wyoming jones figueroa neg unlv round3

7/23/2019 Wyoming Jones Figueroa Neg UNLV Round3

1/31

1NC


2/31

1


3/31

Observation One: The Role of DEBATE


4/31

Observation Two: The impacts

There are two net benets to this interpretation of debate:

irst! "ORA# disa$reement: E%ective moral deliberationre&'ires that all parties be willin$ to s'bmit to a REC()ROCA#process of a$onistic disa$reement* +itho't an e%ective)ROCE,, of switch-side debate! there can be no method ofdealin$ with the practical constraints that s'rro'nd an.pers'asive conte/t* E0EN ( the armative wins there is meritto considerin$ their case! their abandonment of the for'm ofswitch-side debate leaves 's less able to spea2 to problems ofpower! violence and ine&'alit. beca'se the. $ive 'p on a

process that is inherentl. val'able*

3'tmann 4 Thompson 56[Amy & Dennis, President of Penn State and Professor of Political Philosophy atHarvard, Democracy and Disagreement, p. 1//wyot!c"

#$ %H C7A##EN3E, that American democrac. faces toda., none is moreformida'le than the pro'lem of moral disa$reement. (either the theory nor the practice ofdemocratic politics has so far fo)nd an ade*)ate way to cope with con+icts a'o)t f)ndamental val)es. e address thechallenge of moral disagreement here 'y developing a conception of democracy that sec)res a central place for moraldisc)ssion in political life. Along with a growing n)m'er of other political theorists, we call this conception deli'erative

democracy. %he core idea is simple- when citi8ens or their representatives disa$reemorall.! the. sho'ld contin'e to reason to$ether to reach m't'all.acceptable decisions* )t the meaning and implications of the idea are

comple. Altho)gh the idea has a long history, it is still in search of a theory. e do not claim that this 'oo0 provides a comprehensive theoryof deli'erative democracy, ')t we do hope that it contri')tes toward its f)t)re development 'y showing the 0ind of deli'eration that is possi'le anddesira'le in the face of moral disagreement in democracies. Some scholars have criticied li'eral political theory for neglecting moral deli'eration.#thers have analyed the philosophical fo)ndations of deli'erative democracy, and still others have 'eg)n to eplore instit)tional reforms that wo)ldpromote deli'eration. 2et nearly all of them stop at the point where deli'eration itself 'egins. (one has systematically eamined the s)'stance ofdeli'eration3the theoretical principles that sho)ld g)ide moral arg)ment and their implications for act)al moral disagreements a'o)t p)'lic policy.%hat is o)r s)'!ect, and it ta0es )s into the everyday for)ms of democratic politics, where moral arg)ment reg)larly appears ')t where theoretical

analysis too rarely goes. Deliberative democrac. involves reasonin$ abo't politics,and nothing has 'een more controversial in political philosophy than the nat)reof reason in politics. +e do not believe that these controversies have to besettled before deliberative principles can $'ide the practice ofdemocrac.. Since on occasion citiens and their representatives already engage in the 0ind of reasoning that thoseprinciples recommend, deli'erative democracy simply as0s that they do so more consistently and comprehensively. %he 'estway to prove the val)e of this 0ind of reasoning is to show its role in arg)ments a'o)t speci4c principles and policies, and itscontri')5tion to act)al political de'ates. %hat is also )ltimately the 'est !)sti4cation for o)r conception of deli'erativedemocracy itself. )t to forestall pos5si'le mis)nderstandings of o)r conception of deli'erative democracy, we o6er some

preliminary remar0s a'o)t the scope and method of this 'oo0. %he aim of themoral reasonin$ that o'rdeliberative democrac. pre-scribesfalls 'etween impartiality, whichre&'ires something li0e altr)ism, and pr)dence, which demands no more than enlightened selfinterest. 7ts 4rst principleisreciprocit., the s)'!ect of 8hapter 9, ')t no less essential are the otherprinciples developed in later chapters. +hen citi8ens reason reciprocall.!the. see2 fair terms of social cooperation for their own sa0e: they try tond m't'all. acceptable wa.s of resolvin$ moral disa$reements. %heprecise content of reciprocit.is di;c)lt to determine in theory, ')t its generalco)ntenance is familiar eno)gh in practice. 7t can be seen in the di%erence'etween actin$ in one9s self-interest


5/31

loophole or a l)c0y 'rea0= and actin$ fairl.


6/31

resolve their moral disagreements not only a'o)t policies ')t also a'o)t theprocess 'y which policies sho)ld 'e adopted. Deliberation is not onl. ameans to an end! b't also a means for decidin$ what means are morall.re&'ired to p'rs'e o'r common ends.

,econd! ,+(TC7-,(DE DEBATE: The net-benets are both

epistemic and ontolo$ical: epistemic beca'se prepared!competitive disco'rse and re&'ired listenin$ to both sides ofan ar$'ment is a prere&'isite for critical reasonin$ andinterested in&'ir.! and ontolo$ical beca'se it arms a methodof livin$ that is the onl. antidote to the violence of thearmative;s 'niversalist do$ma! which is root of violence and$enocide

Roberts-"iller s Agonistic hetoricC, p. asp//wyot!c"%otalitarianism and the 8ompetitive Space of Agonism Arendt is pro'a'ly most famo)s for her analysis oftotalitarianism . hile 'oth are critical of modern ')rea)cratic and totalitarian systems, Arendt>s sol'tion is


7/31

the pla.f'l and competitive space of a$onism: it is not the rationalcriticalp)'lic sphere.%he act)al content of political life is the !oy and the grati4cation that arise o)t of 'eing incompany with o)r peers, o)t of acting together and appearing in p)'lic, o)t of inserting o)rselves into the world 'yword and deed, th)s ac*)iring and s)staining o)r personal identity and 'eginning something entirely new s p)'lic realmemphasies the ass)mption of competition, and itrepresents that space of appearances in which moral and political greatness, heroism, and preeminence are

revealed, displayed, shared with others. %his is a competitive space in which one competesfor reco$nition! precedence! and acclaim s tho)ght. henArendt disc)sses Socrates> thin0ing in p)'lic, she emphasies his performance- He performed in the mar0etplace

the way the +)teplayer performed at a 'an*)et. 7t is sheer performance, sheer activity:nevertheless, it was thin0ing- hat he act)ally did was to ma0e p)'lic, indisco)rse, the thin0ing processMNect)res LI=. Pit0in s)mmaries this point- Arendt says that theheroism associated with politics is not the mythical machismo of ancient @reece ')t something more li0e theeistential leap into action and p)'lic epos)re advancing an arg)ment means that one m)st 'e open to the criticisms others will ma0e ofit.%he sit)ation is a$onistic not beca'se the participants man)fact)re or see2con=ict! b't beca'se con=ict is a necessar. conse&'ence of di%erence%hisattit)de is reminiscent ofOenneth )r0e, who did not try to 4nd a lang)age free ofdomination ')t who instead theoried a way that the very tendency towardhierarchy in lang)age might 'e )sed against itselfs essential nat)re re*)ires solving the central mystery of theholoca)st3the o'!ectively )seless and indeed dysf)nctional, fanatical p)rs)it of a p)rely ideological policy, apointless process to which the people enacting it have fallen captive. s criticism is that Arendt tal0s at times as tho)gh the social comes from o)tside of )s and has fallen )pon )s,t)rning )s into ro'ots. 2et, Arendt>s ma!or criticism of the social is that it involves seeing o)rselves as victimied 'ysomething that comes from o)tside o)r own 'ehavior. 7 agree with Pit0in that Arendt>s most powerf)l descriptions ofthe social s Apprentice, which once let loose cannot 'e stopped: on the contrary, it contin)es to eist'eca)se we str)ct)re o)r world to reward social 'ehavior. Pit0in writes, $rom childhood on, in virt)ally all o)rinstit)tions, we reward e)phemism, salesmanship, slo5gans, and we p)nish and s)ppress tr)thtelling, originality,tho)ghtf)lness. So we contin)ally c)ltivate ways of


