conditionality materials - hss 2014

8/9/2019 Conditionality Materials - HSS 2014

1/26

Activities/Exercises


2/26

Ten Foundational Questions

1. What efect does conditionality have on the numbero arguments introduced in a single debate?

2. What efect does conditionality have on the natureo arguments introduced in a single debate?

3. What efect does conditionality have on the numbero arguments introduced over an entire debateseason?

4. What efect does conditionality have on the natureo arguments introduced over an entire debateseason?

5. What efect do these incentives have on research and preparation practices?

6. What efect does conditionality have on the breadtho discussion o arguments in a single debate?

7. What efect does conditionality have on the deptho discussion o arguments in a single debate?

. What efect does conditionality have on the breadtho discussion o arguments over an entire debateseason?

!. What efect does conditionality have on the deptho discussion o arguments over an entire debate

season?

1". What constitutes a rigorous #test$ o the a%rmative and &hy is such a test valua'le?


3/26

The Spectrum of Interpretations

(he ollo&ing is a list o interpretations in relative order rom least limiting to the negative to most limitingto the negative.

1. )lassic *nconstrained )onditionality + the neg can introduce an unlimited num'er o conditional

advocacies and the status ,uo al&ays remains a logical option

2. -r'itrarily imited/0egotiated )onditionality + the neg can introduce a specied num'er o conditionaladvocacies 2 3 etc. and the status ,uo al&ays remains a logical option sometimes there is also anadditional stipulation a'out contradictions or crossapplications #&e get three conditional options 'ut cantcontradict and &e &ont crossapply rom one to another$

3. 8deological )onditionality #9ne ): 9ne ;$ + the neg can introduce one conditional counterplan andone conditional criti,ue and the status ,uo al&ays remains a logical option

4. *nconstrained


4/26

Comparison of Interpretations

8nstructions @or each set o interpretations list the uni,ue arguments that each side can ma=e in supporto their interpretation.

1. *nconditionality/:re>ound )onditionality vs. )lassic *nconstrained )onditionality

2. ogical imited )onditionality vs. )lassic *nconstrained )onditionality

3. ound )onditionality vs. 8deological )onditionality one each

5.


5/26

Conditionality Threads (Circa 2!"

A#rmative

)onditionality is a voting issue

Aurts advocacy s=ills + no good advocate &ould simultaneously deend inconsistent positions. Bhitingrom one position to another hurts credi'ility. (his is important 'ecause the purpose o de'ate is to train usto 'e efective advocates.

-rgumentative 8rresponsi'ility + allo&ing teams to Cettison arguments &ithout cost lo&ers the 'ar orintroduction. (his allo&s repugnant positions to 'e eDpressed. 8ts not &hat they did its &hat they Custiy.

(ime and strategy s=e& + the introduction o too many arguments ma=es it too di%cult or the a%rmativeto respond at all much less &ith our 'est arguments. (his decreases clash and depth o discussion.


6/26

Conditionality Threads (Circa 2&'"

A#rmative

*nproductive argument culture +

>emoves 'arrier to entry +

8normation overload +

8deological eDtremism +

)ulture o contradiction +

Gultiple de'ates solve their ofense +

:reround analysis 'est model +

(he Cudge is a normsetter +

$e%ative

-rgument innovation +

8normation processing +

8deological polariHation I 'oDin +

Jears&itching I negotiation s=ills +

:edagogy o paradoD +

Btatus ,uo al&ays a logical option +


7/26

The )ultiple *e+ates, Challen%e for the $e%

(he negative needs to crat their deenses o conditionality so as to deeat the ollo&ing argument

#(esting$ the a%rmative is important 'ut this test occurs throughout the year not in any particularde'ate. Btudents conduct preseason and pretournament research in order to test the via'ility o

resolutional action in general and the plan in particular over the course o the season.

(he negative arguments presented in any singular de'ate are not intended to 'e a complete test o thedesira'ility o the plan+time limits &ould ensure that this vision o Ktesting the afK produces inaccurateand incomplete =no&ledge.

