Reasons T is a voting issue

Decisionmaking
A fundamental problem with the affirmatives perspective is
that it ignores that WE ARE ALL POLICY MAKERS. Debating
about alternative government policies is the best way to instill
a METHOD OF DECISIONMAKING that is useful in all parts of
life.
Smith, former debate coach at Wake Forest University, 7
(4/4/2007, Ross K., Challenge to the Community, https://mail.google.com/mail/?
shva=1#inbox, JMP)
Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every
time we decide to undertake a course of action. Most policies are nongovernmental. We have an obligation to ourselves and others to be good policy
makers and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in our spheres of
influence.
Policy Deliberation and Debate: a METHOD for making and advocating better policy
decisions.
Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of teaching the
SKILLS needed for successful use of a METHOD of making and advocating
good decisions. Public policy topics are especially useful because the
research base is public. While we could debate about private actions by private
agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of information that
would help make those debates good ones. There is a side benefit that some of
what we learn about the public policy topics sometimes informs our later
lives as citizens engaged in public deliberation regarding those same
policies, but that is not the primary reason that public policy topics are
necessary.
Andy Ellis is a policy maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself
and for/with others. But a topic about what Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and,
frankly, largely none of our business.
But Andy Ellis has been well served by having the training in one of the better
methods of choosing among and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for.
That method is policy debate.
Debate about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is
"debatable" because there is a common research base. The fact that the
subject matter is at a remove from us personnally while still residing in
the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.

The primary purpose of debate should be to improve our skills

as decision-makers. We are all individual policy-makers who
make choices every day that affect us and those around us.
We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions
to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking
and information processing abilities.
Freeley and Steinberg 9 (Austin J. and David L., John Carroll University and
University of Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making, p. 1-4, googlebooks)
After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of
Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George W.
Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass
destruction as required by United Nations's resolutions. Debate about a possible
military* action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the
public for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support
the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.
Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple
deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate their
growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better public
schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior her
choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these* situations called for
decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned
decisions. Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of
options for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life
demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To
make some of those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration;
others seem to just happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers
come together to make choices, and decision-making bodies from committees to
juries to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations make decisions that impact us
all. Every profession requires effective and ethical decision making, as do our
school, community, and social organizations. We all make many decisions every
day. To refinance or sell one's home, to buy a high-performance SUV or an
economical hybrid car. what major to select, what to have for dinner, what
candidate to vote for, paper or plastic, all present us with choices. Should the
president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy?
How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration? Is the defendant
guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what information
should I rely to make my decision? Certainly some of these decisions are more
consequential than others. Which amendment to vote for, what television program
to watch, what course to take, which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to
pursue all present unique challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to
inform our decisions. Yet even the choice of which information to attend to requires
decision making. In 2006, TIME magazine named YOU its "Person of the Year."
Congratulations! Its selection was based on the participation not of ''great men" in
the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of
anonymous participants in the evolution of information. Through blogs. online

networking. You Tube. Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other "wikis,"
knowledge and "truth" are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian
control of newspeople, academics, and publishers. We have access to infinite
quantities of information, but how do we sort through it and select the best
information for our needs? The ability of every decision maker to make good,
reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically.
Critical thinking enables one to break argumentation down to its component parts in
order to evaluate its relative validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users
of information, as well as better advocates. Colleges and universities expect their
students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take
designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely
recognized. Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in
the form of debates. These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in
which we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or
they may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to
arguments intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to
influence the decisions of others. Our success or failure in life is largely determined
by our ability to make wise decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of
others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity
is concerned with making decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to
graduate school, accept a job oiler, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest
in a certain stock, or vote for Garciathese are just a few of the thousands of
decisions we may have to make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of
responsibility will require us to win the support of others. We may want a
scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a customer for out product, or a vote
for our favored political candidate.

A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground

is key to productive inculcation of decision-making and
advocacy skills in every and all facets of life---even if their
position is contestable thats distinct from it being valuably
debatable---this still provides room for flexibility, creativity,
and innovation, but targets the discussion to avoid mere
statements of fact
Steinberg & Freeley 8 (*Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who
focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg ,
Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical
Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-)
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of opinion or a
conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value
or policy, there is no need for debate: the matter can be settled by
unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved:
That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an
essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on
issues, there is no debate. In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without
clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument
may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants
are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on

our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do

they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social
it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal

services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is

immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration
pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to
do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement,
housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation
state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border , establish a national identification can!, or
enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely

you can think of

many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration.
Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to
be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and
identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively,
controversies must be stated clearly. Vague understanding results in unfocused
deliberation and poor decisions, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States
Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007.
Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially
disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are overcrowded, and
many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their
classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to
do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried

about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations , anger, disillusionment,
and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree
about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe
session would follow. But if a precise question is posedsuch as "What can be done to improve public
education?"then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the
search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate
propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements
"Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the
state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a
manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in

identifying points of difference.

To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by
directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should
be clearly defined. If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or
"global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable
basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is
mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis
for clear argumentation. If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical
force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific
purpose.
Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too
loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What

sort of writing are we concerned withpoems, novels,

government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context? What
kind of physical force is being comparedfists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might
be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?" The

basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That the United States
should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet
maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative

interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over
competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The
point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of
difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Switch side debate good

Even if the resolution is wrong, having a devils advocate in
deliberation is vitally important to critical thinking skills and
avoiding groupthink
Mercier and Landemore 11 (Hugo and Hlne, Philosophy, Politics and
Economics prof @ U of Penn, Poli Sci prof @ Yale, Reasoning is for arguing:
Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation, Political Psychology,
http://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/publications)
Reasoning can function outside of its normal conditions when it is used purely internally. But it is not enough for reasoning to be
done in public to achieve good results. And indeed the problems of individual reasoning highlighted above, such as

polarization and overconfidence, can also be found in group reasoning (Janis, 1982;
Stasser & Titus, 1985; Sunstein, 2002). Polarization and overconfidence happen
because not all group discussion is deliberative. According to some definitions of
deliberation, including the one used in this paper, reasoning has to be applied to the
same thread of argument from different opinions for deliberation to occur. As a
consequence, If the participants are mostly like-minded or hold the same views
before they enter into the discussion, they are not situated in the circumstances of
deliberation. (Thompson, 2008: 502). We will presently review evidence showing that the absence or the silencing of dissent is a quasi-necessary
condition for polarization or overconfidence to occur in groups. Group polarization has received substantial empirical support. 11 So much support in fact that
Sunstein has granted group polarization the status of law (Sunstein, 2002). There is however an important caveat: group polarization will mostly happen when people
share an opinion to begin with. In defense of his claim, Sunstein reviews an impressive number of empirical studies showing that many groups tend to form more
extreme opinions following discussion. The examples he uses, however, offer as convincing an illustration of group polarization than of the necessity of having group
members that share similar beliefs at the outset for polarization to happen (e.g. Sunstein, 2002: 178). Likewise, in his review of the group polarization literature, Baron
notes that The crucial antecedent condition for group polarization to occur is the presence of a likeminded group; i.e. individuals who share a preference for one side
of the issue. (Baron, 2005). Accordingly, when groups do not share an opinion, they tend to depolarize. This has been shown in several experiments in the laboratory
(e.g. Kogan & Wallach, 1966; Vinokur & Burnstein, 1978). Likewise, studies of deliberation about political or legal issues report that many groups do not polarize
(Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Luskin, Fishkin, & Hahn, 2007; Luskin et al., 2002; Luskin, Iyengar, & Fishkin, 2004; Mendelberg & Karpowitz, 2000). On the contrary,
some groups show a homogenization of their attitude (they depolarize) (Luskin et al., 2007; Luskin et al., 2002). The contrasting effect of discussions with a
supportive versus dissenting audience is transparent in the results reported by Hansen ( 2003 reported by Fishkin & Luskin, 2005). Participants had been exposed to
new information about a political issue. When they discussed it with their family and friends, they learned more facts supporting their initial position. On the other
hand, during the deliberative weekendand the exposition to other opinions that took placethey learned more of the facts supporting the view they disagreed with.
The present theory, far from being contradicted by the observation that groups of likeminded people reasoning together tend to polarize, can in fact account
straightforwardly for this observation. When

