some
predictable way that judges can make decisions. Education and fairness are based mostly upon
subjective reasoning that differs from judge to judge. Thus the only constant in the round is the
resolution itself. Unpredictability is bad insofar as we are concerned about being fair because an
unpredictable judges vote would border on randomness, destroying the possibility of rewarding
the better debater.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
In-Round Abuse is Necessary

1. Voting on potential abuse punishes me for something that I might have done or something
that someone might do at some time. This forces the judge to vote on something has did not
happened in this round. The judge only has jurisdiction over what actually happens in the round,
meaning unless abuse is demonstrated there is no reason to vote. My opponents arguments
justify the judge voting for a debater for arguments that would have turned my case if they had
been made.
2. This argument is infinitely regressive. There is always the possibility for an argument to
become abusive later in the round. There is no way for the judge to verify in the round if abuse
will occur that determination can only happen after the fact. Any decision by the judge on what
could happen would thus, be outright intervention.
3. My opponent says that you are creating a norm if you accept my argument but you can turn
that. By voting for this theory argument you legitimize debaters twisting their opponents
arguments in order to construct an abuse story just so they can win on theory. This destroys the
purpose of theory to act, as a check on abuse because its over use would render it useless to that
end. Meaning in order to ensure that theory remains relevant we must have a check on how far
theory can go, in round abuse is that line.
4. If the ballot really influences debate practices the judge should not vote on potential abuse.
If the punishment for actual abuse and potential abuse are exactly the same the purpose of theory
to act as a check is destroyed. If debaters will be punished for what they could do they have an
incentive to actually be abusive in round because it gives them the strategic benefit that my
opponent thinks is abusive and there is no disadvantage.
5. Dont punish me for the mistakes that my opponent makes. The fact that they cannot
demonstrate actual abuse only shows that they could not come up with substantive answers to the
position so they created a scenario where abuse might occur. I should not be punished for their
inability to formulate responses and for their strategic mistakes.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Potential Abuse is a Voter

Future rounds
1. Voting down a debater for a potentially abusive position sets a precedent of acceptable
arguments. Set a precedent against abusive arguments, otherwise voting for it allows for more
abusive arguments in the future because they make winning easier. Precedents have an effect
2. Vote down the argument as there is no reason that what an argument justifies is different
from what is run. If I ran a conception of morality that could justify the Holocaust, we would
reject it, abuse is no different. Vote down the debater for advancing such an interpretation.
Not yet in this round
1. Vote on this abuse, as I was forced to run this argument so that I dont lose on theory. This
means the substantive arguments that I could have made remain unspoken.The abuse has already
happened, my time allocation and argumentation has been affected. FURTHERMORE, Dont let
the AC extend arguments and say that they dont link to the violation, as I dont know the hidden
intricacies of the AC and cant predict what his strategy is going to be in his next speech.
Therefore, they should be held to the explicit explanation of their interpretation.
2. Potential abuse has a chilling affect on my strategy because I have to commit to an advocacy
before knowing if the abuse will take place or not. This means that the potential for abuse has
affected what I can run, thus is actually abusive.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Education is a Voter
1. The only thing of lasting endurance from a round is the education we receive. This means
that the most important aspect of our arguments is their educational qualities. Therefore, you
ought to vote on the most valuable argument in the round, and the method by which you
determine value is education.
2. Most debaters participate in this activity because to some extent of the funding of their
schools. This is money that otherwise would have been spent on these students education, so it is
only logical that these rounds are educational because they are providing something the
institution of education is paying for. This means that you should vote on education because that
is the fundamental purpose of these rounds and the debater who is most educational should win.
3. The only reason the resolution is chosen for debate is because the panel of coaches, of
educators, feels that it would be worth the countless hours their students would spend
researching and writing cases discussing its salient features. Thus, the value of arguments lies in
their educational merits and that should be the method by which we determine which argument
to prefer in round.
4. When people run educational arguments that discuss interesting issues it engenders interest
in other debaters about that issue. Interest is important because the more interest there is in
debate the more people join debate and continue debating which creates a larger pool of
competitors and ensures better tournaments because there is better competition. The best way to
ensure this trend continues is by giving preference to arguments that provide for the better
education.
5. debate rounds have a unique structure which allow for honest debate about certain issues. it
is important that we use this opportunity to discuss issues of educational import because those
will be the most beneficial to us as citizens
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Reject the Argument, not the Debater