:reround conditionality as part o a seasonlong dialectical process is a superior model in any givende'ate the negative tests a particular part o the a%rmative or tests the a%rmative rom a particularperspective and the sum total o all these individual de'ates constitutes a rigorous test o the entirea%rmative.

:remises o this argument

1. (he proper lens or assessing de'ate practices is the complete season not the individual round.(he #'readth$ and #depth$ o education accumulates over the course o the season. Lachindividual round is only part o an overall learning process.

2. Gore rigorous indepth #testing$ o the a%rmative &ithin a single round is uni,uely valua'le. -series o indepth de'ates produces more overall educational value than a series o 'roadde'ates. @ive indepth de'ates over diferent issues achieve similar 'readth to ve shallo&de'ates &ith a diversity o issues 'ut the series o indepth de'aters secure much greater overalleducational value than the series o shallo& ones.


8/26

Ar%ument Comparisons

@or each set o arguments prepare comparison statements ourtove sentences supporting each side.

M1 #)onditionality is 'ad 'ecause it incentiviHes the introduction o unproductive unair positions li=echeating counterplans$ vs. #)onditionality is good 'ecause it is most consistent &ith a model o logical

decisionma=ing.$

M2 #)onditionality is 'ad 'ecause it discourages indepth engagement o arguments$ vs. #)onditionality isgood 'ecause it orces the a%rmative to conront an ideologically diverse set o arguments.$

M3 #(he Cudge should use their 'allot to support the creation o norms or argumentation practices$ vs.#(he Cudges role is to reeree theory crimes not to socially engineer community practices.$


9/26

Evidence Analysis and Application

@or each piece o evidence presented in the #Lvidence$ hat identiy

1. Ao& the evidence can 'e used to support the a%rmatives position on conditionality either generally orspecically.

2. Ao& the evidence can 'e used to support the negatives position on conditionality either generally orspecically.

3. Whether you thin= the evidence is 'etter or the a%rmative position or the negative position. LDplain&hy.


10/26

-FCA State Final .ound Analysis

(he nal round o the 2"13 J@)- Jeorgia Btate (ournament &as decided on conditionality. (he negativerom )hattahoochee deeated the a%rmative rom :ace -cademy on a 21 decision.

The 2ACsaid that multiple conditional options is a voting issue 'ecause

s=e&s 2-) strategy Custies contradictions one conditional option solves ofense no Cudge =ic= N undermines comparative impact calc

The 2$Cresponded &ith the ollo&ing eDact 'loc= rom OivethPs speech document

9ur interpretation is that &e get 2 conditional advocacies in 2 rame&or=s. (his solves your ofense theact that they are in diferent rame&or=s means the af has a 'road range o ofense

(his interpretation is 'est+

a. 0eg EeD&e need multiple vantage points to challenge the af in every round and nd the 'est policyoption

'. :revents ideological eDtremisn N deending against 'oth sides orces a deense o the plan not the plans

idedology N 'est or nuanced dicison ma=ing N most decisions arent yes / no 'ut nding the 'est 'alance.

). -f FurdenN (he af must deend all the 1-) this is Custied through af side 'ias N rst/last speech andinnite prep N &e must test the critical and policy aspects o the plan N they are 'oth grounded in the 1ac&hich ma=es them predicta'le. Aaving a deense o ederal planning solves all o your ofense.

Q 9:(890 N Garginal *tility games N unction o multiple ):s places a limit'ecause they reach a point o dimishing returns ma=ing argumentative development possi'le.

