8/13/2019 2ac vs sam xt

1/2

XT F/W (597) -

1. We meet their interpretation We defend that the USFG sho!ds"stantia!!# red$e its presen$e in t%o of the topi$ $ontries& that's therea! "siness of the senten$e

*. +/, The aff sho!d hae to defend the reso!tion as a ood idea throh atopi$a! p!an te0t.

. We meet the $onterinterp %e defend a topi$a! p!an te0t2. 3refer the $onterinterp

4. Stri$t!# po!i$# frame%ors e0$!des other forms of dis$orse& mainde"ate e0$!sionar#6!#n#$h& 97,Winthrop U Prof of Polysci(Jessica, Performing Politics: Foucault, Habermas, and Postmodern Participation,Polity, Vol. 30, No. 2 (inter, !""#$, 3!%&3', accessed )stor$

It is not only that acquiring language is a process of mastering a symbolic heritage that is systematically gendered, but the entire attempt toset $onditions for idea! spee$h is ineita"!# e0$!sie. The model of an ideal speech situation establishes anorm of rational interaction that is defined by the very types of interaction it ecludes. The norm of rational debate favors critical argument and reasoned debateover other forms of communication.!" #efining ideal speech inevitably entails defining unacceptable speech. What has been defined as unacceptable in $abermas%sformulation is any speech that is not intended to convey an idea. &peech evocative of identity, culture, or emotion has no necessary place in the ideal speechsituation, and hence persons 'hose speech is richly colored 'ith rhetoric, gesture, humor, spirit, or affectation could be defined as deviant or immature

communicators. Therefore,a definition of $iti8enship "ased on parti$ipation in an idea! form of

intera$tion $an easi!# "e$ome a too! for the e0$!sion of deiant $ommni$ators

from the $ateor# of $iti8ens . This sort of normaliation creates citiens as sub)ects of rational debate. *orrelatively, as+raser eplains, because the communicative action approach is procedural it is particularly unsuited to address issues of speech content.- Therefore, by definition,it misses the relationship bet'een procedure and content that is at the core of feminist and deconstructive critiques of language. procedural approach can requirethat 'e accommodate all utterances and that 'e not marginalie spea/ing sub)ects. It cannot require that 'e ta/e seriously or be convinced by the statements ofsuch interlocutors. In other 'ords, a procedural approach does not address the cultural contet that ma/es some statements convincing and others not.

. We mst in$orporate a!ternatie perspe$ties !ie ors in order tostop io!en$e -!eier ':1(0oland, prof of International 0elations 1 U of 2ueensland, 3risbane,Millennium: Journal of International Studies, -(4, p. 56"4J7

;ope for a "etter %or!d %i!!, indeed,remain s!im if %e ptall our efforts into searching for a mimeticunderstanding of the international. Issues of global 'ar and Third World poverty are far too serious and urgent to be left to on!# one form ofinis$rsie ed$ation is e# to po!i$# ed$ation sin$e dis$orse shapespo!i$# that's the >ot# '9 e from the 14+ that means %e aininterna!s to a!! of their offense %e $an't de"ate po!i$# %ithot de"atindis$orse. We proide a$$ess to "oth $riti$a! and po!i$# ed$ation that's "etter&and %e don't preent po!i$# ed$ation

+. 4!! ed$ation ained from po!i$#-on!# %i!! "e f!a%ed de to 4meri$an=0$eptiona!ism

5. Fairness -4. %e $an't et so!en$# for an#thin %ithot e0aminin dis$orse that's the entire 14+.. ?e$ipro$it# trns s%it$h-side de"ate %e sho!dn't preent the afffrom $riti$i8in the s

8/13/2019 2ac vs sam xt

2/2

A. 4/T Shie!# - We cannot rely upon common terms for discussion as they so often freezealternative thought and prevent real debate from occurring.

Bleiker, 98asst. prof. of *nternational +tudies at Pusan National ni-ersit (/oland, /etracing andredraing t1e boundaries of e-ents: Postmodern interferences it1 international t1eor, Alternatives,

ct&4ec !""5, Vol. 23, *ssue '$*n t1e absence of aut1entic 6noledge, t1e formulation of t1eoretical positions and practical action

re7uires modest. Accepting difference and facilitating dialogue becomes more important than

searching for the elusive Truth.

3utdia!oe is a pro$ess& an ideal, not an end point.Bften there is no $ommondis$rsie rond& no !anae that $an esta"!ish a !in "et%een the insideand the otside. The !in has to "e sear$hed first.

7. 4T S%it$h-side

!itch"side debate kills advocacy and prepares a !orld of neocons

panos #(illiam, in )oe 8illers9 oo6 ;ross&e< pg. '#$)F+

4ear )oe 8iller, =es, t1e statement about t1e >merican debate circuit ou refer to as made b me, t1oug1 some ears ago. * strongl belie-ed t1en ?and still do, e-en t1oug1 a certainuneasiness about ob@ecti-it 1as crept into t1e p1ilosop1 of debate A t1at debate in bot1 t1e 1ig1 sc1ools and colleges in t1is countr is assumed to ta6e place no1ere, e-en t1oug1 t1e

issues t1at are debated are profoundl 1istorical, 1ic1 means t1at positions are alas represented from t1e perspecti-e of poer, and a matter of life and deat1. * find it grotes7ue t1atin

the debate !orld, it doesn$t matter !hich position you take on an issueA sa, t1e nited +tates9

unilateral ars of preemption A as long as you %score points&. The !orld !e live in is a orld entirel

dominated by an %e'ceptionalist& America 1ic1 1as perenniall claimed t1at it 1as been c1osen b Bod or Histor to fulfill 1isCits errand int1e ilderness. D1at claim i s poerful because >merican economic and militar poer lies be1ind it. >nd an alternati-e position in suc1 a orld is -irtuall poerless. Bi-en t1is ine re-olution in t1e debate orld must occur. *t must force t1at unorldl orld don into t1e 1istorical arena 1ere positions ma6e a difference. Do in-o6e t1e lateEdard +aid, onl suc1 a re-olution ill be capable of deterring democrac (in Noam ;1oms69s ironic p1rase$, of instigating t1e secular critical consciousness t1at is, in m mind, t1e sine7ua non for a-oiding t1e immanent global disaster toards 1ic1 t1e blind arrogance of us1 >dministration and 1is neocon polic ma6ers is leading.

C. XT Under their standards& eer# aff is ntopi$a! sa#in %e $an't derieadantaes from the otside-reso!tion "enefits of the 14+ stran!es affrond means %e $o!dn't een rn e$on or re!ations ads.

9. Do $an't ote ne to endorse or pro@e$t that's or !eier and orSpanos eiden$e. This means #o ote aff "e$ase #o thin it's a ood idea for de"ate or in enera!

1:. ad po!i$#main no% that's 14+ 3arsnea& otin aff is the on!#$han$e to so!e

11. Br 14+ is no more one-sided than an# t#pi$a! po!i$# aff %e sti!! ie thene a $han$e to proe the p!an is a "ad idea or that or $riti$ism is f!a%ed.