8/31

emphasie this point, as it is important for thin0ing a'o)t criticisms of some forms of the social constr)ction of0nowledge- denying o)r own agency is what ena'les the social to thrive. %o p)t it another way, theories ofpowerlessness are selff)l4lling prophecies. Arendt grants that there are people who willed the Holoca)st, ')t she

insists that totalitarian s.stems res'lt not so m)ch from the 7itlers or Stalins asfrom the b'rea'crats who ma. or ma. not a$ree with the esta'lishedideolo$. b't who enforce the r'les for no stron$er motive than a desire toavoid tro'ble with their s)periors s standpoints 7 havepresent in my mind while 7 am ponderinga given iss)e, and the better ( can ima$inehow ( wo'ld feel and thin2 if ( were in their place! the stronger will 'e mycapacity for represen5tative thin0ing and the more valid my 4nal concl)sions, myopinion. all others.>%hin0ing is, in this view, necessarily p)'lic disco)rse-critical thin0ing is possi'le only where the standpoints of all others are open toinspections stance: participants areinterloc)tors and not !)st spea0ers: they m)st listen. ?nli0e many c)rrent versions of p)'lic disco)rse, thisview pres'mes that speech matters.7t is not asymmetric manip)lation of others, nor merely aneconomic echange: it m)st 'e a world into which one enters and 'y which one might 'echanged. Second, passages li0e the a'ove ma0e some readers thin0 that Arendt p)ts too m)ch faith in disco)rseand too little in tr)th


9/31

the inherent relativism of all perception. Her description of how tr'thf)nctions does not fallan.where in the three-part e/peditio so prevalent in both rhetoric andphilosoph.: it is not e/pressivist! positivist! or social constr'ctivist* 3oodthin2in$ depends 'pon $ood p'blic ar$'ment! and $ood p'blic ar$'mentdepends 'pon access to facts-$reedom of opinion is a farce )nless fact)al information isg)aranteed


10/31

Observation Three: 0otin$ (ss'e

0ote ne$ative to reect the armative;s do$matic ref'sal to

s'bect themselves to the constraints of switch-side debate*

,econd is .o'r ar$'ment lter: (t is O to divorce debate fromthe real-world;- a laborator. separate from conviction isnecessar. to teach methods of ar$'mentative reasonin$ ANDadvocac. s2illso' sho'ld privile$e these s2ills even if .o'have to sacrice p'rit. of in&'ir. beca'se these are the s2ills"O,T N(FE to the debate for'mthe. can;t be $arneredan.where else

"'ir 5sjust a matter of time before ;everybody has to start swimming bac& toEurope, or Africa or wherever.ve all been so desperately see&ing# $he 9nited 6tates% at least what we>ve come to

&now it% out of =orth America all together. 7rom there is can be permanently banished from the planet. In itsstead, surely we can join hands to create something new and infinitely better. $hat>s our vision of ;impossible

realism,< isn>t it time we all wor&ed on attaining itK


19/31

Case


20/31

1NC Case L#

No indenite detention of immi$rants,'preme Co'rt r'led 5I

da. ma/im'm for aliens(TAA 11MCAT A* (TAA! *D*! HI1I! niversit. of Chica$o #aw ,chool!K,7ADO+ DETENT(ON: T7E EDERA# 3O0ERN"ENT9, )ARA##E#,,TE" OR DETA(N(N3 "ENTA## (## A#(EN,!G all! HI11!3eor$etown (mmi$ration #aw o'rnal! #e/is Ne/is! w.o-sc

%he federal government has traditionally 0ept o)t of the states> ')siness in civilcommitment of the mentally ill. However, recent cases show an eception emergingfrom within a sphere long controlled 'y the federal government- immigration.7mmigration into this co)ntry has traditionally 'een a federal concern. nK 8ongresssets visa re*)irements, determines visiting aliens> lengths of stay, and creates

standards for when aliens m)st leave the co)ntry. nI A tri)mvirate of agencies,7mmigration and 8)stoms nforcement


21/31

HNC


22/31

PHNC #in2 +allP

7.brid theor. ris2s the possibilit. of contin'in$ theincorporation indi$eno's societies into the democratic polis!and 'ndermines the American (ndian str'$$le for soverei$nt.