people are engaged in a genuine deliberation, the

confirmation bias present in each individuals reasoning is checked, compensated
by the confirmation bias of individuals who defend another opinion. When no other
opinion is present (or expressed, or listened to), people will be disinclined to use
reasoning to critically examine the arguments put forward by other discussants,
since they share their opinion. Instead, they will use reasoning to strengthen these
arguments or find other arguments supporting the same opinion. In most cases the reasons each

individual has for holding the same opinion will be partially non-overlapping. Each participant will then be exposed to new reasons supporting the common opinion,
reasons that she is unlikely to criticize. It is then only to be expected that group members should strengthen their support for the common opinion in light of these new
arguments. In fact,

groups of like-minded people should have little endogenous motivation to

start reasoning together: what is the point of arguing with people we agree with? In
most cases, such groups are lead to argue because of some external constraint. These

constraints can be more or less artificiala psychologist telling participants to deliberate or a judge asking a jury for a well supported verdictbut they have to be
factored in the explanation of the phenomenon. 4. Conclusion: a situational approach to improving reasoning We have argued that reasoning should not be evaluated
primarily, if at all, as a device that helps us generate knowledge and make better decisions through private reflection. Reasoning, in fact, does not do those things very
well. Instead, we rely on the hypothesis that the function of reasoning is to find and evaluate arguments in deliberative contexts. This evolutionary hypothesis explains
why, when reasoning is used in its normal conditionsin a deliberationit can be expected to lead to better outcomes, consistently allowing deliberating groups to
reach epistemically superior outcomes and improve their epistemic status. Moreover, seeing reasoning as an argumentative device also provides a straightforward
account of the otherwise puzzling confirmation biasthe tendency to search for arguments that favor our opinion. The confirmation bias, in turn, generates most of
the problems people face when they reason in abnormal conditions when they are not deliberating. This will happen to people who reason alone while failing to
entertain other opinions in a private deliberation and to groups in which one opinion is so dominant as to make all others opinionsif they are even presentunable
to voice arguments. In both cases, the confirmation bias will go unchecked and create polarization and overconfidence. We believe that the argumentative theory offers
a good explanation of the most salient facts about private and public reasoning. This explanation is meant to supplement, rather than replace, existing psychological
theories by providing both an answer to the why-questions and a coherent integrative framework for many previously disparate findings. The present article was
mostly aimed at comparing deliberative vs. non-deliberative situations, but the theory could also be used to make finer grained predictions within deliberative
situations. It is important to stress that the theory used as the backbone for the article is a theory of reasoning. The theory can only make predictions about reasoning,
and not about the various other psychological mechanisms that impact the outcome of group discussion. We did not aim at providing a general theory of group
processes that could account for all the results in this domain. But it is our contention that the best way to reach this end is by investigating the relevant psychological

mechanisms and their interaction. For these reasons, the present article should only be considered a first step towards more fined grained predictions of when and why
deliberation is efficient. Turning now to the consequences of the present theory, we can note first that our emphasis on the efficiency of diverse groups sits well with
another recent a priori account of group competence. According to Hong and Pages Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem for example, under certain plausible
conditions, a diverse sample of moderately competent individuals will outperform a group of the most competent individuals (Hong & Page, 2004). Specifically, what
explains the superiority of some groups of average people over smaller groups of experts is the fact that cognitive diversity (roughly, the ability to interpret the world
differently) can be more crucial to group competence than individual ability (Page, 2007). That argument has been carried over from groups of problem-solvers in
business and practical matters to democratically deliberating groups in politics (e.g., Anderson, 2006; Author, 2007, In press). At the practical level, the present theory
potentially has important implications. Given that individual reasoning works best when confronted to different opinions, the present theory supports the
improvement of the presence or expression of dissenting opinions in deliberative settings. Evidently, many people, in the field of deliberative democracy or elsewhere,
are also advocating such changes. While these common sense suggestions have been made in the past (e.g., Bohman,
2007; Sunstein, 2003, 2006), the present theory provides additional arguments for them. It also explains why approaches focusing
on individual rather than collective reasoning are not likely to be successful. Specifically tailored practical suggestions can also be
made by using departures from the normal conditions of reasoning as diagnostic tools. Thus, different departures will entail different
solutions. Accountabilityhaving to defends ones opinion in front of an audiencecan be used to bring individual reasoners closer
to a situation of private deliberation. The use of different aggregation mechanisms could help identify the risk of deliberation among
like-minded people. For example, before a group launches a discussion, a preliminary vote or poll could establish the extent to which

If this procedure shows that people agree on the issue at

hand, then skipping the discussion may save the group some efforts and
different opinions are represented.

reduce the risk of polarization. Alternatively, a devils advocate could be

introduced in the group to defend an alternative opinion (e.g. Schweiger,
Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986).

Switch-side policy debate enables activism.

Brad Hall, 8 Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special
Projects Manager with the Offices of Al and Tipper Gore
(Brad, [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair, 7-11-2008,
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html)

As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related
research, I think Andy overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and
its connection to his call for "political agency in the real world." Ross and others
have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly reiterating: switch sides
public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision making
process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates
do not directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams
the streets of Beirut), the skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist"
causes once they leave debate. For example, policy debaters are taught the skills of
researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards in 3 minutes) and
in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are
currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative
energy). Debaters learn a number of other useful skills, from word economy to
prioritization of the best arguments. But most importantly, the process of reflecting
on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue teaches the
participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of
their life.
Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them
into work at think tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other
sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has produced groundbreaking societal change
through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is one of the most
popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has
been produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be.
The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of
these skills/process, or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a
criticism of these aspects of policy debate), what do they offer to activism outside of
debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of debate are changed by

alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the
actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does
non-traditional non-policy debate have on the "real world"?
To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather
see public money be spent on than training high school and college students in
traditional, switch sides policy debate.

This turns their case at the most basic level---people will

ignore the 1AC because you dont give the other side a fair
chance to respond
Michael Underwood, summarizing Carl Hovland, communication at Yale
University, 2000 (Psychology of Communication,
www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html)
Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends
very much on your audience. If you know that they already agree with you, a onesided argument is quite acceptable. If they are opposed to your point of view, then
a one-sided message will actually be less effective, being dismissed as biased.
Even if your audience dont know much about the subject, but do know that there
are counterarguments (even if they dont know what they are) will lead them to
reject your views as biased. Hovlands investigations into mass propaganda used to
change soldiers attitudes also suggests that the intelligence of the receivers is an
important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be more persuasive with a
more intelligent audience.

Striving for change through debates fails because of the

emphasis on winning maintaining a resolutional focus is key
Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and
**Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward,
Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The
Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334)

The final problem with an individual debate round focus is the role of competition.
Creating community change through individual debate rounds sacrifices the
community portion of the change. Many teams that promote activist strategies in
debates profess that they are more interested in creating change than winning
debates. What is clear, however, is that the vast majority of teams that are not
promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension
that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous.
Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams to consider their
purpose in debating, their style in debates, and their approach to evidence are all
critical aspects of being participants in the community.
However, the dismissal of the proposed resolution that the debaters have spent
countless hours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the
debaters often have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the
willing. Should a debate team lose because their director or coach has been
ineffective at recruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because
their coach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to the activist
program? Competition has been a critical component of the interest in

intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of
the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change.
The larger problem with locating the debate as activism perspective within the
competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community
problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community
should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in
the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating
example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team
in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community
discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a
sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change. Downplaying the important role
of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the
community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community
problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the
community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to
concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing
the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides
that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme
example might include a team arguing that their opponents academic institution
had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them
because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This
scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes that each
debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in
the debate community.
If the debate community is serious about generating community change, then it is
more likely to occur outside a traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a
debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community for the other
team to win, then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within
the community. Creating change through wins generates backlash through losses.
Some proponents are comfortable with generating backlash and argue that the
reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed.
From our perspective, the discussion that results from these hostile situations is not
a productive one where participants seek to work together for a common goal.
Instead of giving up on hope for change and agitating for wins regardless of who is
left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate community should try the
method of public argument that we teach in an effort to generate a discussion of
necessary community changes. Simply put, debate competitions do not represent
the best environment for community change because it is a competition for a win
and only one team can win any given debate, whereas addressing systemic centurylong community problems requires a tremendous effort by a great number of
people.

Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly

researching and debating both sides of an issue it is
hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defend
both sides
Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and
Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)

In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness

and utility of differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters
are hypocritical and sophistical, Windes responds with a series of propositions:
Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial
problem under consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends
upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . ,
This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of
each argument pro and con. . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions [therefore]
depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative
affirmative and negative positions.""*
Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked
to a reasoned assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would
be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues. "" It does seem
hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and
then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might
be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them
some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned
moral conviction.

Even Malcolm X understood the value of switch side debate

hed take the side of his opponents in order to better
understand their arguments and later defeat them.
Branham 95 (Robert, Professor Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and
Advocacy, `I Was Gone On Debating': Malcolm X's Prison Debates And Public
Confrontations, Winter, vol. 31, no. 3, p.117)

As Malcolm X sought new outlets for his heightened political consciousness, he

turned to the weekly formal debates sponsored by the inmate team. "My reading
had my mind like steam under pressure," he recounted; "Some way, I had to start
telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided to do this by putting my
name down to debate" (1965b, p. 184). Malcolm X's prison debate experience
allowed him to bring his newly acquired historical knowledge and critical ideology to
bear on a wide variety of social issues. "Whichever side of the selected subject was
assigned to me, I'd track down and study everything I could find on it," wrote
Malcolm X. "I'd put myself in my opponent's place and decide how I'd try to win if I
had the other side; and then I'd figure out a way to knock down those points"
(1965b, p. 184). Preparation for each debate included four or five practice sessions.

Fun/Participation
Rules are key to harness the educational value of intellectual
contests this accesses the educational value of fun
Prensky 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer
in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director
of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust
(Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001,
www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based
%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)

fun in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure puts us in a relaxed, receptive

frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our
involvement, which also helps us learn.
Both fun and play however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard-to-define concepts. But there exists
a more formal and structured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and
play in the learning process the powerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how
So

we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in some detail.
Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful distinction between fun, play and
games? What makes games engaging? How do we design them?
Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they are a child, inheriting all the characteristics of the parents. They therefore carry

Games, as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make
them particularly appropriate and well suited for learning.
both the good and the bad of both terms.

So what is a game?
Like play, game, has a wide variety of meanings, some positive, some negative. On the negative side there is mocking and jesting, illegal and shady
activity such as a con game, as well as the fun and games that we saw earlier. As noted, these can be sources of resistance to Digital Game-Based
Learning we are not playing games here. But much of that is semantic. What we are interested in here are the meanings that revolve around the
definition of games involving rules, contest, rivalry and struggle.
What Makes a Game a Game? Six Structural Factors
The Encyclopedia Britannica provides the following diagram of the relation between play and games: 35
PLAY spontaneous play organized play ( AMES)
noncompetitive games competitive games (CONTESTS)
intellectual contests physical contests (SPORTS)
(repreinted with permission from Britanica.com 1999-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.)
Our goal here is to understand why games engage us, drawing us in often in spite of ourselves. This powerful force stems first from the fact that they are a
form of fun and play, and second from what I call the six key structural elements of games:
1. Rules
2. Goals and Objectives
3. Outcomes & Feedback
4. Conflict/Competition/Challenge/Opposition
5. Interaction, and
6. Representation or Story.
There are thousands, perhaps millions of different games, but all contain most, if not all, these powerful factors. Those that dont contain all the factors are
still classified as games by many, but can also belong to other subclasses described below. In addition to these structural factors, there are also important
design elements that add to engagement and distinguish a really good game from a poor or mediocre one.
Let us discuss these six factors in detail and show how and why they lead to such strong engagement.

Rules are what differentiate games from other kinds of play. Probably the most basic
definition of a game is that it is organized play, that is to say rule-based. If you
dont have rules you have free play, not a game. Why are rules so important to games? Rules
impose limits they force us to take specific paths to reach goals and
ensure that all players take the same paths. They put us inside the game world, by letting us know what is
in and out of bounds. What spoils a game is not so much the cheater, who accepts the rules
but doesnt play by them (we can deal with him or her) but the nihilist, who denies them
altogether. Rules make things both fair and exciting. When the Australians bent the rules of the Americas
Cup and built a huge boat in 1988, and the Americans found a way to compete with a catamaran, it was still a race but no longer the same game.

rules become increasingly more important

as we grow older. The rules set the limits of what is OK and not OK, fair and not fair,
in the game. By elementary school, kids know to cry cheater if the rules are broken. Monopoly and even Trivial Pursuit have pages of written
While even small children understand some game rules (thats not fair),

rule sets, and by adulthood we are consulting Hoyle, hiring professional referees to enforce rules, and even holding national debates the designated
hitter, the 2 point conversion, the instant replay over whether to change them.

Fun debate is a prerequisite to education and retention

Prensky 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer
in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director
of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust
(Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001,
www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based
%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)
Fun and Learning
People with the notion that learning cannot and should not be fun are clearly in an archaic mode.
-Mark Bieler, former head of HR, Bankers Trust Company
So what is the relationship between fun and learning? Does having fun help or hurt? Let us look at what some
researchers have to say on the subject:

Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning
new tools since the learner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to
learn.6 "The role that fun plays with regard to intrinsic motivation in education is
twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire for recurrence of the
experience Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activities
with which they have little or no previous experience." 7
"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8
"When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9

Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to
increase motivation for learners. 10
It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create
relaxation and motivation. Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation
enables them to put forth effort without resentment.