1. Debaters are tied to their advocacies because it is unfair for them to kick their argument and
continue with other arguments because the opportunity cost I paid when I was forced to engage
this argument instead of other arguments in the round. My strategy would have been different if
this argument had never existed, so the fact that I have engaged this argument means that in
order for my competitive ability in round to be preserved, my opponent has to engage and defend
their position. Competition is important because debate is an adversarial activity and it is why
adjudication is necessary. <insert fairness is a voter here>
2. you need to ensure that the practice of running multiple contradictory arguments is punished.
with your ballot you have the ability to tell the debater whether or not their practice ought to be
continued in debate, and they will listen because they are only doing what they're doing to win.
This will not only send the message to them, but it will also transmit to other individuals in the
debate community who they could discuss this strategy with and invluence into also running htis
strategy. REJECT THE argument isn't enough deterrance to never run this strat again in the
future, so reject the debater to make debate a better place.
3. the time spent running this theory block takes away from the net educational value of the
round, because i have been forced to protect my competitive ability due to my opponents abusive
position rather than debate the substance of my case. This means that my opponent has already
affected the educational quality of the round and thus you should vote them down <insert
education is a voter>
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Contradictions Bad
INTERPRETATION:
Contradictory arguments are bad for debate.
VIOLATION:
Their arguments are contradictory...
STANDARDS:
1.
This strat is unpredictable which a strat skew. They
allow my opponent to shift advocacies in his next speech because he
cannot go for all of his contradictory arguments. Shifting advocacies
is abusive because it amounts to a strategy skew since my opponent can
pick and choose whichever arguments he wants and I have no way to
prepare for the next speech. This is a reason to vote because strategy
skew harms fairness as it becomes easier for my opponent to win if his
arguments hurt my strategy.
2.
It becomes impossible for me to predict my opponent's strategy
insofar as he can choose to go for either advocacy of the
contradiction if the other argument has too much ink against it.
Predictability is necessary for fairness since if I cannot predict my
opponent's strategy, I cannot respond to my opponent's case
sufficiently, and thus do not have an equal chance of winning which
makes the round unfair. That means you reject the contradictory
arguments because they are harming my strategy in round.
3.
Furthermore, my opponent choosing one of the contradictory
advocacies in his next speech necessarily requires that he makes new
links in his next speech which is a reason to reject both advocacies
of the contradiction because they require that my opponent go new in
the 2.
4.
Any responses I make to either of my opponent's arguments will
bolster his argument because if I respond to one advocacy of the
argument, then I will be promoting the other one this is abusive
insofar as I can't respond to his arguments because any response I
make will be helping his position. This skews ground by putting me in
a double-bind. Either I respond to both advocacies of the argument and
then indirectly bolster both advocacies, or I don't respond to either
and my opponent can extend this offense cleanly. This leads to a
strategy skew because no matter what actions I take, my opponents'
arguments will be winning. Strategy skew is abusive and unfair insofar
as my opponent has to do less work in order to win the round and has
more options to do so than I do. This harms my strategy because I
won't be able to allocate my time or determine where to make arguments
in my next speech. This directly impacts back to fairness since my
opponent is able to more easily win the round if you accept the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
contradiction.
5.
By responding to arguments that contradict my opponent forces me
into defending ground so that I am forced to contradict myself. This
is bad because
a.
I won't make any sense because my responses will be contradicting
themselves. At the point where I am not understandable then my
opponent can't learn anything valuable from what I am discussing,
which is bad for education.
b.
He can use my contradictory responses against me in the next speech
which is unfair because he was the one who initiated the
contradictions.
c.
This means you reject the arguments in which he is being unfair
because they allow for future potential abuses such as using arguments
against me.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Multiple Conditional Counterplans Bad