Sandy 3rande. BAmerican 7ndian @eographies of Power- At the 8rossroads of7ndigena and estia!e.C Harvard d)cational eview, IR-. inter HIII*

7n terms of identity, critical theorists aim to e/plode the concreti8edcate$ories of race! class! $ender! and se/'alit. and to claim theintersections the borderlands - as the space to create a new c'lt're )na

c)lt)res mestia in which the onl. normative standard is h.bridit. and alls'bects are constr'cted as inherentl. trans$ressive.K %ho)gh American(ndian intellect'alss)pport the notion of hy'ridity, they remain s2eptical ofthe new mesti8a as a possible contin'ation of the colonialist proect tof'se (ndians into the national model of the democratic citi8en * There is! inother words! an 'nderc'rrent to the postcolonial le/icon of mesti8ae thatseems to 'ndermine the formation of ? a comfortable modern American(ndian identit.


23/31

)2omac& /- 3econstructing history and identity would negate the whole purpose of American Indian literature,

which, by many scholars, is identified as a support of sovereignty. ostmodernism deconstructs identity and gets

rid of =ative American points of view, thus putting =ative perspective as well as =ative narrative and story out

of existence. 2omac& points out thatpostmodernism has a ;tendency to decenter everything, including the legitimacyof a =ative perspective < )2omac& H-. $herefore, on the one hand, it undermines the ideology of the dominant mainstream society byridding it of the notion of ;alien other< and introducing it into the positive world of differences. n the other hand, the loss of center

leads to the loss of meaning and history, therefore devaluing =ative perspective as well as five hundred years of

colonization that is still ongoing.


24/31

HNC-"ethod 2e. L#

Third! o'r "ethodolo$. is $ood and 2e.! rather than be$innin$

from an 'nderstandin$ of identit. that perpet'ates colonialstr'ct'res! .o' sho'ld endorse a methodolo$. whichaddresses the needs of coloni8ed people and be$ins from(ndi$eno's (ntellect'alism

Sandy 3rande. BAmerican 7ndian @eographies of Power- At the 8rossroads of7ndigena and estia!e.C Harvard d)cational eview, IR-. inter HIII*

7n the 4rst draft of the 4nal report of the 7ndian (ations at is0 %as0 $orce, 7ndigeno)s scholar and activist ichael8harleston


25/31

accept these individ'al ri$hts of citi8enship was incomprehension!invisibilit.! and p'nishin$ racism for those who wo'ld not .


26/31

Alt 2H Debate ,pace

The alt is 2e. to decoloni8in$ the debate space Qintrod'cin$ radical tho'$ht in o'r comm'nit. is a pre-recto dismantlin$ power str'ct'res,'are8 1H


27/31

$)rthermore, as we 0now! decoloni8ation re&'ires a chan$e in the s'bect


28/31

+e m'st decoloni8e the c'rric'l'm Q it 'pholds the lar$erhe$emonic epistemic s.stem

Breidlid 1


29/31

1NR


30/31

riti2

#'ndber$ 1I[8hristian, Professor of 8omm)nication at ?(8 8hapel Hill, (avigating #pport)nity-Policy De'ate in the 91st 8ent)ry, B%radition of De'ate in (orth 8arolinaC, p.L11//wyot!c"