Limits
Failure to enforce limits will kill novice debate and eventually
entire programs.
Rowland 84 (Robert C., Debate Coach Baylor University, Topic Selection in Debate, American Forensics in Perspective, Ed. Parson, p.
53-54, nkj)

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT)
policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented

decline in
policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics. The
toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called NDT programs, are diminishing both in scope and size. This

most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme breadth. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and figuratively
covers a lot of ground. National debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy change.

to broad topics has had, according to some, the effect of limiting the number of
students who participate in policy debate . First, the breadth of topics has all but
destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to
The move from narrow

value debate as a means of introducing students to the debate process. Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske believes that NDT debate is not

novice debaters, especially those who lack high school

are unable to cope with the breath of the topic and experience
negophobia, the fear of debating negative . As a consequence, the educational advantages
associated with teaching novice through policy debate are lost: Yet all of these benefits fly out the
the best vehicle for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad topics terrify
debate experience. They

window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caught without evidence or substantive awareness of the issues that

lessening the educational

value of the activity and limiting the number of debaters who eventually participate
in more advanced divisions of policy debate . In addition to noting the effect on novices, participants argued that
broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued participation in
policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much time and effort to be competitive on a
broad topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are
forced out of the activity. Gaske notes, that broad topics discourage participation because
of insufficient time to do requisite research. The final effect may be that entire
programs wither cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable
research burdens. Boman supports this point: It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a
competitive imbalance between institutions that participate in academic debate. In this view, it is the competitive imbalance
resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel
their programs.
confront them at a tournament. The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus

Dogmatism
Debate has unique potential to change attitudes and grow
critical thinking skills because it forces pre-round internal
deliberation on a of a focused, common ground of debate
Goodin and Niemeyer 3 Australian National University
(Robert E. and Simon J., When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus
Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy, POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51,
627649, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x/pdf,
twm)
What happened in this particular case, as in any particular case, was in some
respects peculiar unto itself. The problem of the Bloomfield Track had been well
known and much discussed in the local community for a long time. Exaggerated
claims and counter-claims had become entrenched, and unreflective public opinion
polarized around them. In this circumstance, the effect of the information phase of
deliberative processes was to brush away those highly polarized attitudes, dispel
the myths and symbolic posturing on both sides that had come to dominate the
debate, and liberate people to act upon their attitudes toward the protection of
rainforest itself. The key point, from the perspective of democratic deliberation
within, is that that happened in the earlier stages of deliberation before the
formal discussions (deliberations, in the discursive sense) of the jury process ever began. The simple process of jurors seeing the site for
themselves, focusing their minds on the issues and listening to what experts had to say did virtually all the work in changing jurors attitudes. Talking among
themselves, as a jury, did very little of it. However, the same might happen in cases very different from this one. Suppose that instead of highly polarized symbolic
attitudes, what we have at the outset is mass ignorance or mass apathy or non-attitudes. There again, peoples engaging with the issue focusing on it, acquiring
information about it, thinking hard about it would be something that is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the deliberative process. And more to our point, it is
something that is most likely to occur within individuals themselves or in informal interactions, well in advance of any formal, organized group discussion. There is
much in the large literature on attitudes and the mechanisms by which they change to support that speculation.31 Consider, for example, the literature on central
versus peripheral routes to the formation of attitudes. Before deliberation, individuals may not have given the issue much thought or bothered to engage in an
extensive process of reflection.32 In such cases, positions may be arrived at via peripheral routes, taking cognitive shortcuts or arriving at top of the head conclusions
or even simply following the lead of others believed to hold similar attitudes or values (Lupia, 1994). These shorthand approaches involve the use of available cues
such as expertness or attractiveness (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) not deliberation in the internal-reflective sense we have described. Where peripheral shortcuts are
employed, there may be inconsistencies in logic and the formation of positions, based on partial information or incomplete information processing. In contrast,
central routes to the development of attitudes involve the application of more deliberate effort to the matter at hand, in a way that is more akin to the internalreflective deliberative ideal. Importantly for our thesis, there is nothing intrinsic to the central route that requires group deliberation. Research in this area stresses
instead the importance simply of sufficient impetus for engaging in deliberation, such as when an individual is stimulated by personal involvement in the issue.33
The same is true of on-line versus memory-based processes of attitude change.34 The

suggestion here is that we lead our

ordinary lives largely on autopilot, doing routine things in routine ways without
much thought or reflection. When we come across something new, we update our
routines our running beliefs and pro cedures, attitudes and evaluations
accordingly. But having updated, we then drop the impetus for the update into
deep-stored memory. A consequence of this procedure is that, when asked in the
ordinary course of events what we believe or what attitude we take toward
something, we easily retrieve what we think but we cannot so easily retrieve the
reasons why. That more fully reasoned assessment the sort of thing we have been
calling internal-reflective deliberation requires us to call up reasons from stored
memory rather than just consulting our running on-line summary judgments. Crucially

for our present discussion, once again, what prompts that shift from online to more deeply reflective deliberation is not necessarily interpersonal discussion. The
impetus for fixing ones attention on a topic, and retrieving reasons from stored memory, might come from any of a number sources: group discussion is only one. And
again, even in the context of a group discussion, this shift from online to memory-based processing is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the process, often
before the formal discussion ever begins. All this is simply to say that, on a great many models and in a great many different sorts of settings, it seems likely that

elements of the pre-discursive process are likely to prove crucial to the shaping and
reshaping of peoples attitudes in a citizens jury-style process. The initial processes
of focusing attention on a topic, providing information about it and inviting people
to think hard about it is likely to provide a strong impetus to internalreflective deliberation, altering not just the information people have about

the issue but also the way people process that information and hence
(perhaps) what they think about the issue. What happens once people have shifted into
this more internal-reflective mode is, obviously, an open question. Maybe people would then come to an
easy consensus, as they did in their attitudes toward the Daintree rainforest.35 Or maybe people would
come to divergent conclusions; and they then may (or may not) be open to argument and counterargument, with talk actually changing minds. Our claim is not that group discussion will always matter as
little as it did in our citizens jury.36 Our claim is instead merely that the earliest steps in the jury process
the sheer focusing of attention on the issue at hand and acquiring more information about it, and the
internal-reflective deliberation that that prompts will invariably matter more than deliberative democrats
of a more discursive stripe would have us believe. However much or little difference formal group
discussions might make, on any given occasion, the pre-discursive phases of the jury process will
invariably have a considerable impact on changing the way jurors approach an issue. From Citizens
Juries to Ordinary Mass Politics? In a citizens jury sort of setting, then, it seems that informal, pre-group
deliberation deliberation within will inevitably do much of the work that deliberative democrats
ordinarily want to attribute to the more formal discursive processes. What are the preconditions for that
happening? To what extent, in that sense, can findings about citizens juries be extended to other larger or
less well-ordered deliberative settings? Even in citizens juries, deliberation will work
only if people are attentive, open and willing to change their minds as appropriate.
So, too, in mass politics. In citizens juries the need to participate (or the

anticipation of participating) in formally organized group

discussions might be the prompt that evokes those attributes . But

there might be many other possible prompts that can be found in less formally
structured mass-political settings. Here are a few ways citizens juries (and all
cognate micro-deliberative processes)37 might be different from mass
politics, and in which lessons drawn from that experience might not therefore
carry over to ordinary politics: A citizens jury concentrates peoples minds
on a single issue. Ordinary politics involve many issues at once. A citizens
jury is often supplied a background briefing that has been agreed by all
stakeholders (Smith and Wales, 2000, p. 58). In ordinary mass politics, there is
rarely any equivalent common ground on which debates are conducted . A

citizens jury separates the process of acquiring information from that of discussing the issues. In ordinary mass politics, those
processes are invariably intertwined. A citizens jury is provided with a set of experts. They can be questioned, debated or
discounted. But there is a strictly limited set of competing experts on the same subject. In ordinary mass politics, claims and
sources of expertise often seem virtually limitless, allowing for much greater selective perception. Participating in something
called a citizens jury evokes certain very particular norms: norms concerning the impartiality appropriate to jurors; norms
concerning the common good orientation appropriate to people in their capacity as citizens.38 There is a very different ethos at
work in ordinary mass politics, which are typically driven by flagrantly partisan appeals to sectional interest (or utter disinterest and
voter apathy).

In a citizens jury, we think and listen in anticipation of the

discussion phase, knowing that we soon will have to defend our

views in a discursive setting where they will be probed
intensively.39 In ordinary mass-political settings, there is no such incentive for
paying attention. It is perfectly true that citizens juries are special in all those
ways. But if being special in all those ways makes for a better more

reflective, more deliberative political process, then those are design

features that we ought try to mimic as best we can in ordinary mass politics
as well. There are various ways that that might be done. Briefing books might be prepared by sponsors of American
presidential debates (the League of Women Voters, and such like) in consultation with the stakeholders involved. Agreed panels of
experts might be questioned on prime-time television. Issues might be sequenced for debate and resolution, to avoid too much
competition for peoples time and attention. Variations on the Ackerman and Fishkin (2002) proposal for a deliberation day before
every election might be generalized, with a day every few months being given over to small meetings in local schools to discuss
public issues. All that is pretty visionary, perhaps. And (although it is clearly beyond the scope of the present paper to explore them
in depth) there are doubtless many other more-or-less visionary ways of introducing into real-world politics analogues of the
elements that induce citizens jurors to practice democratic deliberation within, even before the jury discussion gets underway.
Here, we have to content ourselves with identifying those features that need to be replicated in real-world politics in order to

achieve that goal and with the possibility theorem that is established by the fact that (as sketched immediately above) there is at
least one possible way of doing that for each of those key features.

Debates that forces students to take a particular position on a

political issue helps gain greater insight into contemporary
world issues. It moves the debate from stale argument over
principles to real world policy analysis.
Joyner 99 Prof of International Law (Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor
of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University,
Spring, [5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377])
Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students
understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as
their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences.

policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical
fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and
views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various
United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal
principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along
the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to
ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or
"Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law,
especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal
analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good
law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of
international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times,
international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and
twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action
learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates,

debate exercises carry several specific

educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a
cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue
confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal
dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and
observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The

implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively

research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with

contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in
formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing
students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy
analysis, political critique, and legal defense.
reinterpreting the latter. Finally,

Effective education requires the advocacy of a particular policy

position.
Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 1 [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of
Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work,
Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal
of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]
Based on a review of the literature, the authors experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent
evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of
substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured student debates in policy-oriented courses. The

think debates on important policy questions have numerous benefits:

prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to
investigate and analyze competing alternatives, compelling them to advocate
a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a
persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities
promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning
process.
authors

Policy analysis is necessary to develop critical thinking skills

that isnt promoted by methodological focus --- checks
dogmatism
Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 1 [Thomas E., James K., and Tracy K., Asst. professor School of
Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work,
Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal
of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]
Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or
assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as
defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy
proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such
as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to

social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing

policy practice activities:
* value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values
inherent in policy positions;
* conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different
policy options;
* interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and
conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner;
* political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and
* position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular
policy.
These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see
Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are
identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of
thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning,
analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policymaking process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and
evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for
its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in
common with developing capacities for critical thinking.
Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58),

Switch side debate checks dogmatism

Keller, et. al, 1 Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of

Chicago
(Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service
Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School
of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills
and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education,
Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost) // SEP
SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and
legislation (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In recent decades, the
concept of policy practice has encouraged social workers to consider the ways in
which their work can be advanced through active participation in the policy arena
(Jansson, 1984, 1994; Wyers, 1991). The emergence of the policy practice
framework has focused greater attention on the competencies required for social
workers to influence social policy and placed greater emphasis on preparing social

work students for policy intervention (Dear & Patti, 1981; Jansson, 1984, 1994;
Mahaffey & Hanks, 1982; McInnis-Dittrich, 1994). The curriculum standards of the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) require the teaching of knowledge and
skills in the political process (CSWE, 1994). With this formal expectation of policy
education in schools of social work, the best instructional methods must be
employed to ensure students acquire the requisite policy practice skills and
perspectives.
The authors believe that structured student debates have great potential for
promoting competence in policy practice and in-depth knowledge of substantive
topics relevant to social policy. Like other interactive assignments designed to more
closely resemble "real-world" activities, issue-oriented debates actively engage
students in course content. Debates also allow students to develop and exercise
skills that may translate to political activities, such as testifying before legislative
committees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, debates may help to stimulate
critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping
them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas .
R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the
imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek
to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position.
Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate
points of view, each of which (when thought through) may
yield some level of insight. (p. 126)
John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial
advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from
holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by
exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt,
confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force
comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p.
45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires
openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate
views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand,
clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability
to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by
every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take
effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to
incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent
cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by
bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and
then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the
learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28).
The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them
to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a
debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and
values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively
students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The
ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a
reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue.

A discussion of specific policy-questions is crucial for skills

development---we control uniqueness: university students
already have preconceived and ideological notions about how
the world operates---government policy discussion is vital to
force engagement with and resolution of competing
perspectives to improve social outcomes, however those
outcomes may be defined---and, it breaks out of traditional
pedagogical frameworks by positing students as agents of
decision-making
Esberg & Sagan 12 *Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New

York University's Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009
Firestone Medal, AND **Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of
Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation NEGOTIATING
NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy, 2/17 The
Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108
These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very similar lessons for high-level players as are
learned by students in educational simulations. Government participants learn about
the importance of understanding foreign perspectives, the need to practice internal coordination, and the necessity to
compromise and coordinate with other governments in negotiations and crises. During the Cold War, political scientist Robert Mandel noted how crisis exercises and
war games forced government officials to overcome bureaucratic myopia, moving beyond their normal
organizational roles and thinking more creatively about how others might react in a crisis
or conflict.6 The skills of imagination and the subsequent ability to predict foreign interests
and reactions remain critical for real-world foreign policy makers. For example, simulations of the Iranian nuclear
crisis*held in 2009 and 2010 at the Brookings Institutions Saban Center and at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center, and involving former US senior officials and regional experts* highlighted the
dangers of misunderstanding foreign governments preferences and
misinterpreting their subsequent behavior. In both simulations, the primary criticism of the US negotiating team lay in a failure to
predict accurately how other states, both allies and adversaries, would behave in response to US policy initiatives.7
By university age, students often have a pre-defined view of international affairs, and the literature on
simulations in education has long emphasized how such exercises force students to challenge their
assumptions about how other governments behave and how their own
government works.8 Since simulations became more common as a teaching tool in the late
1950s, educational literature has expounded on their benefits, from
encouraging engagement by breaking from the typical lecture format, to improving communication
skills, to promoting teamwork.9 More broadly, simulations can deepen understanding by asking
students to link fact and theory, providing a context for facts while bringing theory into
the realm of practice.10 These exercises are particularly valuable in teaching international affairs for many of the
same reasons they are useful for policy makers: they

force participants to grapple with the issues arising from a

world in flux.11 Simulations have been used successfully to teach students about such disparate

topics as European politics, the Kashmir crisis, and US response to the mass killings in Darfur.12
Role-playing exercises certainly encourage students to learn political and technical facts* but they learn
them in a more active style. Rather than sitting in a classroom and merely receiving knowledge, students
actively research their governments positions and actively argue,
brief, and negotiate with others.13 Facts can change quickly; simulations teach students how
to contextualize and act on information.14