Bu'staintive cro&dout 'ad N reCect arg not team N stic= us to 'oth

The &A.responded &ith the ollo&ing arguments

O8 education less rigorous eDamination minimiHes 2ac ofense cant ma=e crossapps =2 critical thin=ing arg interactions not understood

one option 'etter or depth donPt preer neg EeD disads and t chec=s our interp solves ideological eDtremism politics and security ; still allo& nuance no af 'urden reCect team ino processing not a reason or condo inevita'le no impact its a ,uestion o strategy s=e& N irrepara'le damage af canPt generate ofense they Custiy contradictions capitalism ; and a ): that says increase petro taDes


11/26

no uni,ue ofense tied to their interpretation

(he 20> and 2-> &ere recorded.

Qour tas= is to Eo& the 2-) through 1-> 'ased on the a'ove record o the de'ate. We &ill then listen tothe 20> and 2-> together. Btudents &ill Eo& those speeches and render a decision. 9nce decisions have'een made &e &ill discuss the de'ate and students reasons or decision.


12/26

Conditionality )ini*e+ates

(he goal o this eDercise is to simulate a conditionality de'ate rom 2-) through 2->. (he ormat is asollo&s

2-) + 15

20) + 451-> + 3"20> + 452-> + 23"

(he 2-) introduces a #conditionality 'ad$ argument the 20) responds to it the 1-> eDtends theo'Cection the 20> replies and the 2-> goes or conditionality. (he 2-> only has 23" to orce e%ciency i2-s &ould li=e to prep a second 5"" speech or later revie& they are &elcome to do so.

@or the purposes o the eDercise assume that the 10) included the Becurity )riti,ue and the )hina


13/26

Evidence


14/26

Ideolo%ical Flexi+ility

Cocoonin% prevents ade0uate scrutiny1 Testin% ideas a%ainstopinions from all sides of the political spectrum is crucial todeterminin% the +est ar%uments1arone &2+ Gichael Farone Benior :olitical -nalyst or the Washington Examiner >esident @ello&at the -merican Lnterprise 8nstitute contri'utor to @oD 0e&s 2"12 #)ocooned i'erals -re *npreparedor :olitical ichard 0iDon &as &inning the election 'ecause everyone she =ne& &as or Jeorge GcJovern.;ael &asnPt clueless a'out the rest o -merica. Bhe &as Cust o'serving that her o&n social circle &aspolitically parochial.(he rest o us have increasingly sought out comorta'le cocoons too. Sournalist Fill Fishop &ho lives in an-ustin (eDas neigh'orhood &hose politics resem'le ;aelPs started loo=ing at national data.

8t inspired him to &rite his 2""! 'oo= K(he Fig BortK &hich descri'es ho& -mericans since the1!7"s have increasingly sorted themselves out moving to places&here almost every'ody shares their cultural orientation and politicalpreerence N and the others =eep ,uiet a'out theirs.(hus proessionals &ith a choice o &here to ma=e their livings head or the Ban @rancisco Fay -rea itheyPre li'eral and or the ush im'augh.(he pro'lem is that this leaves them unprepared to ma4e the+est case for their side in pu+lic de+ate. (hey are too oten nota3are of holes in ar%uments that sound plausi'le &hen 'andied'et&een conreres entirely disposed to agree.We have seen ho& this &or=s on some issuesthis year.(a=e the arguments developed 'yproessor >andy Farnetto Jeorgeto&n a& that9'amacarePs mandate to 'uy health insurance is unconstitutional.Bome li'eral scholarsli=e Sac= Fal=in o Qale have addressed them &ithcounterargumentso their o&n.Fut li'eral politiciansand Lric AolderPs Sustice


15/26

Ideolo%ical 6exi+ility is the lynchpinof democraticdeli+eration1 Introducin% dis7unction and am+ivalence is avirtue8 not a vice19anson and )arcus &+ >ussell . Aanson :roessor o :olitical Bcience at 8ndiana*niversity holds a :h.


16/26

consistency. >ather the re,uisite virtues include moderationtolerance a capacity or coping &ith dis7unction and am+ivalenceand a &illingness to explore pro+lematic issues &ith ello& citiHens+all o &hich suggests that democratic citiHens must 'e more li=e oDes than the hedgehogs o politicalphilosophy and democratic revisionism.

Challen%in% my side reasoningis crucial to overcomepolari:ation1$is+et and Scheufele &2+ Gatthe& ). 0is'et -ssociate :roessor o )ommunication andepu'lic and the Washington Gonthly2"12 #8n o'erts upheld 9'amacare as Bunstein &rites. 8 thepast is any indication his party &ill eventually come around to >o'ertss &ay o thin=ing as &ith 0iDon and)linton ater their supposed heresies. @e& castigate 9'ama no& or Eipping on the individuate mandate apolicy he vehemently opposed or conservative reasons in his primary ght &ith Aillary )linton.Goreover 9'ama &hose entire 2"" candidacy &as 'ased on nding middle ground demonstrates the


17/26

necessity not only o em'racing EeDi'ility in our politicians 'ut in practicing it ourselves. (hoseprogressives &ho still condemn


18/26

)ongress. Guch o this story is true. While 'oth parties have moved to&ard their ideological poles thestronger right&ard shit o the J9: accounts or much o the increase in polariHation.

Fut there is plenty o 'lame to go around. 9ver the past decade li'erals have'ecome more li=e conservatives adopting a 3inatallcostscommitment to policy de'atesand elections. 8n doing so li'erals have 'uilt their o&nmessage machine comprised o thin= tan=s media &atchdogs megadonor net&or=s and purposivelydesigned echo cham'ers that rally strong partisans &hile demoniHing the other side.

(he inclination to ight li'erals &ill'etter serve their social and political o'Cectives 'y 3a%in% a 3ar onpolari:ation.


19/26

Information verload

Simulatin% information overload +est prepares students tocope=most valua+le s4ill19ead and Eisen+er% &&+ -lison S. Aead )oesearchBcientist in the 8normation Bchool at the *niversity o Washington @ello& at the Fer=man )enter or8nternet I Bociety and the i'rary 8nnovation a' at Aarvard *niversity holds a :h.


20/26

argumentive discourse on arguments that support their o&n positionpaying relatively little attention to the claims and arguments o theiropponent. 8t is as i they understand the o'Cective o argumentivediscourse to 'e no more than presenting the most compelling casepossi'le as to the merits o ones position 8 8 do this 'etter than my

opponent the arguer 'elieves my position &ill prevail and myopponents position &ill simply ade a&ay &ithout my ever having hadto address it. (he novice arguer thus fails to em+race the dualo'Cectives o argumentive discourse+to identiy &ea=nesses in theopponents arguments and to secure commitments rom the opponentthat can 'e used to support ones o&n claimsWalton 1!!. Foth o theseas &e have noted re,uire attention to the opponents assertions and the useo strategies to inEuence them.-re less s=illed arguersreally una&are o the relevance o the others claims to the discoursetas=? -n alternative hypothesis is that they do Tend page !1U possess somesuch a&areness.Ao&ever the discourse conteDt in &hich they must construct and

eDpress relevant Custications or the position to &hich they havecommitted themselves &hile at the same time negotiating the socialconventions o discourse is su#ciently demandin% to createco%nitive overload i they &ere at the same time to attempt toattend to the others ideas.8 this eDplanation is correct reduction o the cognitive demands created 'y thediscourse conteDt should produce a setting in &hich individuals aremore inclined to appreciate the relevance of notin% andar%uin% a%ainst the other@s claims rather than ocusing solely onones o&n claims and the arguments in support o them as &e have o'servedthem to do in argumentive discourse @elton I ;uhn 2""1 ;uhn I *dell 2""3. 8n the studies presentedhere &e in act eliminate the actual discourse conteDt entirely reducing the situation to the statement o

t&o opposing claims &ith all other cognitive compleDity and response demands minimised. 8n other &ordsemploying a su'tractive logic 'y removing discourse rom the situation &e see= to isolate and 'etteridentiy the specically cognitive demands that contri'ute to the challenge that argumentive discourseposes and there'y 'etter understand that challenge. We compare perormance across the age range rommiddle childhood through early adulthood the period during &hich the earlier argument research hassuggested the relevant s=ills are developing @eltonI ;uhn 2""1. (he specic ,uestion &e 'egin &ith inBtudy 1 is &hether there eDist developmental diferences in preerence or arguments that underta=e tostrengthen ones o&n position versus ones that underta=e to &ea=en the opponents position.