INTERPRETATION:
The negative should not be allowed to run multiple conditional counterplans.
VIOLATION:
He is....
STANDARDS:
1. They create ground skew because beating all the negative counterplans is necessary to
affirm, but not sufficient. The AFF is traditionally held to one world, but the NEG thus
gets multiple worlds. This gives the negative an infinite opportunity to prove the
resolution false since they only need one argument to do so and it gives the affirmative a
far greater burden of upholding the resolution categorically true. Since the AFF has no
way of knowing what the NEG will run, NEG arguments are impossible to pre-empt in
the 1AC. This is unfair because I am required to respond to all the NEG arguments
without having the ability to pre-empt them whereas the NEG only needs to win one.
2. They skew ground by denying the existence of reciprocal burdens and making the AC
irrelevant. Since all the arguments are sufficient to negate, the AC has no impact in the
round. This creates unreciprocal burdens because I have to answer all of the arguments
and extend offense to win the round whereas the negative need only win one
counterplan. Unreciprocal burdens are unfair because they give one debater an advantage
before the round begins, creating an unbalanced level for the debate.
3. They create a time skew since the affirmative must answer all of the no risk issues the
negative advances, but the negative can kick out of any or all of them without risk of
losing the round. Since counterplans co-opt AFF impacts, a one-shot response to the
multiple conditional counterplans takes out the AFF impacts as well, forcing the AFF to
cover each individual counterplan in the 1AR. This creates actual abuse because the
affirmative has already read the advocacies in the round. This is unfair since it puts me in
the double bind that a) I will undoubtedly run out of time if I try to refute all the
counterplans, dropping some and letting the NEG extend clean offense, or b) I am forced
to run this non-substantive theory argument because its my only chance of winning
against multiple conditional advocacies.
4. They create a prep skew because the affirmative has no way of knowing what
counterplans the negative will run since the resolution doesnt specify a method of
achieving its ends. Since I have no way of knowing what the NC will run, it is
impossible for me to have evidence to refute the NC, and I am forced to run this theory
argument to stay in the round. This is unfair because discussing extra-resolutional
arguments prevents the debaters from effectively preparing for the round since they have
no idea what arguments they will run into and how they will respond.
IMPLICATIONS:
A. Even if you dont vote down the NEG, you reject all the counterplans. You have to reject
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
all of them because a) it is the entirety of the counterplans as a whole that proves unfair
and b) rejecting only one argument doesnt fight the abuse because the debater can still go
for others.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Multiple A Prioris Bad

INTERPRETATION:
Multiple a priori arguments are bad.
VIOLATION:
By running multiple a priori arguments my opponent has skewed the round to her advantage.
STANDARDS:
Multiple a priori arguments are problematic because:
A. They allow my opponent to run a ton of no-risk arguments which skews my strategy on
several levels. I have to give more time in answering each argument than she gave in
developing them; and whichever one I will inevitably undercover (because of time
constraints) shell pursue as the most important issue in her next speech.
B. Debate, being a competitive activity, requires some level of reciprocity in terms of its
rules and regulations. Multiple a priori arguments, however, allow my opponent to run as
many advocacies as she pleases while I can only run one. Given all of these violations, it
becomes impossible for me to develop a cogent counter-strategy to my opponents.
C. This activity requires that a debater is allowed to clash with his opponents
argumentation. This however is circumvented by my opponents strategy because there is
no way to for me to predict which a priories will be run, how many will be run, and how
they function in relation to each other (since they were so poorly developed). There is an
infinite number of arguments that question resolutional assumptions that she can choose
her a priories from.
Their strategy puts me in a very uncomfortable double-bind: either I debate the a priories
in which case I will grossly undercover (because of time-constraints) or I run this theory
shell and waste a lot of my time just to make sure she doesnt abuse me later; regardless
Im prevented from making substantive arguments that could have won me the round. So
REAL abuse has already occurred in the round and the only way to rectify it is to vote on
fairness.
IMPLICATIONS: You vote on theory because
A. Fairness is of primary concern; debate is an activity of skill and an unfair advantage to
one debater would make it unappealing. Debate is a competitive activity that requires
structural regulations that place debaters on an equal playing field.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Speed Good because of Education

INTERPRETATION:
Speed is good for debate because it is educational.
VIOLATION:
I am going fast.
STANDARDS:
1. The ability to talk fast empirically links to education as it increases short term memory,
leading to a better facility with day to day tasks.
Psychology Today October 1992 (report of the results of the Raine et al study)
"If friends criticize you for talking too fast, at least they can't also
accuse you of having a bad memory. Speech rate is a strong index
of short term memory span... 'Therefore, the faster you can talk,
the greater your short-term memory,' says Adrian Raine, PhD, a
University of Southern California psychologist. The link has been
established for adults for some time, Raine reports in Child
Development. Now, he and his colleagues find the correlation
holds for kids as well, a finding that promises short-term payoff in
the classroom and long-term payoff in life. Short-term memory is
the power behind recall of phone numbers, directions, and other
everyday tasks. It is also the foundation of arithmetic and reading
skills... That raises the possibility that speech- training may be a
short-cut to achievement." (p.14)
This links directly to education because the basic skills of
memorization and short term memory are critical for facilitating
academic achievement. You prefer educational impacts that teach
you skills over than specific factual information, because even
though I could learn more about the geography of Africa in terms
of straight facts, talking fast teaches you HOW to learn, which is
more valuable in terms of our real lives in highschool and then in
college. Morever, empirical links to education based on
psychological studies ought always be preferred over the vague,
unsubstantiated links my opponent is making, because my claims
are falsifiable. If you did the research, you could read cards
countering mine. Also, you should always prefer the carded
response over the non-carded response, because by reading cards
I've demonstrated that I've actually done the research and educated
myself in that way.
4. The ability to speak and understand speed increases your working
memory.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Stine, Elizabeth L., Wingfield, Arthur, & Poon, Leonard. (1986). How much
and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language in later adulthood.
Psychology and Aging, vol. 1, no. 4, 303-311. P.303
"At a very fast rate, several things must be accomplished. The
various processes required to recode linguistic stimuli into
meaning have been articulated for both spoken language (Just
& Carpenter, 1980; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980) and written
text (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978; J. Miller & Kintsch, 1980).
There must be some initial phase in which the stimulus is
encoded, physical features (visual or acoustic) are extracted,
and lexical access is achieved (Just & Carpenter, 1980). Next,
the language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units
in which relationships are determined among words (Kintsch &
vanDijk, 1978). These relationships are typically represented
in terms of propositions consisting of a predicate and one or
more arguments that are related by the predicate. Third,
relationships between idea units of the text must be established
in order to construct overall structural cohe rence in the text.
Finally, the text must be related to and integrated with world
knowledge. Although such processes would undoubtedly have
to work in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion, the output
at each of these stages would have to be held in an online
working memory for an effective integration of meaning.
An increase in working memory allows for an increase in the
ability to analyze texts, understand syntactic relationships, and other
crucial linguistic functions.
Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory
and
Severe Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Pg 21
"In its broadest sense, working memory refers to the use of
temporary storage mechanisms in the performance of more
complex tasks. So, for example, in order to read and
understand prose, we must be able to hold incoming
information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute
the semantic and syntactic relationships among successive
words, phrases, and sentences and so construct a coherent and
meaningful representation of the meaning of the text. This
temporary storage of information during reading is said to
depend on working memory. In this view the ability to
understand prose will depend on, among other things, the
capacity of a persons working memory system. Such
temporary storage of information is obviously necessary for the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
performance of a wide variety of other tasks apart from
reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal
reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)."
Working memory is beneficial because it increases understanding of
text, verbal reasoning, and mental arithmatic. It's like upgrading the
RAM in your brain. This is the highest educational impact, because it
helps you in every aspect of your education like if you did upgrade
the RAM in your computer, every task would work better. This also
outweighs in round impacts because the ability to effectively reason
verbally is crucial to any debate argument.
5. The increase in processing spreed and working memory
provided by learning how to speak fast and think fast assists in
problem solving.
Kail, Robert V. (2004) Cognitive Development Includes Global
and Domain-Specific Processes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50.4
(2004) 445-455
However, Kail and Hall (1999) argued that global skills may
also contribute to the accuracy with which children solve such
problems. Increased processing speed might contribute, for
example, by allowing more rapid retrieval of schemata for
different types of problems. In addition, increased working
memory might contribute by facilitating understanding of the
problem (i.e., facilitating reading comprehension) and
facilitating storage of problem facts during problem solving. To
evaluate global and domain-specific contributions to age-related
change in word-problem performance, Kail and Hall (1999,
Study 2) had 8- to 12-year-olds attempt to solve arithmetic word
problems of the sort, "Pete had 7 marbles. Then Sam gave him 5
more. How many marbles does Pete have now?" In addition,
they measured children's knowledge of addition and subtraction,
as well as processing speed and working memory. All measures
were related positively to performance on word problems. More
importantly, the critical multiple regression analyses showed (1)
that arithmetic knowledge accounted for additional variance in
word-problem performance beyond that associated with global
cognitive skills (i.e., processing speed, working memory), and
(2) that in complementary fashion, global cognitive skills
accounted for additional variance in word-problem performance
beyond that associated with arithmetic knowledge.
Problem solving is critical for education because it is the basis of
academic study. Morever, it is assists the efforts of our day to day life,
fundamentally outweighing all my opponents arguments. Reasons why
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
you prefer my carded analysis about psychologicly from above still
hold true.
6. Speed reeces the breadth v. depth trade-off. There is always conflict whether or not to
run a few good arguments or a lot of bad arguments, and the slower you go the
harder that decision is. When you are speaking faster, the trade-off is much less; a
slow debater may have a choice between 3 good arguments and 6 bad ones, but a fast
debater probably can manage 6 good arguments. This is much more educational
because it allows the debater to deeply warrant their arguments, which otherwise
might have been blippy. Also, speed is more educational because it allows you to
make types of arguments that require a lot of set up and that would have taken too
long to do if you go slowly. This increases the amount of topic area that can be
debated, teaching us more.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Speed Good because of Fairness

INTERPRETATION:
Speed is good for debate because it makes it more fair.
VIOLATION:
I am going fast.
STANDARDS
1. Speed provides a way for everyone to access debate at the highest levels. Anyone can
learn how to spread, given any text to read and some dedication. This means that it allows
debate to be more inclusive and open to people on all levels, whereas technical
argumentation, massive research and other forms of specialization that are dependent on
large support systems and camp knowledge. Slow debaters have to be extremely word
economical and a well-written, unique case, both of which are things uniquely helped by
being at camp or having good coaching, due to their highly specialized nature. Because
spreading is not specialized or terribly difficult to understand how it works, speed allows
people who might not have had the economic opportunities of camp and coaches to
compete. This is crucial to fairness because it equalizes the playing field and provides for
accessible ground. If you did not say that speed was important, you would be excluded
whole segments of the debate population.
2.
Speed can check back bad unwarranted arguments that would otherwise be difficult to
fully answer. If the debater is going slowly, it is difficult to explain why exactly the
opponents arguments are bad, because there is a higher need for each second of their time
in the speech. Without speed, the other debater could take advantage and make a lot of
really bad arguments that become key pieces of offense because they are dropped. This
means allowing speed is key to fairness because it prevents strategy skew and also
prevents the specific strategies that involve making bad arguments. Strategy skew links to
fairness because without a solid strategy, the opponent has a greater competative
advantage. Also, strategies involving bad arguments are unfair because the ballot is
totally binary; they get rewarded the same amount as I do if one of us wins, so it is
illegitimate for them to have to do that much less good work.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Speed Bad
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Interpretation: Speed is bad.

Opponent is using excessive speed
Voting Issue is fairness
Standards:
i. The standard is accessibility. Using excessive speed is unfair because not
all debaters can understand excessive speed and so are put at an immediate
disadvantage within the round. If I cant understand and flow your
arguments its impossible for me to respond to them.
ii. The standard is accessibility. Using excessive speed is unfair because not
all debaters can use speed to the same ability. If I cant read as fast as you
Im not able to put out the same number of arguments so Im put at a
disadvantage. Additionally I cant respond to all of you arguments so you
can just extend them and win the round.
iii. The standard is the ability to check abuse. If I cant check abuse there is
no possible way we can have a fair debate because abuse is allowed to run
rampant. Using excessive speed is unfair because judges who dont
understand everything youre saying are forced to accept the implications
you draw from your case in your final speech (2AR/1NR). This allows the
debater using speed to draw new implications and warrants out of their
cases in their final speech because if we didnt understand the speech the
first time we have no way of knowing whether those implications were
there initially or not.
iv. The standard is strategy skew. I have to write my affirmative case before I
come into the round. I cant possibly predict how fast the negative debater
is going to deliver their arguments so I cant preempt their use of speed. If
I simply engage in speed from the beginning, I open myself up to all of
these arguments against speed. If I dont read fast however, I can easily
get spread out of the round by the negative debater. Theres no way for
me to win. This abuse happens before the round even begins. When they
use speed they perpetuate this negative advantage because if the threat of
speed ceases to exist, so does the advantage. You should reject the debater
because doing so delegitimizes the use of excessive speed in debate
rounds and ensures that debate as an activity is not lead down a path of
intrinsic unfairness.
Interpretation: Speed is bad because its uneducational
Violation: Opponent is using excessive speed
Voting issue is Education
Standards:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
i. The standard is accessibility. Speed is not educational because if I cant
understand your arguments I cant respond to them and neither of us can
learn from the debate because there is no clash.
ii. The standard is depth, breadth, etc. Speed is not educational because it
encourages a focus on speed as a skill instead of substantive
argumentation. Speed is used to throw many arguments onto the flow and
if any are not responded to, they can be extended. The debater wins the
round through extensions instead of substantive argumentation which
means that debaters dont learn valuable skills such as substantive
argumentation instead they just learn how to speak fast which has no realworld use.
iii. The standard is accessibility. Speed is not educational because when
rounds come down to who can read faster, potential members of the debate
community who cant read fast are excluded from the activity. This is
harms education because fewer people can gain access to the educational
benefits of the activity but furthermore the exclusion of certain individuals
excludes their unique ideas and beliefs which enable a greater degree of
education because I gain exposure to new ideas I might have otherwise not
have been exposed to. Debaters with specific handicaps such as blindness
are immediately excluded from the round in that they can only so quickly.
I. Response to no brightline on speed
a. There can never be a specific brightline on speed, however in certain situations it
is intuitively true that the debater is going excessively fast. These arguments
would not be run on somebody who is not going excessively fast. Additionally
they never would be read against someone who is not excessively fast because
without a specific brightline the judge would ignore them. Only when it is so
apparent that the debater is abusing speed would it be beneficial to run the
argument. This serves as an internal check against the use of speed violation
theory which nullifies the unique use of the brightline.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
A/T Speed Bad