%he second ma!or pro'lem with the criti*)e that identi4es a naivety inartic)lating de'ate and democracy is that it pres)mes that the primarypedagogical o)tcome of de'ate is speech capacities. )t the democraticcapacities ')ilt 'y de'ate are not limited to speech3as indicated earlier, de'ate')ilds capacity for critical thin0ing, analysis of p)'lic claims, informed decisionma0ing, and 'etter p)'lic !)dgment. 7f the pict)re of modern political life that)nderwrites this criti*)e of de'ate is a pessimistic view of increasinglyla'yrinthine and ')rea)cratic administrative politics, rapid scienti4c andtechnological change o)tpacing the capacities of the citienry to comprehendthem, and everepanding ins)lar specialinterest and moneydriven politics, it isa p)ling sol)tion, at 'est, to arg)e that these conditions warrant giving )p onde'ate. 7f democracy is open to reartic)lation, it is open to reartic)lationprecisely 'eca)se as the challenges of modern political life proliferate, thecitienry>s capacities can change, which is one of the primary reasons thattheorists of democracy s)ch as Dewey in %he P)'lic and 7ts Pro'lems place s)cha high premi)m on ed)cation s st)dy tested the 'ene4tsof de'ate participation on informationliteracy s0ills and concl)ded that inclassde'ate participants reported signi4cantly higher selfe;cacy ratings of theira'ility to navigate academic search data'ases and to e6ectively search and )seother e' reso)rces- %o analye the selfreport ratings of the instr)ctional and control gro)p st)dents, we 4rst cond)cted am)ltivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, loo0ing !ointly at the e6ect of instr)ction/no instr)ction and de'ate topic . . . that it did not

matter which topic st)dents had 'een assigned . . . st)dents in the 7nstr)ctional [de'ate= gro)p were signi4cantly more con4dent in their a'ility toaccess information and less li0ely to feel that they needed help to do so%hese 4ndings clearly indicate greater selfe;cacy for online searchingamong st)dents who participated in s framing of the iss)e


31/31

was prescient- the primary *)estion facing today>s st)dent has changed fromhow to 'est research a topic to the cr)cial *)estion of learning how to 'esteval)ate which arg)ments to cite and rely )pon from an easily accessi'le andverita'le corn)copia of materials. %here are, witho)t a do)'t, a n)m'er ofimportant criticisms of employing de'ate as a model for democratic deli'eration.)t c)m)latively, the evidence presented here warrants strong s)pport for

epanding de'ate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancingdemocratic deli'erative capacities. %he )ni*)e com'ination of critical thin0ings0ills, research and information processing s0ills, oral comm)nication s0ills, andcapacities for listening and tho)ghtf)l, open engagement with hotly contestediss)es arg)es for de'ate as a cr)cial component of a rich and vital democraticlife. 7nclass de'ate practice 'oth aids st)dents in achieving the 'est goals ofcollege and )niversity ed)cation, and serves as an )nmatched practice forcreating tho)ghtf)l, engaged, openminded and selfcritical st)dents who areopen to the possi'ilities of meaningf)l political engagement and new artic)lationsof democratic life. panding this practice is cr)cial, if only 'eca)se the more weprod)ce citiens that can actively and e6ectively engage the political process,the more li0ely we are to prod)ce revisions of democratic life that are necessary

if democracy is not only to s)rvive, ')t to thrive. Democracy faces a myriad ofchallenges, incl)ding- domestic and international iss)es of class, gender, andracial !)stice: wholesale environmental destr)ction and the potential for rapidclimate change: emerging threats to international sta'ility in the form ofterrorism, intervention and new possi'ilities for great power con+ict: andincreasing challenges of rapid glo'aliation incl)ding an increasingly volatileglo'al economic str)ct)re. ore than any speci4c policy or proposal, an informedand active citienry that deli'erates with greater s0ill and sensitivity provides oneof the 'est hopes for responsive and e6ective democratic governance, and 'yetension, one of the last 'est hopes for dealing with the eistential challenges todemocracy [in an" increasingly comple world.

wyoming jones figueroa neg unlv round3

Documents