Focus on policy making

Investigating Policy implications are necessary to test theory
a legitimate proposal must describe the consequences of
implementing specific change because rhetorical criticism can
make the world worsethe impact is education and it turns the
case
Feaver 1 (Peter, Asst. Prof of Political Science at Duke University, Twenty-First Century Weapons Proliferation,
p 178)

all good theory has implications for policy. Indeed, if no

conceivable extension of the theory leads to insights that would aid those working
in the real world, what can be good about good theory? Ignoring the policy
implications of theory is often a sign of intellectual laziness on the part of the
theorist. It is hard work to learn about the policy world and to make the connections
from theory to policy. Often, the skill sets do not transfer easily from one domain to
another, so a formidable theorist can show embarrassing naivete when it comes to
the policy domain he or she putatively studies. Often, when the policy implications are
considered, flaws in the theory (or at least in the presentation of the theory) are
uncovered. Thus, focusing attention on policy implications should lead to better
theorizing. The gap between theory and policy is more rhetoric than reality. But
rhetoric can create a realityor at least create an undesirable kind of realitywhere
policy makers make policy though ignorant of the problems that good theory would expose, while theorists
spin arcana without a view to producing something that matters. It is therefore
incumbent on those of us who study proliferationa topic that raises interesting and
important questions for both policy and theoryto bring the communities together .
At the same time, virtually

Happily, the best work in the proliferation field already does so.

AT Minority participation is more important than T

The act of creating different standards for different groups
locks in socioeconomic disadvantages instead of working to
overcoming them.
Parcher 4 former Director of Debate at Georgetown (Jeff, The Ignorance
Project, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2004-April/055983.html)
Warning: If you suspect what I have to say will piss you off you are almost certainly correct. If you are tempted to take it personally - just imagine I said

Making debate easier does not

serve those who are underpriveleged. If you slow debate down, remove rational
critieria, denegrate research and preparation, and reward appeals to win on the
basis of superior victimhood, all you are doing is removing those aspects of debate
that make a smart. Dumbness is not good for anyone. If we were all dumb we would
not be more equal. Infact, if we all get dumber then money, social status, and color
would all matter more, NOT less. Inner city schools that have dumbed down standards in recognition of poverty, white
privelege, socio-economic injustice or for whatever barrier argument they give, have not served their populations well. Two decades of
research reveal that inner city youths are disadvantaged by "alternative" standards.
They are disadvantaged when they get to college and they can't read, write, think, speak or perform mathematics. They are
disadvanatged when they try to get jobs and don't have the discipline, leadership
skills or critical thinking abilities to succeed . In what realm of society are those who reject such standards rewarded? It
your plan would cause a nuclear war rather than significantly increased dumbness. Get it?

seems a poor prize to seize the badge of honor offered by entering some circle of rebellion if one remains poor and uneducated. The growhing and
successful black middle class in this country is not being purchased at the alter of lower standards. Success has come from more integrated suburbs
where african-american parents have been able to send their students to better schools - resulting in more blacks attending and graduating from college.
And education (especially a college education) is the most important determinant of income in this country. None of this is meant to say that standards
are more important than the resources we invest in education. Resources are crucial and raising standards has a diminishing marginal utility. But the result

Dumber standards translates

into less effort and consequently less education. All of the arguments made about
"white privelege" and debate also apply to almost every other educational practice
in this country. I dispute that research/evidence, rational method, speaking fast,
plans, topical cases, etc advantage whites any more than any other standard we
could choose. But to the extent standards do advantage some aspects of privelege - imagine how far and how silly this argument becomes:
What students arrive in kindergarten better prepared to engage in reading and
math? White students or black students? That some black students are, for
socioeconomic reasons, less prepared to learn to read or do math is NOT AN
INDICTMENT OF READING OR MATH. It's an indictment of socio-economic inequality.
What would happen if we told black children that they don't have to learn to read
because "blacks are disadvantaged" if we have reading standards. DOES ANYONE
SERIOUSLY BELIEVE BLACK CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEY READ
LESS???? And does anyone really believe black debaters are better served in the
long term by a slow down in debate, or rap in debate or cardless debate? How will
that make them better candidates for law school? How does that make them
smarter? Ultimately policy debate is good because it is hard. It's good that you
have to learn to read, think and speak fast. It's good that you have to cut lot's and
lot's of evidence. It's good that teams can't just interpret every resolution as a
statement about white privelege and avoid learning anything at all about the world
outside their personal experiences. That's what education means - it means learning
something new. It means having the humility to admit that there are people who
know more than you and that you have something to learn from them. Denigrating
"expert evidence" and intepreting the resolution as a metaphor for the thing you
want to talk about every round might be a good way to win ballots by tugging on
the heart strings of white guilt - but it's quite obviously educational nonsense. Perhaps
of lowering standards (especially drastically lowering them) is apparent and also quite obvious.

debate as we dinosaurs have known it will eventually die out and/or evolve into some variant of parlimentary debate. But until it does die out -

anyone who thinks it's too hard can still choose another activity like forensics or
parli. The status quo solves your barrier arguments . And if debate does change or die out - it's hard for me to
see how we are better off. Should we close down MIT because, well, it's just too hard for some
students to get in and even harder to compete once they have. Very few blacks get in and succeed
there after all. Maybe we should just shut it down or turn it into a community college in the intersts of equality. P.S . If you are tempted
to attack me just to flash your progressive credentials - please include in your post
an explanation of what exactly is progressive about educational mediocrity. I will
always believe that education is the great equalizer and that there is nothing so
dangerous as the notion that all truth is a product of power. The former is our great
hope, the latter is unilateral surrender.

AT What switch side policy debaters have gone on

to do anything useful
Neal Katyal debated at Loyal Academy and Dartmouth he
argued and won a case in the Supreme Court that challenged
the policy of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.
Georgetown.edu no date cited

(http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/katyal-neal-k.cfm#, accessed 2-10-14, twm)

Katyal won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in the United States
Supreme Court, a case that challenged the policy of military trials at Guantanamo
Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The Supreme Court sided with him by a 5-3 vote, finding that
President Bush's tribunals violated the constitutional separation of powers, domestic
military law, and international law. As former Solicitor General and Duke law
professor Walter Dellinger put it "Hamdan is simply the most important decision on
presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever." An expert in matters of constitutional law,
While teaching at Georgetown,

Katyal has embraced his theoretical work as the platform for practical consequences in the federal courts.

The type of debate that we advocate - resolution based,

research intensive, switch side debate is what Katyal did.
Derum 7 (Chad, Practicing to Practice: Scholastic Debate as Law-Related

Education,
http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2007/04/practicing_to_practice_scholas.html,
Feb., twm)
Before he argued the petitioners side in the Guantanamo detention case Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld before the United States Supreme Court last year, Georgetown Law Center professor Neal Katyal
first tested his arguments in more than a dozen moot court sessions .1 It should
come as no surprise that, for his first moot court session, Katyal invited the highlyregarded Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe to bombard him with questions.
Along with Tribe, however, Katyal also invited Ken Strange, the coach of Katyals
college debate team. Although Strange is not a lawyer, this second invitation should be no more surprising
than the first. Katyal had been a champion debater at Dartmouth College in the early
1990s and Strange had been Katyals greatest teacher in the art of argument and
persuasion the very skills Katyal would need to make an effective argument before
the Court. It is also unlikely that Stranges invitation surprised Tribe, who had
himself been a national champion debater at Harvard in the 1960s before beginning
his own legal career. The relationship between debate and the practice of law is more than simple
coincidence. For generations, young people who wanted to grow up to be lawyers first experienced competitive
advocacy on debate teams. Debate, perhaps better than any other academic training, teaches students how to

The fact that Katyal invited his

debate coach to attend his moot court in preparation for Hamdan demonstrates that
the value some lawyers find in debate does not end when legal training begins.
think like a lawyer long before they ever set foot in a law school.

Despite the obvious synergies between scholastic debate and the practice of law, debate is often overlooked as a
natural element of law-related education. Although debate encompasses more than strictly legal topics, students
who are equipped with the skills to analyze, research, and discuss topics ranging from agricultural policy to nuclear
proliferation are well-prepared for the transition to legal research, thinking and writing. After all, the practice of law
includes more than simply knowing the letter of the law. Legal practice may call upon a lawyer alternately to
develop an ad hoc expertise on both the grandest and the most obscure human pursuits. It is the ability to think
critically and creatively about diverse issues that is the lawyers true skill. Similarly, debate opens students minds

to a world of facts and ideas both big and small and provides students with the necessary analytical tools to
recognize the relationships and concepts that connect them. When students put these skills to work before a judge
in a competitive debate round, the debate becomes a microcosm of the world many lawyers inhabit every day. The
time is particularly ripe for recognizing the important relationship between debate and the law. Even as many Utah
lawyers can look to debate as providing the foundation for their subsequent legal careers, debate programs in some
of Utahs public schools are in real trouble. Programs that once flourished are now struggling to survive the victims
of evolving standards for academic achievement and slim budgets that strain resources for extracurricular activities
like debate. For example, the debate program at Brighton High School once a Utah powerhouse has been
eliminated altogether. As debate loses ground generally, the opportunity to expand the activity among students
that may be most in need of the opportunities debate provides is also lost. The Utah Bar and its membership,
however, can make a difference in reversing these trends. Many current members of the Utah State Bar were once
debaters. As a former high school and college debater myself, I decided to conduct a brief survey of a few of Utahs
other debater/lawyers to collect their thoughts on the relationship between debate and the law.2 The few
comments included here likely echo the views of many other members of the Bar. Rich L. Humpherys Before
beginning his legal practice, Rich Humpherys of Christensen & Jensen, P.C. was a debater at Orem High School and
later at Brigham Young University. Debate, in his view was far more effective in preparing [him] for [his] profession
as a litigator than any of [his] specific academic endeavors. His comments provide an insightful overview of the
role debate can play in the development of a legal career: Though I have always desired to be a lawyer, my high
school and college debate experience enhanced my desire. It helped me better understand many things, such as:
(1) there are often good opposing views and authorities on both sides of a tough issue; (2) the most persuasive
arguments focus on the real issues, not tangential issues; and (3) in life, we often face very difficult issues that

debate experience also taught me many things,

the need for thorough and accurate research; (2) how to take extensive
research and synthesize it into an efficient and meaningful short presentation; (3) how
to artfully and persuasively present information; (4) how to train my mind to think in advance
about the possible opposing questions or viewpoints and be prepared to
meaningfully respond to them (for example, when I prepare to try a case, I prepare different case
dont lend themselves to black and white answers. My
such as (1)

presentations, depending on how the judge may rule on the admissibility of controverted evidence or how the
defense may present its case debate introduced me to and helped me succeed with this process); (5) to be
comfortable and confident with an oral presentation; (6) how to find, analyze and focus on what is key and

how to
address the issues without giving in to the lure of exchanging personal attacks with
the opposing side. I have also found that many of the old debaters I got to know are now attorneys and our
important, without being distracted by all of the other, though interesting, possible issues; and finally, (7)

friendship continues. Richard D. Burbidge Richard Burbidge, of Burbidge, Mitchell & Gross, is one of Utahs most
respected trial lawyers. Before practicing law, Mr. Burbidge debated at South High School in Salt Lake City. Mr.
Burbidges comments about his debate experience demonstrate that it can be difficult to overstate the value that
debate can play in a would-be lawyers education: I was enticed to [become a debater] in my senior year, having
no prior interest whatsoever in that competitive arena. The long and short of my encounter with the sport was full
and complete engagement. It was my first encounter with systematic critical thinking and the first opportunity in
my educational career to begin to develop systematic skills for critical analysis. It is not an overstatement to say
that my debate experience was the single most determinative factor in my choice of a life-long profession as a trial
lawyer. I simply do not believe that there is a more rigorous or enlightening cognitive training available in a high
school setting. David C. Reymann David Reymann, a partner at Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, debated at
Vestavia Hills High School in Alabama, where, along with his twin brother, he was the 1992 national high school
debate champion. Reymann then went on to debate for four years at Dartmouth College before attending the
University of Chicago Law School. His comments highlight that although there are significant differences between
debate and courtroom arguments, debate provides essential training in the core critical thinking skills every lawyer
needs: Of all of the subjects, classes, and preparations people take in order to get ready for law school and the
practice of law, nothing prepares you like debate. Most people think this is because debate trains you for persuasive
public speaking, but for me that is not the reason. Court arguments are rarely like debates. Rather, I think the most
essential skill debate teaches is the ability to evaluate arguments critically and discern those that are likely to
succeed. I believe this is also the most valuable skill for a litigator, and, unfortunately, the one that is most difficult
to learn once you are immersed in the practice of law. By developing this skill early, debate plays an enormous role
in training and educating future members of the bar. David F. Mull David Mull, an associate at Snow, Christensen
& Martineau, was a champion high school debater in his native Alaska before going on to debate at Franklin &
Marshall College in Pennsylvania, and then on to law school at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of
Utah. For Mull, it is debates role in promoting active citizenship that has left the most lasting impression: It is
obvious that debate gives students practice in the nuts and bolts of making and analyzing arguments, and it builds
public speaking skills. Just as important, I think, is that it shows students how much fun it can be to discuss and
engage in issues of civic importance. People who have some confidence in analyzing public affairs are much more
likely to engage in them. Utah Judges In addition to practicing attorneys, former debaters also number among the
judges in the Utah courts. Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine M. Durham counts high school debate as an
important stepping stone in developing the logic and language abilities essential to legal thought and practice: I
think that my early experiences with the structure and focus of debate programs introduced me to critical thinking,
to persuasive logic, and to the deep significance of rhetoric (in the classical sense) for human communication and

understanding about hard ideas. Debate also played a very significant role in United States District Court Judge
Paul Cassells legal training. In fact, following a successful high school debate career in Idaho, Judge Cassell initially
enrolled at Stanford University, but left Stanford for a time to attend Western Washington University where he could
compete on that schools outstanding debate team.3 An enthusiastic supporter of debate, Judge Cassell notes,
Debate has helped me see both sides of complicated issues and to understand the relationship between advancing
a good argument and prevailing on issues in court. Judge Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit was also a distinguished debater before he pursued law. In fact, Judge McConnell was the
Kentucky State High School Debate Champion in 1972. His comments reflect on debates unique role in developing
young minds: More than any other student activity, debate requires the participant to match evidence to thesis in
a logically compelling manner, and to communicate complex ideas to an audience. If some evil genius concocted a
magic potion that made high school students voluntarily give up their weekends to engage in so intellectually
worthwhile an activity, we would award him a Nobel Prize for pedagogical necromancy. Debate as Law-Related
Education The common theme running through the comments of these practitioners, scholars, and judges is that
debate develops important skills that transcend the typical classroom experience and translate exceptionally well
into legal practice. These skills include developing the capacity for critical thinking, increasing the comprehension of
substantive information, developing broad organizational skills, and providing the opportunity to make persuasive
presentations that demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of these skills. In the context of a debate round,
students must rely on both critical thinking and an ability to apply substantive knowledge in order to succeed.
Students must learn to present the most effective argument within the bounds of the accepted rules and time
constraints; they must learn how to argue from the evidence, rather than from personal opinions; and they must
learn how to think and respond quickly, but carefully, to unexpected arguments, as well as to evolving events in a
changing world. With these perspectives in mind, it is fair to conclude that debate should properly be considered a
form of law-related education, and promoted as such. Not everyone may call their debate coach to attend their
moot court session to prepare for an argument before the Supreme Court. In a real sense, however, lawyers with a
background in debate carry the skills they learned in debate into every argument they attend. Looking Forward:
Fostering the Bars Engagement with Debate Decades ago, the Bar sponsored an annual debate tournament for
high school students here in Utah called the Utah State Bar Debate Tournament. The event was very popular
among Utahs high school debate programs. For unknown reasons, the Bars sponsorship of that tournament ended
abruptly in the mid 1980s. In 2005, through the sponsorship efforts of the Bars Young Lawyers Division (YLD) and
the Bars Litigation Section, the Bars involvement in high school debate found new life, and the Young Lawyers
Debate Tournament was born. Now in its second year, the Young Lawyers Debate Tournament has brought together
hundreds of students from more than two dozen Utah schools to participate in a weekend of intense scholastic
competition. Highlighting the overlap between debate and the Bar, the tournament has been organized so that a
panel composed of lawyers who were once debaters serve as judges for the final debate round. The new debate
tournament is an important step toward preserving an important link between debate and the legal community in
Utah. The YLD and the Litigation Section deserve significant recognition for their efforts these past two years.
Looking ahead, it is my hope that the Bars leadership will endorse sponsorship of the tournament on a long-term
basis so that the connection between debate and the Bar will remain vital, even as the individuals involved in
coordinating the tournament on an annual basis may change. With the support for this event from the highest
levels of the Bar, the Bar can help turn a growing event into an established tradition and give back to the debate
community what many members of the legal community have already received. On an individual level, there are
other ways to become involved in fostering and preserving scholastic debate. For example, David Reymann sets
aside significant time to coach the debaters at Highland High Schools nationally recognized debate program.
Robert Wing, an attorney at Holland & Hart, sets aside time to coach the team at Viewmont High School and to
judge debate tournaments regularly. Others make financial contributions to the debate programs at Utah high
schools, providing the opportunity for students to raise the funds needed to provide essentials that limited school
budgets do not cover and to fund travel opportunities to debate tournaments nationwide. Individual law firms can
also contribute to the Young Lawyers Debate Tournament or to individual debate programs as an extension of their
charitable giving efforts. Conclusion Obviously, debate will not make a lawyer out of every participant. It may,

Katyal
noted, I do not think there is any chance I would have become a lawyer were it not
for debate, both in high school and in college. Participation in debate the direct
engagement in advocacy on hard issues in the context of a head-to-head
competition teaches students much of what lawyers do in daily practice. But these
skills are also important for every student we hope and expect to become an
effective and engaged citizen. In this sense, creating links between debate and the law
advances the Bars mission of leading society in the creation of a justice system that is
understood, valued, respected, and accessible to all.
however, convince some students who might otherwise pursue different careers, to choose law. As Neal

Coverstone debated at MBA and then Wake Forest and now he

works to improve educational opportunities in Nashville.
Graydon and Rau 9 (Amy Griffith and Nate, Dean endorses Coverstone for
charter schools job, http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/deanendorses-coverstone-charter-schools-job, June 28, twm)
Coverstone has considered resigning his seat on the board to
accept a new Metro Nashville Public Schools position overseeing the implementation
of new charter schools policies. Should he take the plunge, hell have one
prominent supporter. Mayor Karl Dean said Friday that he thinks Coverstone would
be a good match for the job. The new position could be a starting point for building
the kind of incubator Dean hopes Nashville will create for high-quality charter
schools. He would certainly be somebody who would be ideal for that, since he
was a strong advocate for charter school reform in Tennessee, Dean said. Im gratified to
School board member Alan

hear that Dr. Register and the board are considering stepping up their efforts in the charter school area. I think

there is probably a need for an incubator to help create the charter schools we need,
and to help recruit the high-quality national charters to Nashville. Pointing to the
nonprofit organization New Schools for New Orleans as a model for Nashville, Dean said he would like to see
Nashvillians partner to recruit and develop good charter schools. Whether a charter school incubator is housed
within the school system or created through a public-private collaboration, Dean wants to work quickly to get a
structure in place for deliberate charter school recruitment. Dean said development of such an incubator could
be a use of Education First dollars, funds Dean raises from private sources to fund public education initiatives. He
added that he is open to planning discussions now, and hopes serious talks will take place in the next few weeks.
Plans should be made with an emphasis on preparing for the charter school review cycle coming up one year from
this fall. Obviously, I want to work collaboratively with the schools to make sure we dont do any duplication. I will
be interested to know exactly what their emphasis is going to be, Dean said. Theres an opportunity to go about
this in a real thoughtful, deliberate way, where the emphasis is on quality. Officials with Metro Nashville Public
Schools said Friday that the district still has not determined plans for a new charter school office. According to the
districts description for the position, the 12-month administrative job would involve managing the charter school
application process and overseeing regulatory requirements for compliance, as well as working with the Tennessee
Department of Education and as a liaison between charter schools, private schools and MNPS. Coverstone now
works as the academic dean at Montgomery Bell Academy. He was elected to the board last year and represents
Bellevue and parts of Belle Meade. Should he leave his position on the school board, a replacement would be
appointed by Metro Council. Asked to respond to a spreading rumor that he was leaning toward applying for the
position and resigning from the board should he be hired, Coverstone said, it would be unusual, I think, if I werent
interested in that position. Coverstone has been a staunch advocate for charter schools, which recently had their

Anybody whos as into education and making a change

as I am ought to be excited about this job opportunity. It would be foolish for me not
to be interested, Coverstone said. I have a good job and I enjoy what Im doing on the school board.
scope expanded by state legislation.

Youd like to know my top choice? Id like to see a dynamite candidate come take this job, who has a great vision
and is smarter than I am and ready to go. That would be my ideal. But I cant underscore enough how important I

Charter schools, which are publicly funded and

privately operated, have seen some success in Nashville. The state legislature recently
think it is that it be done and be done well.

approved big changes to Tennessees current charter school laws, which allow expanded charter school eligibility
and set a cap of as many as 20 charter schools that can be established in Nashville. Metro Nashville Public Schools
currently has three charter schools in operation: LEAD Academy, Smithson-Craighead, and KIPP Academy. Two new
charter schools Smithson-Craighead's middle school and Global Academy will start serving students this fall.
Once they are part of the school system, charter schools must meet the same federal and state educational
guidelines as other public schools. Charter schools receive local and state funding, but no public funds for building
or transportation.

Debate's emphasis on research provides effective preparation

for pro-social activism
Coverstone 5 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime
debate coach

(Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact,
Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference,
11/17/05)
Purely Preparatory Pedagogy?
Many have argued the value of an academic oasis in which to learn the skills of public participation

Involvement in contest debates,

especially those whose winners rely heavily on up to the minute research and daily
involvement in the political and academic discourse of the day, without question
offers a level of preparation for pro-social activism seldom surpassed in any
educational institution today. Mitchell agrees that the skills developed in contest debates
are incredibly useful as skills applied in public discourse (Mitchell, 2004, p. 10), and political
news, advocacy groups, legal proceedings, academic institutions, and corporate
boardrooms are littered with key figures who honed their skills in the crucible of highlevel contest debating.
(Coverstone, 1995; Farrand, 2000; Mitchell & Suzuki, 2004).