En%a%in% in opponents@ ar%uments is essential to eGectivecritical thin4in% and decisionma4in%=this is a practical8everyday s4ill1Duhn and dell +


21/26

arguments and considera+le research exists documentin% such3ea4nessesFrem I >ips 2""" ;eating 2""4 ;eeerVeitH I >esnic= 2""" ;lacHyns=i 2""";nudson 1!!2 ;uhn 1!!1;uhn Bha& I @elton 1!!7 Goshman 1!! 9rsolini 1!!3 :er=ins1!5:ontecorvo I Jirardet 1!!3 Ooss 2""1 Ooss I Geans 1!!1Weinstoc= 0e&man I (a'a= 2""4.

-rgument ho&ever can 'e 'oth product and process. -n individual constructs anargument to support a claim. (he dialogic process in &hich t&o or more people engage in de'ate oopposing claims can 'e reerred to as argumentation or argumentive discourse to distinguish it romargument as product. Gost o the empirical Tend page !"U research on argument has 'een devoted to

argument as product. Qet it is argumentive discoursethat gures more importantlyin the everyday contexts of most people@s lives. :eoples s=ill inthis respect very oten has important practical implications. Qet &e=no& relatively little a'out the nature o these discourse s=ills and &hat is entailed in their development.

(he s=ills involved in argumentive discourse appear to 'e compleD. -t the same time that oneis processing and evaluating input rom the conversational partner onemust 'e ormulating an efective response that meets discourse goals .-ccording to Walton 1!! s=illed argumentation has t&o goals. 9ne is tosecure commitments from the opponent that can 'e used tosupport ones o&n argument. (he other is to undermine the

opponent@s position 'y identiying and challenging &ea=nesses inhis or her argument. Foth o these goals note re0uire attention tothe opponent@s position and claims.


22/26

Introducin% multiple initial positions facilitates productiveinteractions that sharpen ne%otiation s4ills and +oost criticalthin4in%1radsha3 and Bo3enstein !+ Gartha S. Fradsha& :roessor and 8nterim


23/26

eda%o%y of aradox

Forcin% students to cope 3ith contradictions is valua+le=apeda%o%y of paradox increases critical thin4in% and re6exivelearnin%1Be3is and *ehler 24+ Garianne W. e&is -ssociate :roessor o Ganagement at the*niversity o )incinnati and Jordon L. arely ho&ever is there anyela'oration o &hat is meant 'y #&or=ing through$ Bmith I Ferg 1!7 p. 2"7.


24/26

The process of 3ritin% challen%es us to 3or4 throu%hcontradictions1-ardner H+ Sanet L. Jardner -ssociate :roessor o Lnglish at the *niversity o Gassachusetts at


25/26

8n individualistic situations individuals study 'oth sides o the issue 'utma=e no oral statements their conclusions are never challen%edand soTend page 75U their study tends to conesearch in Lducation -&ard rom the -merican Lducation >esearch -ssociation holds anLd.


26/26

encouraged to vie3 pro+lem environments from multipleperspectives they learn to recogniHe the critical features of thecases presented to themFransord I Bch&artH 1!!!. 8n conclusion learners arepreera'ly eDposed to a proessionally relevant conteDt and conronted&ith cases or pro'lems rom multiple perspectives and in multiple

contexts 'ecause this stimulated the transfer of 4no3led%e. 8n:F students are conronted &ith pro'lems oten highly relevant or their uture proessional practice

conditionality materials - hss 2014

Documents