Скачать 0.6 Mb.
1. Overlimiting Worse –
a) guts in-round education – debating the same rounds all year means neg just has to learn the best argument against a couple affs
b) out-of-round education – limiting the topic to a few cases means we never learn about smaller policies or marginalized voices
2. Ground Outweighs Limits – increases education, both teams learn about more policies and increases clash by forcing case-specific answers
3. Limits Are Arbitrary – neg will just find a new definition to limit out any case they don’t want to answer
4. Doesn’t Increase Education – small topic doesn’t stop teams from relying on generics
5. Don’t vote on limits – letting them win just because our case is unconventional sets a bad precedent that encourages neg to avoid substantive debate
( ) Limits are only good if they’re not arbitrary – “limits for limits sake” is equally as unpredictable and hinders education
(Debate Coach at University of Kentucky) 1987 (Eric, “Limits – The Essence of Topicality”, Latin American Politics: The Calculus of Instability, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Kupferberg1987LatAmer.htm) aml
I am not suggesting that limits should be the only test for topicality. If this were sole criteria, teams could argue that inherently limited topics are superior, hence, negatives win because their definition excludes the affirmative (there's always a competitive incentive to limit the affirmative out of the round). Obviously, limits for limits sake is arbitrary as well as abusive. However, debatable limits are clearly desirable. What are these 'debatable limits'? Here are some relevant questions that if answered carefully might help to create criteria for debatable limits: 1) Are there fair number of cases that would be topical? An interpretation that overlimited the resolution would be as inappropriate as one which unlimited the topic. An entire year of debating a single case or 300 cases would be neither educational or enjoyable. An interpretation that allowed somewhere between 20 and 40 cases might be acceptable to most participants in the activity. 2) Is the interpretation open to innovation? Part of the intrigue of debating the same topic year round is the competitive incentive for affirmatives to seek new slants. A debatable interpretation should allow for new cases--although they would be chosen from a predictable range of areas. A debatable limit should not force an overly static topic. 3) Does the interpretation fit within some scope of the field context? While not suggesting that we should rely on field contextual definitions alone, an interpretation of the topic should bear some resemblance to the topic area. It would be almost axiomatic to suggest that a definition of 'agricultural' last year should lend itself to cases that are relevant to real world agricultural issues. 4) Does the interpretation allow for some degree of prior notice? A debatable limit is one where a large number of topical cases are to be anticipated by the general debate community. This is not to imply that surprise 'squirrels' should be prohibited, only that definitions should encompass what a large portion of the debate circuit is running.
1. Bad Standard – spending time debating modifiers instead of the topic promotes argument avoidance and decreases education
2. Grammar is confining and elitist
(Robert, Professor of Law, Stanford University, 15 Cardozo L.. Rev. 1103, January 1994 // Lexis)
Superficially but powerfully, literature is a trope for our apprehension of a condition of bareness, a thinness of social and cultural circumstance, which we (often sentimentally) imagine leads to truth and redemption. If this approach suggests literature as an instrument of radical originalism, literature also serves a conservative role, to promote order precisely because it can resolve the tensions that threaten to disrupt it and which are instead resolved within it. Either way, conservative or radical, involves nostalgia, which is forever bringing its problems to the reading of literature, as if they could thereby find compensations for the relevant present degeneracy. The irony, as Poirier notes, is that what the nostalgic yearning soul finds is literature itself manifesting the same sort of nostalgia. n4 As wordy, encrusted, corrupt institutions turn to literature for renewal, they find writing which is itself committed to conventions, usages, grammars, structures, and rhetorics viewed with dismay as the products of inappropriate systems which often seem artificial or inappropriate. Literature is not the natural language we seek. Indeed, notes Poirier, there is no such thing. If anything, modernist literature prevents spontaneous reading. It is a very privileged form of discourse, painfully aware of itself as a form of technology.
3. Arbitrary – language can be interpreted in countless ways, as long as our interpretation of the resolution makes grammatical sense we shouldn’t lose
4. Grammar becomes elitist unless multiple interpretations are allowed
(Alice, Associate Professor of English at California State University, “The Grammar and Rhetoric of Inclusion,” College English , Vol. 57, No. 2 (Feb., 1995), pp. 182-195, National Council of Teachers of English, http://www.jstor.org/stable/378809 // JSTOR)
These simultaneous contradictory forces, which are at work in the disciplines at all times (the need to solve a real problem versus the need to appear so independent of that problem as to seem to be self-sufficient), provide many of the interesting paradoxes that ultimately embarrass the various fields. The field of linguistics has been embarrassed, for example, many times in recent years. It was embarrassed in the late fifties to be caught with a rather superficial theoretical base, with a focus entirely on phonology rather than grammar and, believe it or not, with such a naive view of research design that it was actually believed that by interviewing in depth ONE native speaker of a foreign language one could actually write a grammar that would describe the speech of ALL the native speakers of that language. More recently linguistics has been embarrassed by accusations of elitism. One healthy sign in the academic world is seen when the practitioners in a field are able to admit that what they said last year may be wrong. To be sure, this is frustrating, for it leads to the kinds of problems discussed at a recent conference on teacher training in which the participants agreed that 90% of what they studied in graduate school was either wrong or irrelevant for the work they were doing. This is a reasonable percentage also for the hard and social sciences and, indeed, for most of what is happening in the majority of college courses today. But the academic world is not predisposed to admitting false starts, wrong-headedness, or incompleteness, for its elitism frequently prevents any such self-effacement. The name of the game is to be right as often as possible, wrong as seldom as possible, and to ridicule one's colleague when he is wrong, establishing in the process one's own sense of superiority. One of the more exciting things that is happening in the academic world today is the small steps we are beginning to make toward destroying this elitism. Although the trend for many years was toward ever-increasing degrees of specialization with concomitant scorn for all that was not so specialized, such a position is less well received in today's world. In the January, 1971 issue of The Journal of Internal Medicine, for example, C.P. Kimball editorialized that the field of medicine has too long lived in isolation from the lower socioeconomic bracketed patient. He urged medical training of a sort that starts with the culture and language of a patient where HE is, not where the physician is. He urged that the medical profession abandon its elitist, witch-doctor status if it is serious about its lofty aims of doing good for people who are unlike themselves. Equally encouraging is the recent information that several medical schools have requested funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities to broaden the training of physicians in the areas of human and social studies. A perhaps even more elitist branch of medicine, psychiatry, has at last evidenced some notion of its almost total lack of concern for the disadvantaged, for minorities, and for the uneducated in particular. It has been estimated, for example, that 95 % of the assumed successes in psychiatric treatment have involved middle class patients. Part of this is because the middle classes tend to avail themselves of these services more than the working classes, but the percentage is said to obtain even after this discrepancy is accounted for. In the field of linguistics, this newer trend away from isolated elitism can be found in a relatively recent predisposition for interdisciplinarity. While some linguistic theorists continue to move more and more away from real language to theories and to theories about theories, others have responded to some of the more immediate demands of today's world. Some, for example, have begun to ask what usefulness their field might have to the pressing problems of education today. They see reading, speaking and writing as heavily involved in linguistic processes of several types. They see social inequality as frequently manifested by the use of and reaction to one's native language. They see much research in the areas of early-childhood education, psychology, and education as heavily reliant upon language analysis for their conclusions.
5. Not Real World – no one uses perfect English, even in academic circles – topic specific education is more important