Skip to content
November 6, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Answering Framework and Role of the Ballot Type Arguments

1) Policy better than critiques
2) Roleplaying good (Joyner)
3) Cede the Political/Rorty

Discourse/Language/Representation Focus = bad & counter-productive
1) Language focus trades off with real world (the author escapes me)
2) Language PIKs are bad/Dirty Word PIKs are bad (Butler)
3) Dispo/Conditional language PIKs are uniquely bad (destroys advocacy & = perf cons which coopt the K)

Other stuff that would be filed under K theory.

One of the best way to make these arguments is to see how it interacts with the impacts they are articulating……(ie racism, sexism, domination, dehumanization, otherization).

PS. You also need to make some in roads into their Roleplaying bad arguments (ie minimize or outweigh or make them irrelevant–I’m going to suggest the first two are probably easier and more viable–at least in the debates I’ve seen).

Advertisements

3 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Iri Bili / Dec 27 2013 11:37 pm

    can u post links to rorty / joyner

  2. compassioninpolitics / Jan 5 2014 10:31 pm

    This is in no way an answer to the above. It seemed to be related to the overall question of answering K affirmatives:
    http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54245-framework/?hl=%2Bjoyner#entry865019

  3. compassioninpolitics / Jan 5 2014 10:37 pm

    The second card here is Joyner:
    http://sdiencyclopedia.wikispaces.com/Role-Play+or+Role-Playing

    I’ve included it here too:

    Those in favor of role-playing also cite a variety of arguments. These are usually centered on educational values and are intertwined with the recognition that debaters often continue on the path to impacting policies (through the government, law offices, etc.). Joyner in 99 argues for role-playing in a foreign policy realm. He writes that these stimulations not only help debaters recognize a multitude of perspectives and consequences, but also that learning about how the world operates is independently important.

    Joyner 99 (Christopher, Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, “TEACHING INTERNATIONAL LAW: VIEWS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS POLITICAL SCIENTIST,” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Spring, lexis)

    Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. 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 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. [*386] 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, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The 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 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 reinterpreting the latter. Finally, 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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: