University of Louisville University of Louisville Malcolm X Debate Argument Malcolm X Debate Argument

StrategyStrategyFall 2008Fall 2008

Session #3 – Wednesday, Aug Session #3 – Wednesday, Aug 2020thth, 9:30 am, 9:30 am

Ethical Policy DebatingEthical Policy Debatingfor a Multicultural for a Multicultural

DemocracyDemocracy

Today’s DiscussionToday’s Discussion Part 1: Winning an Ethical Policy Debate Part 1: Winning an Ethical Policy Debate

for a Multicultural Democracyfor a Multicultural Democracy Part 2: Format of an Ethical Policy Part 2: Format of an Ethical Policy

Debate for a Multicultural DemocracyDebate for a Multicultural Democracy Part 3: Evaluation of an Ethical Policy Part 3: Evaluation of an Ethical Policy

Debate for a Multicultural DemocracyDebate for a Multicultural Democracy Part 4: Unethical Policy Debate in a Part 4: Unethical Policy Debate in a

Multicultural DemocracyMulticultural Democracy

PART ONE - WINNING AN PART ONE - WINNING AN ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE FOR A ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE FOR A MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACYMULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACY

Session #3Session #3

Winning an Ethical Policy Winning an Ethical Policy Debate on the AffirmativeDebate on the Affirmative

An affirmative team wins that their An affirmative team wins that their process for both policy creation and policy process for both policy creation and policy implementation on behalf of a cultural implementation on behalf of a cultural group create an effective decision for a group create an effective decision for a multicultural democracy. multicultural democracy.

In other words, the affirmative must In other words, the affirmative must successfully propose a valid course of successfully propose a valid course of action on behalf of a cultural group as well action on behalf of a cultural group as well as an provide an effective strategy for as an provide an effective strategy for persuading the remaining members of persuading the remaining members of that democracy to accept (vote for) it.that democracy to accept (vote for) it.

Winning an Ethical Policy Winning an Ethical Policy Debate on the NegativeDebate on the Negative

Prove the affirmative is not an Prove the affirmative is not an effective policy decision for a effective policy decision for a multicultural society due to either a multicultural society due to either a successful challenge to the affirmative successful challenge to the affirmative team policy creation process or policy team policy creation process or policy implementation process.implementation process.

Provide a superior policy decision on Provide a superior policy decision on behalf of the affirmative’s cultural behalf of the affirmative’s cultural group demonstrating a superior policy group demonstrating a superior policy creation and implementation process.creation and implementation process.

Strategic Negative ToolsStrategic Negative Tools Can use same tools as contemporary Can use same tools as contemporary

policy debate, but must consider how policy debate, but must consider how to use them for a multicultural to use them for a multicultural democracy.democracy. Case ArgumentsCase Arguments DisadvantagesDisadvantages CounterplansCounterplans Procedural ArgumentsProcedural Arguments kritikskritiks

PART TWO - FORMAT OF AN PART TWO - FORMAT OF AN ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE FOR A ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE FOR A MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACYMULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACY

Session #3Session #3

FormatFormat 2 person team debate, same as format 2 person team debate, same as format

nownow Speech PurposeSpeech Purpose

1AC - Outline Policy that you have created.1AC - Outline Policy that you have created. 1NC- Outline counter policy and attack 1AC 1NC- Outline counter policy and attack 1AC

policypolicy 2AC & 2NC – Engage in a defense of your 2AC & 2NC – Engage in a defense of your

policy creation and policy implementation, policy creation and policy implementation, demonstrating why your policy is superior.demonstrating why your policy is superior.

Rebuttals – Function for development, Rebuttals – Function for development, summary, and evaluation discussionssummary, and evaluation discussions

PART THREE - PART THREE - EVALUATION OF EVALUATION OF AN ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE AN ETHICAL POLICY DEBATE FOR A MULTICULTURAL FOR A MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY

Session #3Session #3

Evaluation ProcessEvaluation Process Can use same tools as contemporary policy Can use same tools as contemporary policy

debate, but must consider how to use them debate, but must consider how to use them for a multicultural democracy.for a multicultural democracy.

The voter (not judge), of a multicultural The voter (not judge), of a multicultural democracy, should consider ethical democracy, should consider ethical considerations as representing the interests considerations as representing the interests of the cultural group being advocated for by of the cultural group being advocated for by the affirmative in this debate.the affirmative in this debate.

Evaluation should consider the validity of Evaluation should consider the validity of the policy as well as whether the advocate the policy as well as whether the advocate has an effective method to achieve policy has an effective method to achieve policy implementation.implementation.

PART FOUR - UNETHICAL PART FOUR - UNETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF A POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF A POLICY DEBATE FOR A MULTICULTURAL DEBATE FOR A MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY

Session #3Session #3

Categories for Unethical Categories for Unethical BehaviorBehavior

Commit Commit philosophical genocide philosophical genocide of the of the cultural group within the topic issue through cultural group within the topic issue through a majority-privileged impact calculus.a majority-privileged impact calculus.

Theoretical arms race Theoretical arms race resulting in war where resulting in war where the disproportionate amount of causalities the disproportionate amount of causalities are minority perspectives on the topic.are minority perspectives on the topic.

Stylistic exclusion Stylistic exclusion of minority opponent of minority opponent perspectives through imposition of majority-perspectives through imposition of majority-preferred styles, norms, and conventions.preferred styles, norms, and conventions.

Voter tampering Voter tampering with minority judging with minority judging perspectives through reliance on mutual perspectives through reliance on mutual preference judging system.preference judging system.

PHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDE PHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDE (Tria)(Tria)

Philosophy defined means Philosophy defined means the rational the rational investigation of the truths and principles of investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. being, knowledge, or conduct.

Genocide defined means Genocide defined means the deliberate and the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. racial, political, or cultural group.

Our definition: Argument strategies that Our definition: Argument strategies that rationally investigate truths and principles rationally investigate truths and principles of knowledge in ways that deliberately and of knowledge in ways that deliberately and systematically exterminate a cultural group.systematically exterminate a cultural group.

PHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDEPHILOSOPHICAL GENOCIDE Case arguments, kritiks, counterplans, and Case arguments, kritiks, counterplans, and

disadvantages and arguments that serve to disadvantages and arguments that serve to either eliminate, outweigh, or co-opt topical either eliminate, outweigh, or co-opt topical minority impacts and issues function as minority impacts and issues function as acts of philosophical genocide. acts of philosophical genocide. (Mitchell – (Mitchell – Spectator Mentality)Spectator Mentality)

THEORETICAL ARMS RACETHEORETICAL ARMS RACE Theoretical defined:Theoretical defined: of, pertaining to, or of, pertaining to, or

consisting in theory; not practical consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from (distinguished from APPLIED). ).

Theory defined:Theory defined: a coherent group of a coherent group of general propositions used as principles general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's theory of relativity.

Arms race defined:Arms race defined: competition between competition between countries to achieve superiority in countries to achieve superiority in quantity and quality of military arms. quantity and quality of military arms.

THEORETICAL ARMS RACETHEORETICAL ARMS RACE Procedural arguments like topicality, pic Procedural arguments like topicality, pic

theory, aspec and it’s descendants, theory, aspec and it’s descendants, permutations, and counterplan theory that permutations, and counterplan theory that explain the debate activity becomes a explain the debate activity becomes a competition to achieve superiority among competition to achieve superiority among participants. When use of theory replaces participants. When use of theory replaces the actual topical arguments, an arms war the actual topical arguments, an arms war has begun. has begun. (Mitchell – Spectator Mentality)(Mitchell – Spectator Mentality)

STYLISTIC EXCLUSIONSTYLISTIC EXCLUSION Stylistic definedStylistic defined: Of or relating to a : Of or relating to a

particular kind, sort, or type.particular kind, sort, or type. Exclusion definedExclusion defined: The act of forcing : The act of forcing

someone or something out.someone or something out.

Argument perspectives or strategies Argument perspectives or strategies that have the effect of forcing out a that have the effect of forcing out a particular kind, sort, or type.particular kind, sort, or type.

STYLISTIC EXCLUSIONSTYLISTIC EXCLUSION Belittling or demeaning the style of Belittling or demeaning the style of

another, rude or disrespectful another, rude or disrespectful behavior, attempts to dominate behavior, attempts to dominate opponent, or attempts to avoid clash opponent, or attempts to avoid clash and debate using narrowly defined and debate using narrowly defined argument tactics are examples of argument tactics are examples of stylistic exclusion. stylistic exclusion. (Valdivia-(Valdivia-Sutherland, CEDA Constitution) Sutherland, CEDA Constitution)

Voter TamperingVoter Tampering Voter defined: Voter defined: A person who formally A person who formally

expresses an opinion or choice, either expresses an opinion or choice, either positive or negative.positive or negative.

Tampering definedTampering defined: The act of meddling, : The act of meddling, especially for the purpose of altering, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing.damaging, or misusing.

Argument strategies which have the Argument strategies which have the effect of meddling, especially for the effect of meddling, especially for the purpose of altering, damaging, or purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing a person who formally expresses misusing a person who formally expresses an opinion or choice, either positive or an opinion or choice, either positive or negative.negative.

Voter TamperingVoter Tampering The use of mutual preference judging The use of mutual preference judging

allows a debate team to purposefully allows a debate team to purposefully alter who judges them, damages the alter who judges them, damages the ability to learn from different judging ability to learn from different judging perspectives, and misuses dissenting perspectives, and misuses dissenting judge viewpoints by preventing them judge viewpoints by preventing them from expressing their opinion from expressing their opinion through voting in the multicultural through voting in the multicultural democracy.democracy.

Homework for Session #3Homework for Session #3 Read article Linda Alcoff, “Speaking for Read article Linda Alcoff, “Speaking for

Others” and Gordon Mitchell – Others” and Gordon Mitchell – Argumentative Agency.Argumentative Agency.

3:30 - 4 minute speech – How Policy 3:30 - 4 minute speech – How Policy Debate can improve decision making in Debate can improve decision making in a Multicultural Democracy (speech a Multicultural Democracy (speech should be broken into three main should be broken into three main points: policy creation; policy points: policy creation; policy implementation; defense of an effective implementation; defense of an effective evaluation process) Due Friday @ 1pmevaluation process) Due Friday @ 1pm