A. AT Speed is Bad
B. Voting Issues
a. Fairness
i. That isnt a fairness violation because debate necessarily is a matter of
competing skills. You might not be as skilled at writing, thinking on your
feet, researching, etc. These are not reasons to reject me as a debater.
Theyre reasons to vote for me because it shows Im a more skilled
debater. The standard of accessibility has no value in this scenario
because it doesnt link to fairness.
ii. Same as above. That just means that you arent as skilled a debater.
iii. There is no lack of ability to check abuse under this scenario. This just
means that its the other debaters job to point out when and if I draw new
implications to warn the judge not to vote for them. This also assumes
that Im going to be abusive and make up new warrants/implications, but
if you were to always assume that I was going to be abusive in later
speeches, any action and argument I make could be considered abusive.
There is still a check on abuse its just one that the other debater has to
access and is not intrinsic.
iv. The argument doesnt link to strategy skew because there is no strategic
advantage to reading with speed. The affirmative debater gains a strategic
advantage by reading slowly because throwing more arguments onto the
flow opens them up to more turns which aid the negative debater.
b. Education
v. Lack of accessibility doesnt link to the voting issue of education because
it is this lack of accessibility that encourages debaters to gain new skills
thus increasing education. There is an incentive for the debater to learn
how to understand quick speech which means that they are gaining an
additional skill. My reading quickly actually increases education, so turn
this.
vi. Speed isnt necessarily used to throw more arguments onto the flow. I can
use it to add more warrant and substance to the arguments that Im making
which actually increases education because we can engage in deeper and
more meaningful debate. Turn the argument.
vii. Turn the standard. This should be an incentive for those individuals to
participate in debate because they can gain a unique skill. If they already
could read really fast they would have less incentive to join the activity
because it is one less skill that they can gain from debate. If the debater
was handicapped I wouldnt debate this way. For you to gain this offense
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
you actually have to prove that Im abusing you not that Im abusing you
if you happened to be someone else.
C. Needs to be brightline on speed
The attempt to provide a brightline for how fast I can go only destroys the predictability of
debate because it is totally arbitrary. There is no way for my opponent to pick a rate of speed.
That would make sense for every single situation and every single judge. I can't predict how fast
I should go in order to avoid the abuse resolution. This has two implications. First, it means that
there is no reason to vote on the Neg/Aff theory violation because it can have no tangible impact
on future rounds. Second, it means that it would be unfair to punish me for

VBI 2007 Top Lab Theory File

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VBI 2007 Top Lab Theory File

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VBI@LMU 2007

Top Lab Theory File

LANGUAGE KRITIK OF TOPICALITY 8

KRITIKS WITHOUT ALTERNATIVES BAD

A/T NARRATIVES BAD

A/T REJECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE DEBATER

MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS BAD

SPEED GOOD BECAUSE OF EDUCATION

DROP MY OPPONENT BECAUSE

Language Kritik of Topicality

A/T Kritik of Topicality

A/T Conditionality Good

A/T Conditionality Bad

A/T Parametrics Good

Kritiks without Alternatives Bad

A/T Kritiks Bad

n1 However, imagining [*601] possibilities of abstractions--"world-order,"

A/T Kritiks Good

John Goldhamer (PhD, psychoanalyst), Under the Influence," p. 89

A/T Narratives Bad

Irony, Allegory, and Metaphysical Decay

Fairness is not a Voter

Fairness Trumps Education

Text Trumps Education/Fairness

In-Round Abuse is Necessary

Potential Abuse is a Voter

A/T Reject the Argument, not the Debater

Multiple Conditional Counterplans Bad

Multiple A Prioris Bad

Speed Good because of Education

Speed Good because of Fairness

Interpretation: Speed is bad.

A/T Speed Bad

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi