SSD Cards

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010
[Tournament Name] Suo
** 2NC SSD

Decision making skills are necessary to solve existential threatsnow is uniquely key because of increasing complexity and lack of information literacy Lundberg 10 (Lundberg, Christian O., professor of communications at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, The Allred Initiative and Debate Across the Curriculum: Reinventing the Tradition of Debate at North Carolina, Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century)FS
The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities. But the democratic capacities built by debate are not limited to speech as indicated earlier,
--terminal impact
debate builds capacity for critical thinking, analysis of public claims, informed decision making, and better public judgment. If the picture of modern political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative politics, rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them, and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics, it is a puzzling solution, at best, to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate. If democracy is open to rearticulation, it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate, the citizenrys capacities can change, which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Dewey in The Public and Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 1988, 63, 154). Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modern articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them, to sort through and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly information-rich environment, and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them. The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy. John Larkin (2005, 140) argues that one of the primary failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment. This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context, but perhaps more important, argues Larkin, for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediated information environment (ibid.). Larkins study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources: To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students, we first conducted a
multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, looking jointly at the effect of instruction/no instruction and debate topic . . . that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned . . . students in the Instructional [debate] group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so. . . . These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online
searching among students who participated in [debate]. . . . These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on
students self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases. There was an unintended effect, however: After doing . . . the project, instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google. It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144) Larkins study substantiates Thomas Worthen and Gaylen Packs (1992, 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering the kind of problem-
solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity. Though their essay was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium, Worthen and Packs framing of the issue was prescient: the primary question facing todays student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials. There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation. But cumulatively, the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities. The unique combination of criticalthinking skills, research and information-processing skills, oral-communication skills, and capacities for listening and thoughtful, open engagement with hotly contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life. In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving the best goals of college and university education and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful, engaged, open-minded, and self-critical students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life. Expanding this practice is crucial, if only because the more we produce citizens who can actively and effectively engage the political process, the more likely we are to produce revisions of democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive, but to thrive and to deal with systemic threats that risk our collective extinction . Democratic societies face a myriad of challenges, including: domestic and international issues of class, gender, and racial justice; wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change; emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism, intervention, and new possibilities for great power conflict; and increasing challenges of rapid globalization, including an increasingly volatile global economic structure. More than any specific policy or proposal, an informed and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective democratic governance, and by extension, one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to
2

democracy in an increasingly complex world. Given the challenge of perfecting our collective political skill, and in drawing on the best of our collective creative intelligence, it is incumbent on us to both make the case for and, more important, to do the concrete work to realize an expanded commitment to debate at colleges and universities.

Real world decision-making skills outweigh any educational benefits Strait and Wallace 7
(Strait, L. Paul, George Mason University and Wallace, Brett, George Washington University, The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making, Policy Cures? Health Assistance to Africa, Debaters Research Guide)FS More to the point, debate certainly helps teach a lot of skills, yet we believe that t he way policy debate participation encourages you to
--decision making o/w edu.
think is the most valuable educational benefit, because how someone makes decisions determines how they will employ the rest of their abilities, including the research and communication skills that debate builds . Plenty of debate
theory articles have explained either the value of debate, or the way in which alternate actor strategies are detrimental to real-world education, but none so far have attempted to tie these concepts together. We will now explain how decision-making skill development is the foremost value
of policy debate and how this benefit is the decision-rule to resolving all theoretical discussions about negative fiat. Why debate? Some do it for
scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many just believe it is fun. These are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to join the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. Our concern is finding a framework for debate that
educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. Decision-making transcends boundaries between categories of learning like policy education and kritik education, it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions. The academic studies and research supporting this position are numerous. Richard Fulkerson (1996) explains that argumentationis the chief cognitive activity by which a democracy, a field of study, a corporation, or a committee functions. . . And it is vitally important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the arguments of others (p. 16). Stuart Yeh (1998) comes to the conclusion that debate allows even cultural minority students to identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint, and consider and respond to counterargumentsThe ability to write effective arguments influences grades, academic success, and preparation for college and employme nt (p. 49).Certainly, these are all reasons why
debate and argumentation themselves are valuable, so why is real world decision-making critical to argumentative thinking? Although people might occasionally think about problems from the position of an ideal decisionmaker (c.f. Ulrich, 1981, quoted in Korcok, 2001), in debate we should be concerned with what type of argumentative thinking is the most relevant to real-world intelligence and the decisions that people make every day in their lives, not academic trivialities. It is precisely because it is rooted inreal-world logic that argumentative thinking has value. Deanna Kuhns research in Thinking as Argument explains this by stating that no other kind of thinking matters more-or contributes more to the quality and
fulfillment of peoples lives, both individually and collectively (p. 156).

Switch side debate is key to decision-making--- it solves cognitive dissonance, studies prove Butt 10 Ph.D. in Philosophy at Wayne State University. Attended George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, graduating with degrees in International
Studies and Communication in 1993. Neil completed his Masters Degree in Communication and Policy Analysis, also from GMU, in 2000. He has coached policy debate at the high school and college level since 1988, and has taught classes at the college level since 1993, including public speaking, interpersonal and small group communication, argumentation and debate, research methods, and rhetorical criticism. (Neil Stuart, Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, (2010), Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 77. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77) RaPa Chapter 1 identified cognitive dissonance and egocentric thinking as biases that create blind spots for even skilled
--solves decision making ext.
thinkers. Research has shown that people can be taught to overcome these natural tendencies, but the training must extend beyond just teaching the skills to providing a larger framework or process for applying those skills consistently. Introducing people to external procedures, encouraging self-awareness and the ability to look at their decisions as if it was someone else, and being trained to accept criticism can overcome these bad habits (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). Egocentric thinking can also be overcome by practicing considering issues from both sides (or multiple perspectives ), teaching
people to be aware of the criteria they are using, putting both sides into a larger perspective, and teaching people to apply the standards they have learned to themselves (Elder & Paul, 2004). Debate, especially switch-side debate, allows people to separate issue from self (Greene & Hicks, 2005), which
suggests that it is exactly the kind of training that helps people avoid the kind of dissonance that disrupts their judgment. Debate provides external procedures for evaluating decisions that provide participants with a more objective checklist than their own feelings. Debate provides incentives to get used to criticism because participants regularly receive and benefit from judge or instructor feedback, and the desire for success provides an incentive for critical and honest self-reflection. Switch side debate is key to decision-making skills Butt 10 Ph.D. in Philosophy at Wayne State University. Attended George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, graduating with degrees in International
Studies and Communication in 1993. Neil completed his Masters Degree in Communication and Policy Analysis, also from GMU, in 2000. He has coached policy debate at the high school and college level since 1988, and has taught classes at the college level since 1993, including public speaking, interpersonal and small group communication, argumentation and debate, research methods, and rhetorical criticism. (Neil Stuart, Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, (2010), Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 77. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77) RaPa In sum, approaches which include switch side debate are superior to approaches focusing exclusively on argument
theory, the major criticisms of that approach are unwarranted, and while the approach can be augmented, it should not be replaced by any of the currently proposed alternatives. While t he research suggests that full participation in competitive debate as an extracurricular or co-curricular activity will do more for students than can be achieved in the classroom, argumentation and debate courses which include elements of the competitive activity, especially student research, a switch-side format, and a substantial amount of practice, can still provide many benefits . Debate, whether in the classroom or as an extracurricular activity seems to be a good way to improve the critical thinking and decision-making skills
discussed in Chapter 1.
Switch side is key to decision makingit improves info processing, argument analysis, and encourages consensus building Mitchell 10 Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh, where he also
directs the William Pitt Debating Union. (Gordon R. Mitchell, Switch-Side Debating Meets Demand-Driven Rhetoric of Science, Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 95120. http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchell2010.pdf) RaPa
Surmounting this complex epistemological dilemma requires more than sheer information processing power; it demands forms of communicative dexterity that enable translation of ideas across differences and facilitate cooperative work by interlocutors from heterogeneous backgrounds. How can such communicative dexterity be cultivated? Hart and Simon see structured argumentation as a promising tool in this regard. In their view, t he unique virtue of rigorous debates is that they support diverse points of view while encouraging consensus formation. This dual function of argumentation provides both intelligence producers and policy consumers with a view into the methodologies and associated evidence used to produce analytical product, effectively creating a common language that might help move knowledge across organizational barriers without loss of accuracy or relevance . 20 Hart and Simons insights, coupled with the previously mentioned institutional initiatives promoting switch-side debating in the intelligence community, carve out a new zone of relevance where argumentation theorys salience is pronounced and growing. Given the centrality of evidentiary analysis in this zone, it is useful to
revisit how argumentation scholars have theorized the functions of evidence in debating contexts.
Switch Side debate has been empirically proven to assist deliberation Sikkink 62 Donald E. Sikkink is chairman Department Of Speech, South Dakota Slate College, Brookings. (Donald E. Sikkink, Evidence on the both
sides debate controversy, The Speech Teacher Volume 11, Issue 1, 1962, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03634526209377194) RaPa

THE controversy over the merits of debating both sides leads to the conclusion that we have two problems.1 (1) We need research information to refute or support the assertions made in this controvers y. (2) We need a commonly
accepted definition as to the objectives and purposes of interschool debate. The following study was completed in the hope of making some limited progress in attacking the first of these problems. At the start of the 1959~6o school year, eight Directors of Debate' had their debaters indicate their
attitude on the national proposition by marking a live point scale. The five points on the scale were Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided,
Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The national proposition was Resolved: That Congress should be Given Power to Reverse Decision of the Supreme Court. At the end of the school year each director had the student complete a second form which again called for an expression of attitude on the proposition an which also asked for the side debate during that year. Eighty-one students completed both forms and the results are based on that sample. Table I gives the percentage of students marking each attitude category at the beginning and end of the debate season and also indicates average attitude. The averages were computed by assigning the following numerical values to points on the scale: Strongly Agree 5, Agree 4, Undecided 3, Disagree 2, Strongly Disagree 1. Table II indicates the specific nature of the individual attitude shifts that took place and the average shift for each category. The average shift was computed by counting each shift of one position on the scale as representing shift of one numerical point. For example a shift from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree would represent shift of 4 points. Table III provides a comparison of attitude shift for those students debating the affirmative with those who debated on the negative and those who debated both sides. So few of the students indicated they had debated only one side that the groups saying they had debated much more affirmative or negative were combined with those saying they had debated only affirmative or negative. The affirmative group consisted of seven students who had debated only affirmative and 10 students who had debated much more affirmative than negative. The negative group consisted of five students who had debated only negative and thirteen students who had debated much more negative than affirmative. Assuming the usual limitations imposed by sample size, representativeness, etc., we may tentatively make the following observations: First, we should note the
large number (46%) of the students who marked the Undecided category at the beginning of the year and the limited number of students (5% and 12%) who marked the extreme positions of Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree. A scale of the type used in
this study does not provide any real measure of attitude intensity and, as a result, we can never be quite sure what depth of attitude is involved in any category. This may be especially true of those who marked Agree and Disagree where some of these students may have strong convictions and some only the slightest of belief. However, it is probably fair to conclude that for this sample someplace between 50% to 80% of the students did not have any strong convictions or beliefs on the proposition at the beginning of the season. Second, we should note the effect of debating on these initial attitude position s. By
the end of the season a sizeable shift has taken place with the average change being in the negative direction. The Undecided category is reduced by 32% and the Disagree category is increased by 31%. It appears that debating this proposition helped the students in this sample to make up their minds . While the overall shift was negative there was some
individual shifting to the affirmative, especially by individuals who had marked extreme negative positions at the beginning of the year. We probably had two factors operating with this topic: (1) An overall tendency to shift to the negative side of the topic; and (2) A tendency to modify extreme negative positions taken at the beginning of the season. Third, it is apparent that the shift for those who debated on the negative and those who debated both sides is approximately equal. This might be expected since the overall tendency on this question was to shift in the negative direction, This result makes even more interesting what happened to those students who debated on the affirmative. We find in studying the affirmative group on percentage of affirmative shift, percentage of negative shift, and average shift, that the results appear to deviate considerably from those students who debated both sides. Contrary to the small percentage (5%) of both sides debaters shifting to a stronger affirmative position, 35% of the affirmative group shifted to a stronger affirmative position. While 58% of the both sides debaters shifted to a stronger negative position, 47% of the affirmative debaters made this shift. This is even more apparent in studying the average shift where the both sides group shifts a --.77 as compared to a -.12 for the affirmative group. We probably may conclude that the result of debating affirmative on this topic, which appears to be "negatively loaded," is strongly to reduce the tendency to shift in the negative direction and to increase the possibility of holding to ones initial attitude preference. Let us now try to apply this study to two of the issues in the both sides controversy:
Murphy argues that it is unnecessary to debate both sides in order to understand fully both since "The Debater can brief the other side. He can explore the other side and read about it. In actual debate, one can listen to the other side if he will but open his ears and his mind. The data presented here on the attitude shift for the affirmative group do not support Mr. Murphy's position. These affirmative debaters undoubtedly explored the other side, some of them probably briefed it, and they all debated; yet their shift in attitude appears to be quite different from those who verbalized both sides of the proposition. It may be that one has to take the other side verbally in order to appreciate its actual strength. A second issue is the belief that many debaters at the beginning of a season do not know enough about the topic to
take a stand. This study supports that belief, for at least 46% of the students were undecided at the beginning of the season. If we would make the assumption that only the positions of Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree represent real conviction, then we could assert that 83% of this student group did not initially take an intensive stand on this topic. If such figures represent fact, then it is possible that we may have magnified the both sides controversy far out of proportion since it may apply to so few students. While we must be fully aware of the assumptions and limitations that need to be imposed on the type of data collected, this information hints at conclusions that should be measured constantly. It hints that most of our debaters may not have strong
convictions on the topics we debate and thus the both sides issue is a minor one. If a small group of students do have absolute convictions, this may be a coaching problem where the director provides a one-sided experience for this student. The results also hint that these students may under such a system never learn to grasp fully the importance of the opposition point of view. Here a new controversy may be started with the assertion that a coach may have an "ethical
responsibility to force his students to debate both sides in order that the full impact of the debate experience be achieved. I will wait to make this 180 degree turn in the direction of the original argument when more evidence is presented either supporting or destroying the speculations which have been presented.
The skills of switch side debate make us better decision-makers Muir 93 Communication studies at George Mason University (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.
26, No. 4 (1993), pp. 277-295, ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40237780) RaPa
The isolation of debate from the real world is a much more potent challenge to the activity. There are indeed "esoteric"
techniques, special terminologies, and procedural constraints that limit the applicability of debate knowledge and skills to the rest of the student's life. The first and most obvious rejoinder is that debate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read
a great deal of information from popular periodicals, scholarly books and Journals, government documents, reports, newsletters, and daily newspapers. Debaters also frequently seek out and query administrators, policy makers, and
6

public personae to gain more data. The constant consumption of material by, from, and about the real world is significantly constitutive: The information grounds the issues under discussion, and the process shapes the relationship of the citizen to the public arena. Debaters can become more involved than uninformed Citizens because they know about important issues, and because they know how to find out more information about these issues. Switch-side debating is not peripheral to this value. A thorough research effort is guided in large part by the knowledge that both sides of the issues must be covered. Where a particular controversy might involve affirmative
research among conservative sources, the negative must research the liberal perspective. Where scientific studies predominate in justifying a particular policy, research in cultural studies may be necessary to counter the adoption of the policy. Debating a ban on the teaching of creationism in public schools, for example, forces research on the scientific consensus on evolution, the viability of theological grounds for public policy, and a consideration of the nature of science itself . A primary value of switch-side debate, that of encouraging research skills, is fundamentally an attachment to the "real world," and is enhanced by requiring debaters to investigate both sides of an issue. A second response to the charge of segmentation is the proclivity of
debaters to become involved in public policy and international affairs . Although the stereotype is that debaters become lawyers, students seeking other professional areas also see value in the skills of debate . Business management, government, politics, international relations, teaching, public policy, and so on, are ail significant career options for debaters. In surveys, ex-debaters frequently respond that debate was the single most educational activity of their college careers. Most classes provide information, but debate compels the use, assimilation, and evaluation of information that is not required in most classrooms . As one debate alumnus writes:
"The lessons learned and the experience gained have been more valuable to me than any other aspect of my formal education."31 It is no wonder, then, that surveys of Congress and other policy-making institutions reveal a high percentage of exdebaters. 32 The argument that debate isolates participants from the "real world" is not sustained in practice when debaters, trained in research, organization, strategy, and technique, are consistently effective in integrating these skills into success on the job. Even the specialized jargon required to play the game successfully has
benefits in terms of analyzing and understanding society's Problems. Consider the terminology of the "disadvantage" against the affirmative's plan: There
is a "link" between the plan and some effect, or "impact"; the link can be actions that push us over some "threshold" to an impact, or it can be a "linear" relationship where each increase causes an increase in the impact; the link from the affirmative plan to the impact must be "unique," in that the plan itself is largely responsible for the impact; the affirmative may argue a "turnaround" to the disadvantage, claiming it as an advantage for the plan. Such s pecialized
jargon may separate debate talk from other types of discourse, but the ideas represented here are also significant and useful for analyzing the relative desirability of public policies. There really are threshold and brink issues in evaluating public policies. Though listening to debaters talk is somewhat disconcerting for a lay person, familiarity with these concepts is an essential means of connecting the research they do with the evaluation of options confronting Citizens and decision makers in political and social contexts. This familiarity is directly related to the motivation and the ability to get involved in issues and controversies of public importance. A third point about isolation from the real world is that switchside debate develops habits of the mind and instills a lifelong pattern of critical assessment. Students who have debated both sides of a topic are better voters, Dell writes, because of "their habit of analyzing both sides before forming a conclusion ."33 O'Neill, Laycock and Scales, responding in part to
Roosevelt's indictment, iterated the basic position in 1931: Skill in the use of facts and inferences available may be gained on either side of a question without regard to convictions. Instruction and practice in debate should give young men this skill. And where these matters are properly handled, stress is not laid on getting the speaker to think rightly in regard to the merits of either side of these questions but to think accurately on both sides.34 Reasons for not
taking a position counter to one's beliefs (isolation from the "real world," sophistry) are largely outweighed by the benefit of such mental habits throughout an individual's life. The jargon, strategies, and techniques may be alienating to "outsiders," but they are also paradoxically integrative as well . Playing the game of debate involves certain skills, including research and policy evaluation, that evolve along with a debater's consciousness of the complexities of moral and political dilemmas. This conceptual development is a basis for the formation of ideas and relational thinking necessary for effective public decision making, making even the game of debate a significant benefit in solving real world problems. Switch side debate encourages better analysis and engages debaters Zainuddin and Moore 3
(Zainuddin, Hanizah, professor at Florida Atlantic University, and Moore, Rashid, professor at Nova Southeastern University, Enhancing Critical Thinking with Structured Controversial Dialogues, The TESL Journal, http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zainuddin-Controversial.html)FS Structured controversy can enhance the development of many skills that are central to academic learning. These
skills include: searching for information and new experiences to resolve a dilemma or an uncertainty; organizing information; preparing an advocacy position and rationalizing the position; seeing issues from a different perspective and learning to debate the merits of each position ; and synthesizing issues and conceptualizing a new position or reaching consensus based on careful analysis and evaluation of all positions of the issue. By using structured controversy, students' curiosity for searching for solutions to the problem will be sparked, engaging them in active learning that will help develop their understanding and appreciation of diverse points of views . It also requires students to use complex reasoning and critical thinking skills . As a result, students are exposed to a greater range of ideas that will help them to generate creative solutions and new conclusions to their controversial problem .

Switch Side debating has had real world influences on decision making the EPA has used it to learn more about the path necessary for addressing environmental crises Mitchell 10 Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh, where he also
directs the William Pitt Debating Union. (Gordon R. Mitchell, Switch-Side Debating Meets Demand-Driven Rhetoric of Science, Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 95120. http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchell2010.pdf) RaPa T h e U.S. intelligence communitys Analytic Outreach initiative implements what Ronald Walter Greene and Darrin Hicks call switch-
--real world
side debatinga critical thinking exercise where interlocutors temporarily suspend belief in their convictions to bring forth multiple angles of an argument. Drawing on Foucault, Greene and Hicks classify switch-side debating as a cultural technology, one laden with ideological baggage. Specifically, they claim that switch-side debating is invested with an ethical substance and that participation in the activity inculcates ethical obligations intrinsic to the technology, including political liberalism and a worldview colored by American exceptionalism. On first blush, the fact that a deputy U.S. director of national intelligence is attempting to deploy this cultural technology to strengthen secret intelligence tradecraft in support of U.S. foreign policy would seem to qualify as Exhibit B in support of Greene and Hickss general thesis. Yet the picture grows more complex when one considers what is happening over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where environmental scientist Ibrahim Goodwin is collaborating with John W. Davis on a project that uses switch-side debating to clean up air and water. In April 2008, that initiative brought top intercollegiate debaters from four universities to Washington, D.C., for a series of debates on the topic of water quality, held for an audience of EPA subject matter experts working on interstate river pollution and bottled water issues. An April 2009 follow-up event in Huntington Beach, California, featured another debate weighing the relative merits of monitoring versus remediation as beach pollution strategies. We use nationally ranked intercollegiate debate programs to research and present the arguments, both pro and con, devoid of special interest in the outcome, explains Davis. In doing so, agency representatives now remain squarely within the decision-making role thereby neutralizing overzealous advocacy that can inhibit learned discourse. The intelligence community and EPA debating
initiatives vary quite a bit simply by virtue of the contrasting policy objectives pursued by their sponsoring agencies (foreign policy versus environmental protection). Significant process-level differences mark of the respective initiatives as well; the former project entails largely one-way interactions designed to sluice insight from open sources to intelligence analysts working in classified environments and producing largely secret assessments. In contrast, the EPAs debating initiative is conducted through public forums in a policy process required by law to be transparent. h is granularity troubles Greene and Hickss deterministic framing of switch-side debate as an ideologically smooth and consistent cultural technology. In an alternative approach, this essay positions debate as a malleable method of decision making, one utilized by different actors in myriad ways to pursue various purposes. By bringing forth the texture inherent in the associated messy mangle of practice, 8 such an approach has potential to deepen our understanding of debate as a dynamic and contingent, rather than static, form of rhetorical performance. Juxtaposition of the intelligence community and EPA debating initiatives
illuminates additional avenues of inquiry that take overlapping elements of the two projects as points of departure.
Both tackle complex, multifaceted, and technical topics that do not lend themselves to reductionist, formal analysis, and both tap into the creative energy latent in what Protagoras of Abdera called dissoi logoi, the process of learning about a controversial or unresolved issue by airing opposing viewpoints. 9 In
short, these institutions are employing debate as a tool of deliberation, seeking outside expertise to help accomplish their aims. Such trends provide an occasion to revisit a presumption commonly held among theorists of deliberative democracythat debate and deliberation are fundamentally opposed practice sas the intelligence communitys Analytic Outreach program and the EPAs debating initiatives represent examples where debating exercises are designed to facilitate, not frustrate, deliberative goals. Switch side debate is key to real world decision-making about complex issuesEPA public debate proves Mitchell 10 Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh, where he also
directs the William Pitt Debating Union. (Gordon R. Mitchell, Switch-Side Debating Meets Demand-Driven Rhetoric of Science, Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 95120. http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchell2010.pdf) RaPa A debate scholar need not agree with Lords full-throated criticism of the intelligence community (he goes on to observe that it bears an alarming resemblance to organized crime) to understand that participation in the communitys Analytic Outreach program may
serve the ends of deliberation, but not necessarily democracy, or even a defensible politics. Demand-driven rhetoric of science necessarily raises
questions about whats driving the demand, questions that scholars with relevant expertise would do well to ponder carefully before embracing invitations to contribute their argumentative expertise to deliberative projects. By the same token, i t would be prudent to bear in mind that the
technological determinism about switch-side debate endorsed by Greene and Hicks may tend to latten reflexive assessments regarding the wisdom of supporting a given debate initiative as the next section illustrates, manifest differences
among initiatives warrant context-sensitive judgments regarding the normative political dimensions featured in each case.106 Rhetoric & Public Affairs Public Debates in the EPA Policy Process h e preceding analysis of U.S. intelligence community debating initiatives highlighted how analysts are challenged to navigate discursively the heteroglossia of vast amounts of different kinds of data lowing through intelligence streams. Public policy planners are
tested in like manner when they attempt to stitch together institutional arguments from various and sundry inputs ranging from expert testimony, to historical precedent, to public comment. Just as intelligence managers find that algorithmic,
formal methods of analysis ot en dont work when it comes to the task of interpreting and synthesizing copious amounts of disparate data, public-policy planners encounter similar challenges. In fact, the argumentative turn in public-policy planning elaborates an approach to
public-policy analysis that foregrounds deliberative interchange and critical thinking as alternatives to decisionism, the formulaic application of objective decision algorithms to the public policy process. Stating the matter plainly, Majone suggests,
8

[Tournament Name]
whether
Suo
in written or oral form, argument is central in all stages of the policy process . Accordingly, he notes, we miss a great deal if we try to understand policy-making solely in terms of power, influence, and bargaining, to the exclusion of debate and argument. 51 One can see similar rationales driving Goodwin and Daviss EPA debating project, where debaters are
invited to conduct on-site public debates covering resolutions crafted to reflect key points of stasis in the EPA decision-making process. For example, in the 2008 Water Wars debates held at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., resolutions were crafted to focus attention on the topic of
water pollution, with one resolution focusing on downstream states authority to control upstream states discharges and sources of pollutants, and a second resolution exploring the policy merits of bottled water and toilet paper taxes as revenue sources to fund water infrastructure projects. In the first debate on interstate river pollution, the team of Seth Gannon and Seungwon Chung from Wake Forest University argued in favor of downstream state control, with the Michigan State University team of Carly Wunderlich and Garrett Abelkop providing opposition. In the second debate on taxation policy, Kevin Kallmyer and Matthew Struth from University of Mary Washington defended taxes on bottled water and toilet paper, while their opponents from Howard University, Dominique Scott and Jarred McKee, argued against this proposal. Relecting on the project, Goodwin noted how the intercollegiate debaters ability to act as honest brokers in the policy arguments contributed positively to internal EPA deliberation on both issues. 52 Davis observed that since the invited debaters didnt have a dog in the fight, they were able to give voice to previously buried arguments that some EPA subject matter experts felt reticent to elucidate because of their institutional affiliations. 53 Such findings are consistent with the views of policy analysts advocating the argumentative turn in policy planning. As Majone claims, Dialectical confrontation between generalists and experts often succeeds in bringing out unstated assumptions, conflicting interpretations of the facts, and the risks posed by new projects. 54 Frank Fischer goes even further in this context, explicitly appropriating rhetorical scholar Charles Willards concept of argumentative
epistemics to flesh out his vision for policy studies: Uncovering the epistemic dynamics of public controversies would allow for a more enlightened understanding of what is at stake in a particular dispute, making possible a sophisticated evaluation of the various viewpoints and merits of different policy options. In so doing, the differing, often tacitly held contextual perspectives and values could be juxtaposed; the viewpoints and demands of experts, special interest groups, and the wider public could be directly compared; and the dynamics among the participants could be scrutizined. This would by no means sideline or even exclude scientific assessment; it would only situate it within the framework of a more comprehensive evaluation. 55 As Davis notes, institutional constraints present within the EPA communicative milieu can complicate ef orts to provide a full airing of all relevant arguments pertaining to a given regulatory issue. Thus, intercollegiate debaters can play key roles in retrieving and amplifying positions that might
otherwise remain sedimented in the policy process.The dynamics entailed in this symbiotic relationship are underscored by deliberative
planner John Forester, who observes, If planners and public administrators are to make democratic political debate and argument possible, they will need strategically located allies to avoid being fully thwarted by the characteristic self-protecting behaviors of the planning organizations and bureaucracies within which they work. 56 Here, an institutions need for strategically located allies to support deliberative practice constitutes the demand for rhetorically informed expertise, setting up what can be considered a demand-driven rhetoric of science. As an instance of rhetoric of science
scholarship, this type of switch-side public debate 57 differs both from insular contest tournament debating, where the main focus is on
the pedagogical benefit for student participants, and first-generation rhetoric of science scholarship, where critics concentrated on unmasking the rhetoricity of scientific artifacts circulating in what many perceived to be purely technical spheres of knowledge production. 58 As a form of demand-driven rhetoric of science, switch-side debating connects directly with the communication fields performative tradition of
argumentative engagement in public controversya different route of theoretical grounding than rhetorical criticisms tendency to locate its foundations in the English fields tradition of literary criticism and textual analysis. 59 Given this genealogy, it is not surprising to learn how Daviss response to the EPAs institutional need for rhetorical expertise took the form of
a public debate proposal, shaped by Daviss dual background as a practitioner and historian of intercollegiate debate. Davis competed as an undergraduate policy debater for Howard University in the 1970s, and then went on to enjoy substantial success as coach of the Howard team in the new millennium. In an essay reviewing the broad sweep of debating history, Davis notes, Academic debate began at least 2,400 years ago when the scholar Protagoras of Abdera (481411 bc), known as the father of debate, conducted debates among his students in Athens. 60 As John Poulakos points out, older Sophists such as Protagoras taught Greek students the value of dissoi logoi, or pulling apart complex questions by
debating two sides of an issue. 61 The few surviving fragments of Protagorass work suggest that his notion of dissoi logoi stood for the principle that two accounts [logoi] are present about every thing, opposed to each other, and further, that humans could measure the relative soundness of knowledge claims by engaging in give-and-take where parties would make the weaker argument stronger to activate the generative aspect of rhetorical practice , a
key element of the Sophistical tradition. 62

Switch side debate is essential to critical thinking skills Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
defense of switch side debate, http://dspace.zsr.wfu.edu/jspui/bitstream/10339/207/1/harrigancd052008, p. 57-59)RaPa
-critical thinking
Critics of SSD have argued that debating both sides is a tactic of cooption by dominant beliefs because speaking on behalf of evil ideas moderates extreme views. Instead of sharpening and refining the prior beliefs of debaters, the argument goes, engaging in switch side debating changes the beliefs of students, slowly drawing them close[r] to the middle (Massey 2006). Mirroring the broader critical move toward a depoliticized expression of struggles, they argue that this is undesirable
because only extreme views are pure, in the sense that they avoid entanglement in bureaucratic 36 structures of government (Boggs 1997, p. 773). Essentially, the argument boils down to brainwashin g: switching sides causes students to abandon their original
(presumably correct) beliefs in favor of more moderate and less politically effective idea s. Three responses effectively dispatch with this criticism and support the benefits of SSD. First, the foundational premise of the case for switch side debating indicts the notion that true conviction can be held prior to a rigorous analysis of all sides of an issue through debating both sides. As far back as A. C. Baird (1955), proponents of switch side debating have argued that conviction was a result of reasoned consideration of the issues surrounding a particular policy rather than a pre-condition for it . For instance, Baird argues, Sound conviction... should stem from mature reflection. Discussion and debate facilitate the maturing of such reflective thinking and conviction (1955, p. 6). Many debaters, especially those new to collegiate debate, do not yet have calcified opinions about many controversial subjects. Instead, they develop their beliefs over time, as they spend time thinking through the nuances of each relevant argument in preparation for competitive debating . By arguing on behalf of both the affirmative and the negative sides of a given resolution, switch side debaters are exposed to many avenues to test their initial thoughts on controversial subjects. Traditionally, the formation of belief in this manner has coincided more closely with the meaning of conviction . Defined as beliefs that are formed as a result of exposing
fallacies through the give-and-take of rebuttal, sound convictions can only be truly generated by the reflexive thinking spurred by debating both sides.
While some students may honestly believe that they have thoroughly considered the merits of a particular opinion before arguing for or against it in a debate, experimenting with ideas in a competitive SSD is still a necessary endeavor. Only in debate, a relatively isolated political space, are many arguments able to be presented in an ideally open, no-holdsbarred manner (Coverstone 1995). Moreover, when faced with the prospect of being forced to advocate a position, students receive the necessary motivation (through competitive and other impulses) to thoroughly research all of the complexities of a given subject. Also, through the requirement of advocacy, students are encouraged to actively listen, a crucial element of rich argumentative engagement (Lacy 2002). In the end, the switch side debater emerges with a deeper understanding of more sides of an issue and may be ready to come to some degree of conclusion and conviction about which side to support. Conviction generated through debating both sides is almost universally preferable to dogmatic and non-negotiable assertions of belief (Baird 1955, p. 6). Switching sides grounds belief in reasonable reflective thinking; it teaches that decisions should not be rendered until all positions and possible consequences have been considered in a reasoned manner. This method is closely linked to the value that debate places on critical thinking. Unsurprisingly, many authors have noted the importance of SSD for generating such
rigorous decision-making skills (Muir 1993; Parcher 1998; Rutledge 2002; Speice & Lyle 2003; English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods 2007).
The critical thinking taught by SSD provides the ultimate check against dangerous forms of cooption. Over time, certain arguments will prevail over others only if they have a strong enough logical foundation to withstand thorough scrutiny. Debaters will change their minds to support the moderate side of certain positions only ifafter reasoned reflection and sound convictiondoing so is found to be preferable. While such a marketplace of ideas may be marked by some imperfections, one of its most effective incarnations is undoubtedly in academic debate rounds. There, appeals to wealth, status, and power are minimized by a focus on logic and formal rules, which protect the ability of all participants to contribute in an honest and open manner. As a result , it should be assumed that the insights generated through debates dialectic process will be generally correct and that any shifting beliefs are the reflection of a social good (the replacement of false ideas with truth). Conceiving of conviction in this manner redefines the role of debate into what Baird calls an
educational procedure: the formation of a pedagogical playground to experiment with alternative ideas and coalesce assertions and unwarranted beliefs into sound conviction (1966, p. 6). Treating debate as a training ground for advocacy and decision-making has several benefits:
it allows debaters the conceptual flexibility to experiment with minority and extreme ideas, protects them from outside influences, and buys them time before they are forced to publicly put forward their opinion s (Coverstone 1995). As a result, the primary focus of the activity shifts from arguing to deciding, giving critical thinking its crucial importance. A fundamental premise of the anti-SSDs claim about cooption is thoroughly indicted: it is impossible to lose ones convictions before they have truly been discovered. Critical thinking is at an all-time low--- reversing that trend now prevents serial policy failure and combats cognitive biases Butt 10 Ph.D. in Philosophy at Wayne State University. Attended George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, graduating with degrees in International
Studies and Communication in 1993. Neil completed his Masters Degree in Communication and Policy Analysis, also from GMU, in 2000. He has coached policy debate at the high school and college level since 1988, and has taught classes at the college level since 1993, including public speaking, interpersonal
10

and small group communication, argumentation and debate, research methods, and rhetorical criticism. (Neil Stuart, Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, (2010), Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 77. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77) RaPa Given the obvious importance of critical thinking and decision-making, the attention they have received in our educational system is not surprising. Despite this attention, critical thinking levels are disappointingly low in the United States. Recent studies show students score
low on tests of critical thinking ability (Brannigan, 2009; Krueger, 2009) and, more specifically, students demonstrate an inability to understand and evaluate arguments (Shellenbarger, 2009; Viadero, 2009). Even experts are susceptible to erroneous decisions due to lapses in critical thinking (Gilovich, 1991). In addition to lacking certain critical thinking skills, people also allow certain obstacles to interfere with their critical thinking ability . For example, Elder and Paul (2007) note that most people not taught to think analytically. Instead, they are conditioned to make certain responses, rather than think freely and reflexively, and are often motivated by fear or other emotions (Paul & Elder, 2006a). Additionally, due to cognitive dissonance, people have a hard time accepting that they have made a bad decision because it conflicts with their view of themselves as intelligent (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). This is consistent with Elder and Pauls (2004) observation that people are susceptible to what they call egocentric thinking, privileging their own perceptions and intuitions over those of others. Unfortunately, people are unaware of these egocentric assumptions unless they are trained to recognize them, and this creates blind spots for otherwise skilled thinkers. As a result, people have a natural tendency to ignore their own mistakes, which not only lead to policy failures and exacerbate them, but also can hinder opportunities to correct those mistakes (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). Increasing complexity means that critical thinking is necessary to solve global problems Butt 10 Ph.D. in Philosophy at Wayne State University. Attended George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, graduating with degrees in International
Studies and Communication in 1993. Neil completed his Masters Degree in Communication and Policy Analysis, also from GMU, in 2000. He has coached policy debate at the high school and college level since 1988, and has taught classes at the college level since 1993, including public speaking, interpersonal and small group communication, argumentation and debate, research methods, and rhetorical criticism. (Neil Stuart, Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, (2010), Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 77. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77) RaPa According to Paul and Willsen (1995), peoples desire for predictability and stability often encourage them to look backward
for tried and true answers, but since the world constantly changes, and new technology accelerates that change, the past can not always serve as a reliable guide, so people have to continually reassess their environment and their approaches to it. Makau and Marty (2001) have argued that, while we cannot control all of these changing external circumstances, we can respond to them proactively through critical thinking, allowing people to retain some control, and to meaningfully change their minds and their lives (p. 11). They argued that it is a source of empowerment and critical for people attempting to transform their own lives. Some might argue that not everyone needs to be able to deal with complex issuesthat it is the role of policy makers and their advisers; ordinary citizens do not have to be able to evaluate the same kinds of complex public policy question s. There are a number of problems with this objection. First, even though it is true that not everyone will become a leader or policy decision maker, in a democratic system, everyone still has to vote for the people who will become those decision-makers or who will appoint those decision-makers . The voting
process works much better if people know enough about the issues to evaluate the candidates (even though it is unrealistic to expect them to have the same level of expertise as those candidates). Second, we have to provide an opportunity for the people who will become leaders and
policymakers to develop their decision-making skills, and since we don't know ahead of time who these people will be we need to make these opportunities as widely available as possible. The more people we have with these skills, the more options we will have when it comes time to choose our leaders and decision-makers. Third, reaching as many students as possible also helps avoid dangers that could develop because of disparities in critical thinking ability. For example, 14 Paul and Willsen (1995) have argued that reaching a large segment of the public is necessary to prevent an ideological elite from dominating and oppressing the rest of the population: Critical thinking is ancient, but until now its practice was for the elite minority, for the few. But the few, in possession of superior power of disciplined thought, used it as one might only expect, to advance the interests of the few. We can never expect the few to become the longterm benevolent caretakers of the many. The many must become privy to the superior intellectual abilities, discipline, and traits of the traditional privileged few. Progressively, the power and accessibility of critical thinking will become more and more apparent to more and more people, particularly to those who have had limited access to the educational opportunities available to the fortunate few. (p. 16) Fourth, decision-making skills are useful to everyone, even if we limit decision-making to the context of making policy decisions. While we normally think of policymaking as referring to national or international policies, the term really just means a course of action or a plan. Everyone has to make decisions about what
they're going to do and decisions about what college to attend or which apartment to rent involves comparing advantages and disadvantages just as certainly as decisions about national and international policy do.
11

Our model of switch-side debate is on-balance good because it fosters critical thinking skills and expands our knowledge. Keller, et. al, 01 Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago
(Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost) The results of the surveys suggest that debates have value as an active learning strategy to enhance student learning. On survey questions and in written comments, students debates as a class assignment. Most indicated that participation
--ext. solves critical thinking
expressed satisfaction with the debates. The majority of students were pleased with the in the debates raised the level of their policy skills and
knowledge. In addition, the educational value of debates was rated as higher than more traditional assignments. It should be noted, however, that a desire
to report favorably on class experiences may have influenced reported satisfaction with the debates (i.e., acquiescence bias). Student comments supported the view that debates promote critical thinking by encouraging serious consideration of both sides of a policy
issue. Comments also indicated that the active learning approach had generated more classroom interest and energy than usual. On the other hand, some
comments noted how the debates might have detracted from a positive learning experience. All four hypotheses regarding changes in student-rated knowledge were supported by the analysis. Students reported statistically significant increases in knowledge on topics covered
during the course--a result which is reassuring for the instructors. Gains in self-reported knowledge from simply observing debates were equivalent to
gains based on traditional forms of instruction. Observing a debate appears comparable to acquiring information through a class lecture or discussion. By contrast, debate participation generated significantly greater increases in self-reported knowledge than were
obtained by observing debates or by learning through traditional forms of instruction. This result , which is consistent with the principles of experiential learning, suggests the educational advantage of using debates to engage students in learning.
The findings are noteworthy considering the use of conservative nonparametric statistics on a small sample. However, the results should be interpreted somewhat cautiously due to certain study limitations. First, the dependent variable was self-reported and highly subjective in nature. The study did not contain objective measures of knowledge, and the findings pertain only to students' self-perceptions of their knowledge regarding particular topics. Second, although attrition from pretest to posttest was not associated with the pretest measures, differential attrition related to unmeasured factors, including objective knowledge of the topics, is a potential source of bias. Third, the assumption of independence among cases may be questionable given that students worked closely as members of debate teams. Finally, other plausible explanations for the general increase in knowledge over time, besides taking the class, cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the differential improvement in self-rated knowledge in favor of debaters would still be a credible finding, and this was a main objective of the analysis. Conclusion The purposes of this article were to examine the potential of student debates for fostering the development of policy practice knowledge and skills, to demonstrate that debates can be effectively incorporated as an in-class assignment in a policy course, and to report findings on the educational value and level of student satisfaction with debates. Based on a review of the literature, the authors' experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors think debates on important policy
questions have numerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to investigate and analyze competing alternatives, compelling them to advocate a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning process.
However, the use of debates in a classroom setting is not without certain drawbacks. Schroeder and Ebert (1983) noted several limitations which were also encountered in this experience. First, staging debates presents logistical challenges for the instructor. These administrative concerns include creating teams, selecting topics, determining the debate format, and scheduling. Second, the amount of time devoted to the specific topic of a debate can detract from covering a wider scope of course material. Third, although debating encourages the examination of issues from two opposing positions, many policy dilemmas can be approached from several angles. A structured debate does not necessarily foster a multidimensional examination of policy options. Fourth, as in most group projects, some debate team members may have contributed more to the effort than others. Finally, the competitive aspects of debating may polarize the issue. For those interested in using debates as an instructional technique, the importance of thorough advance planning with respect to the mechanics of conducting the debates must be stressed. Flexibility to make adjustments during the process is equally important. Special attention should be given to debriefing sessions after debates to discuss perceptions of the debate experience, areas of common agreement, and possibilities for policy compromise and consensus. The integration of opposing views into a coherent and purposeful course of action is a central feature of the theoretical framework presented earlier, and students expressed a need for more resolution and closure. For example, one student suggested, "I think it would be more effective to do an active brainstorming/planning session for identifying solutions/alternatives following the debates." The final word on debates should come from students themselves. In the debriefing session immediately following a debate, one student stated,
"I thought the debate was good because it forced me to articulate the position, and that is something we will need to do to be advocates." Another student described how her opinion of debating changed, "When I first heard about this assignment, I really
questioned its value. I thought it would be a waste of class time. But I learned so much about family preservation services. I learned more than I ever would have any other way."
12

Switch side debate solves dogmatism and prevents authoritative discourseturns why the aff is key Hanghoj 8 Thorkild Hanghj, Copenhagen, 2008 Since this PhD project began in 2004, the present author has been affiliated with DREAM (Danish
Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials), which is located at the Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. Research visits have taken place at the Centre for Learning, Knowledge, and Interactive Technologies (L-KIT), the Institute of Education at the University of Bristol and the institute formerly known as Learning Lab Denmark at the School of Education, University of Aarhus, where I currently work as an assistant professor. http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf Herm
-dogmatism
One of the key elements of dialogical pedagogy, and consequently a dialogical game pedagogy, is based upon the Bakhtinian notion of authority. In his writings, Bakhtin often distinguishes between authoritative discourse and internally persuasive discourse (Bakhtin, 1981, 1984a). Authoritative discourse refers to those forms of language use which present themselves as unchallengeable orthodoxy by formulating positions that are not open to debate. Bakhtinexemplifies this with political dogma that demands our unconditional allegiance (Bakhtin, 1981: 343). According to Eugene Matusov, classroom examples of authoritative discourse also include intolerance, speaking for others, an unwillingness to listen to and genuinely question others, the failure to test ones own ideas and assumptions, and the desire to impose ones own views on others (Matusov, 2007: 231). Internally persuasive discourse, in contrast, refers to language use directed towards mutual communication and the mutual construction of knowledge: In the everyday rounds of our consciousness, the internally persuasive word is half-ours and halfsomeone-else's (Bakhtin, 1981: 345). In this way, internally persuasive discourse marks a creative border zone based on the impossibility of any word ever being final, and for this reason it is able to reveal ever newer ways to mean (Bakhtin, 1981: 346). But internally persuasive discourse cannot be reduced to the mere appropriation of the ideas and words of others, as it requires the ability to be involved in and embody how diverse voices collide with each other in a dialogue that tests these ideas (Matusov, 2007: 230). Thus, internally persuasive discourse always requires some form of dialogical and critical exposure that can be supported by the interplay of different voices in a classroom setting.
13

--dogmatism ext.
Argument deliberation on a topic from multiple perspectives is keythe alternative is polarization and dogmatism Talisse 5
(Talisse, Robert, philosophy professor at Vanderbilt, Deliberativist Response to Activist Challenges, Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol 31, no.4)FS
Group polarization is a well-documented phenomenon that has been found all over the world and in many diverse tasks; it means that members of a deliberating group predictably move towards a more extreme point in the direction indicated by the members predeliberation tendencies (Sunstein, 2003: 812). Importantly, in groups that engage in repeated discussions over time, the polarization is even more pronounced (2003: 86). Hence discussion in a small but devoted activist enclave that meets regularly to strategize and protest should produce a situation in which individuals hold positions more extreme than those of any individual member before the series of deliberations began (ibid.).17 The fact of group polarization is relevant to our discussion because the activist has proposed that he may reasonably decline to engage in discussion with those with whom he disagrees in cases in which the requirements of justice are so clear that he can be confident that he has the truth. Group polarization suggests that deliberatively confronting those with whom we disagree is essential even when we have the truth. For even if we have the truth, if we do not engage opposing views, but instead deliberate only with those with whom we agree, our view will shift progressively to a more extreme point, and thus we lose the truth. In order to avoid polarization, deliberation must take place within heterogeneous argument pools (Sunstein, 2003: 93). This of course does not mean that there should be no groups devoted to the achievement of some common political goal; it rather suggests that engagement with those with whom one disagrees is essential to the proper pursuit of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable. We must have a forum with which to test ideasactivism becomes hollow and obstructive when it refuses to engage in a discussion on both sides on an issue. This is the best education for activism outside of debate. Talisse 5
(Talisse, Robert, philosophy professor at Vanderbilt, Deliberativist Response to Activist Challenges, Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol 31, no.4)FS The argument thus far might appear to turn exclusively upon different conceptions of what reasonableness entails. The deliberativist view I have sketched holds that reasonableness involves some degree of what we may call epistemic modesty. On this view, the reasonable citizen seeks to have her
beliefs reflect the best available reasons, and so she enters into public discourse as a way of testing her views against the objections and questions of those who disagree; hence she implicitly holds that her present view is open to reasonable critique and that others who hold opposing views may be able to offer justifications for their views that are at least as strong as her reasons for her own. Thus any mode of politics that presumes that discourse is extraneous to questions of justice and justification is unreasonable. The activist sees no reason to accept this. Reasonableness for the activist consists in
the ability to act on reasons that upon due reflection seem adequate to underwrite action; discussion with those who disagree need not be involved.
According to the activist, there are certain cases in which he does in fact know the truth about what justice requires and in which there is no room for reasoned objection. Under such conditions, the deliberativists demand for discussion can only obstruct justice; it is therefore irrational . It may seem that we have reached an impasse. However, there is a further line of criticism that the activist must face. To the activists view that at least in certain situations he may reasonably decline to engage with persons he disagrees with (107), the deliberative democrat can raise the phenomenon that Cass Sunstein has called group polarization (Sunstein, 2003; 2001a: ch. 3; 2001b: ch. 1). To explain: consider that political activists cannot eschew deliberation altogether ; they often engage in rallies, demonstrations, teach-ins, workshops, and other activities in which they are called to make public the case for their views. Activists also must engage in deliberation among themselves when deciding strategy. Political movements must be organized, hence those involved must decide upon targets, methods, and tactics; they must also decide upon the content of their pamphlets and the precise messages they most wish to convey to the press. Often the audience in both of these deliberative contexts will be a self-selected
and sympathetic group of like-minded activists.
Switch side is key to meaningful dialogue Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
It has been argued that many of the benefits of switching sides could theoretically be achieved through alternative means (Murphy 1957; 1963). After all, debaters should live well-rounded lives and have many academic pursuits outside of the competitive arena. The
benefits of tolerance and critical thinking generated through intensive research and understanding of the oppositions arguments might be created by simply spending time reading and understanding multiple sides of complex positions. Practice rounds that simulate actual debating but are conducted in the privacy and seclusion of the debate office away from public tournaments can expand debaters experiences without requiring SSD. All of this, the anti-SSD
advocates such as Murphy say, can capture the benefit of debating both sides without risking its ethical or social downsides. However, even if many of the strengths of switch side debate can be achieved in other ways, it does not
14

mean that they necessarily would be. Some students will seek out avenues to broaden their range of thinking and encounter beliefs that are contrary to their own. Others will not. For many students, the competitive aspects of contest debating are the primary motivation for their initial engagement with the tedious and complex literature featured in policy debates. Without the push of SSD and the competitive drive associated with wins and loses of competitive contest debating, most would not step outside their narrow personal beliefs and enter into a meaningful dialogue with opposing arguments. The task of educators is to make the tough choices about how to direct the learning of their
students in order to maximize their educational benefit. SSD is a timetested way to do that.
Switch side is a forum for empathy taking into account other peoples perspectives is unique to the activity Bile 2K Jeffrey Thomas Bile (MA, Eastern Illinois University) is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Interpersonal Communication at Ohio University.
(Jeffrey Thomas, REASONING TOGETHER AS DIALECTICAL PARTNERS! "BEYOND PERSUASION" TOWARD "COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION", Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 2000, http://www.cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/254/238) RaPa
In our contentious culture, we surely need better ways to begin to discuss the issues without one side being against another (Griffin 101). If we took this approach, we could have discussions that center on the complexity of issues, what their implications are, who might
be affected and in what ways, and on how one choice over another changes the issue itself. So, I think the issue of the "resolution" needs to be reconsidered from an invitational framework as well. (Griffin 101). l agree completely that these are worthwhile goals. Certainly, contemporary social
problems are not as simple as our dualistic debates often imply. Before discarding binary topics too quickly, however, we should consider their contextual effects. When combined with the requirement of switching sides, two-sided topics expand the possibilities for discovering that those with whom we disagree might have tenable positions after all. Empathic learning is encouraged, then, when students agree to disagree in the context of debate tournaments. A related issue, deserving much further exploration, is the problematic of counter-attitudinal advocacy created by mandatory side switching. l sympathize with the view that students should not be "forced" to advocate a position that
they do not believe. As a practical matter, I believe that most topics are ambiguous enough to allow considerable opportunity to find positional comfort. But, more fundamentally, I'm not sure that l ultimately accept the contention that academic counter-attitudinal advocacy is undesirable. T he counter-
attitudinal switch-sides structure of intercollegiate debate asks the student to imaginatively enter into another's world and to try to understand why they might see it as they do. This convention may yield invitational dividends. Foss and Griffin recognize value in asking communicators to seriously consider "perspectives other than those they presently hold and they encourage them to try to "validate those perspectives even if they differ dramatically from the rhetor's own " (5). It seems to me that counterattitudinal advocacy might be an excellent technique for encouraging just that. Debate tournaments ask students to agree to model open-mindedness, empathy, and personal validation of multiple views . No one should be forced to debate, but for those making the choice, agreeing to disagree encourages a consideration of the fallibility of one's own constructions of the world as well as empathy for other ways of seeing things. Argumentative pluralism checks the authoritarian personality that bred things like the Holocaust and gender violence. Hewstone 96 Leading social psychologist who is well-known for his work on social relations. He graduated from the University of Bristol and then
moved to the University of Oxford from which he obtained a D.Phil. in social psychology. He pursued post-doctoral work at the University of Tbingen, Germany. He held chairs in social psychology at the University of Bristol, University of Mannheim, Germany, and Cardiff University before taking up a chair at the University of Oxford where he is also a Fellow of New College. He has been a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and of the British Academy, and an Academician of the Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences. (Miles Hewstone, Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations., Motivating Individuals to Change, In N. Macrae, M. Hewstone, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323-368). New York: Guilford.) RaPa
The unprecedented and unthinkable tragedies of the Holocaust sparked a vigorous search to uncover a correlative personality type capable of such massive acts of brutality . Adorno, FrenkelBrunswik, Levinson, and Sanford's (1950) theory of the
authoritarian personality promised to expose the roots of prejudice and anti-Semitism. From an array of fixed-alternative questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and projective tests emerged the personality type prone to prejudice and afflicted with a dangerous psychological
syndrome. Adorno and colleagues found symptoms characterizing the authoritarian: strict adherence to middle-class conventions, acts of aggression against those who do not live by conventional norms, blind submission to authority, and stereotypy (the tendency to think in rigid categories). According to Adorno et al. (1950), the syndrome develops from interactions with parents who, because of severe status anxiety, adopt authoritarian childrearing strategies. The role of parent becomes one of domination; the role of child becomes one of obedience, conformity, submission, and unquestioned respect for parental authority. The children of these strict disciplinarians learn to repress the anger they harbor toward their parents, and these unconscious, unacceptable impulses are projected onto out-group members. Unacceptable expressions of anger and fear become acceptable when directed toward safe out-group targets who seemingly deserve mistreatment . Thus, for the authoritarian, Jews become
stereotyped as personally offensive, socially threatening, too seclusive, and too intrusive, and Blacks are best segregated into menial jobs. Authoritarians cannot handle ambivalence; they can only perceive others as bad people about whom they feel negatively or good people about whom they feel positively. As they denigrate out-groups, authoritarians glorify the parents who nurtured the hostility and prejudice that now consumes them. Thus, the authoritarian
15

personality develops from an unconscious, intrapsychic conflict. The need to express aggressive impulses and the reality of the costs involved in directing these impulses at the parental source create a tension that is resolved through displacing negative impulses onto out-group members and subsequently rationalizing this displacement. Adorno et a!. 's ( 19 50) pioneering research on the authoritarian personality sparked the interests of many social scientists, who produced volumes of research findings on the topic (e.g., Harding, Proshansky, Kutner, & Chein, 1969; Katz, 1976). However, this enthusiasm was shortlived, as both methodological and conceptual problems soon became apparent (Brown, 1965; Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954), for example, low internal consistency across items and response set biases favoring acquiescence (Christie, 1991). Yet methodological and conceptual problems were not solely responsible for the increasingly pessimistic attitudes regarding the theory's ability to explain prejudice. In general, theories influenced by psychodynamic principles became less fashionable in social psychology (Stroebe & Insko, 1989). Moreover, partly as a result of the 1960s civil rights movement in the United States (Duckitt, 1992a), the focus began to shift from a concern with the effects of individual differences on the propensity for stereotyping and prejudice, to sociocultural issues, such as the institutionalized segregation of Blacks and Whites in the southern United States. Moreover, individual-level theories could not explain societal or regional differences in prejudice. People tended to score higher in prejudice in some regions than in others (Pettigrew, 1959). Furthermore, prejudice was not correlated strongly with authoritarianism in regions such as South Africa or the southern United States (Pettigrew, 19 58). These limitations, coupled with unrelenting methodological and conceptual problems, contributed to the rapid decline in popularity of the authoritarian personality theory. However, interest revived recently, due chiefly to a creative research program led by Altemeyer (1981, 1988). Altemeyer and colleagues eradicated many of the conceptual and methodological snags by restricting the symptoms of the authoritarian personality construct to the three that covary most highly (authoritarian submission to authority, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism) and by developing a sound instrument to measure the syndrome (the Right Wing Authoritarian Scale). Although the name of the scale implies a strong correlation between authoritarianism and conservatism, Altemeyer does not make this general claim (Altemeyer, 1988). Because conservatism is defined
differently across regions (e.g., he compares Canadian and American samples), he does not use political party affiliation to predict authoritarianism. In contrast, inspired by the link between German Fascism and antiSemitism, Adorno eta!. (1950) expected authoritarianism and political conservatism to be highly correlated. The correlation between authoritarian personality and American conservatism (for the most part conceptualized as strong attachment
to the status quo) indeed was in the predicted direction but relatively weak. Subsequent researchers have reported positive correlations as well (Altemeyer, 1981; Comrey & Newmeyer, 1965; Wilson, 1973). Yet, as Altemeyer (1988) notes, regional and societal differences may alter the strength of the relationship between conservatism and authoritarianism. Applications to Gender. Work on the authoritarian personality has almost exclusively encompassed race and ethnicity. However, the authoritarian personality theoretically finds unacceptable other impulses besides aggression.
Many of the original scale items relate to intolerance of sexuality, especially nontraditional sexuality. This has obvious implications for its relationship to homophobia, implications all but unexplored as far as we know (but see Bierly, 1985; Fiske, Canfield, & Von Hendy, 1994 ). It also has implications for ambivalence toward women, essentially contrasting the idealized mother with women who elicit strong sexual feelings. Frenkel-Brunswik described a pattern prevalent
in high scorers on the ethnocentrism scale, "undedying disrespect-andresentment toward the opposite sex, typically combined with pseudoadmiration" (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 391). A scale of authoritarian attitudes toward women followed this insight (Nadler & Morrow, 1959), but to our knowledge was not much used. However, its positively correlated scales assessing simultaneous chivalry and open subordination of women reappears in a more recent scale of ambivalent sexism, described later (Glick & Fiske, in press). Implications for Change. If one accepts Adorno et al.'s (1950) theory of the
authoritarian personality, one must also accept the potential for promoting stereotype change and reducing prejudice as minimal. Changing the prejudiced individual would require extensive psychotherapy. Yet, individuals who could most benefit from psychotherapeutic techniques would be least likely to seek them out. Authoritarians are not introspective. By definition, they cannot deal with the ambivalent feelings that introspection would render more salient. They view physical suffering as more real than psychological suffering. Authoritarians idealize the self and in-group; any problems are caused by out-group members or other external forces. The prejudices that authoritarians hold toward out-group members seem to them well justified; they are not problematic perceptions that require therapeutic assistance to alter. According to the theory, their cognitive flexibility is limited. Precisely because authoritarians cannot handle ambiguity in general, or the conflicting feelings about their parents in particular, they are engaged in unconscious, intrapsychic conflict in the first place. The rigidity, which allows them to resist altering negative stereotypes in the face of conflicting evidence, also makes it likely that they will resist psychotherapeutic intervention, much less intervention attempts by a coworker
(and especially by a subordinate).
Switch Side Debate checks back extremists from the right. As students we are in a unique position for change. Munksgaard and Pfister 03 *B.A. University of Pittsburgh 2006Communication, Certificate in Women's Studies. M.A. University of Iowa 2008Rhetoric. Ph.D. Coursework, University of Georgia-Athens, 2008-2009. PhD student in Rhetoric, University of Iowa. AND **Ph.D. University of
Pittsburgh, Department of Communication, Pittsburgh, PA., Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Communication Studies (Jane Munksgaard, Damien Pfister, The Public Debater's Role in Advancing Deliberation: Towards Switch-Sides Public Debate, Conference Proceedings -National Communication Association/Ame;2003, Vol. 1, p503, http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55306585/public-debaters-role-advancingdeliberation-towards-switch-sides-public-debate) RaPa First, the struggle over the purpose of public debate is important for any deliberative project because of the
historical importance formal argumentation has played in complex democratic societie s. Public debate uniquely displays the process of public deliberation in action, as debate crystallizes crucial points of contention, provides a clash-filled interchange attractive to audiences, and offers a relatively open forum for discussion . Audience-centered debates offer the
potential to "serve as models of civic discourse and provide at least one venue for the citizen participation so vital for democracy" (Weiss, 1997, p. 10). Second, deliberation is not an intrinsic skillthe ability to discuss collaboratively contested issues by considering various
perspectives in order to form opinions is difficult but teachabl e (McMillan & Harriger, 2002). Unfortunately, today there is a paucity of role models displaying good deliberation practices. To role model more effectively, we propose that public debate
16

should shed its objections to arguing against one's convictions and instead embrace switch-sides debate as a tool to illustrate the value of considering other perspectives for deliberation. Thus, one way to reframe Jane's debate on invading Syria would have been to highlight that she was not actually defending her real opinion. Drawing attention to her involvement in the debate as a way to foreground the process of deliberation might have encouraged audience members to consider the process in addition to the content of the debate. There are several opportunities during the course of a public debate to contravene the assumption that
public debaters are genuine advocates for the cause they are advancing; the moderator might note before or after the debate that one or more of the debaters is not arguing for their convictionsthe debaters could be identified as believing in the opposite side, or as undecided on the issue.^ The audience might perceive this identification as curious, but the moderator could explain that the advocates are not advancing their own convictions in order to understand more fully the other perspective(s). This condensed version of justifying switch-sides debate provides a meta-reflective
moment for the audience riot on the content, but on the process of deliberation and the importance of carefully considering opposing viewpoints. The lack of careful consideration of others' arguments in political discourse is part of the anomie of the body politi c. Many publics have adopted the role of spectators, where different viewpoints are similar to preferences for
different sports teams and identification with another side is viewed as betrayal (Zarefsky, 1992). In contrast to these prevailing modes of communication,
more robust forms of public deliberation feature: a) a central controversy; b) multiple viewpoints exchanging perspectives; c) consideration of various perspectives; and d) movement towards judgment or resolution . These four components are linked together, each relying on the strength of the other for legitimacy. Breakdowns in deliberation occur when any one of these criteria are not fulfilled. The weakest link, therefore, appears to be c) considering various perspectives (we might add authentically to this
aspectas certainly most advocates will maintain that they have indeed critically considered, evaluated, and found lacking alternative viewpoints). Civic discourse breaks down when the lack of consideration for various perspectives prevailsa condition that drifts easily into oratorical grandstanding, didacticism, or dismissiveness. Today, what often passes for contemporary political argumentation is a "Crossfire" model
of
pundits barking at each other or a Fox-induced "O'Reilly" style that relies on browbeating opponents . Currently, public argument is seen (and probably rightfully so) as excessively agonisticas a process of "scoring points" or "showing up" the opponent, rather than a careful consideration of their ideas (Tanneti, 1999). More specifically, many college
students have abandoned argument and debate as modes of inquiry because of prevailing sentiments that all perspectives are equally valid. This argumentative ennui can be fraced to media outlets that preach self-esteem through perspective validation, niche Internet cultures that filter out alternate perspectives, and the rise of moral relativism that has transformed the classroom from a place where dialectic occurs to one where monologue reigns (Kakutani, 2002). Since college students often have easy access to public debates, such forums can provide a space for
experimenting with deliberative behavior. If consideration of others' viewpoints is where deliberation currently breaks down, then providing publics with role models that exhibit fair consideration represents one way to strengthen democratic processes and possibly counteract this trend toward argumentative anomie.
17

USfg action is and should be an important consideration for all movements only SSD solves this. Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
--USFG specific
With a shallow understanding of SSD, it may appear that debate has a pro-institutional and anti-radical agenda that seeks to channel dissent through avenues familiar to elite s; a lens of privilege that sustains the status quo. Yet, the arguments of this defense of SSD indicate that such discomfort may be justifiedif not necessaryto fulfill the epistemic, moral, and political objectives of debate. The process of SSD mandates an acceptance of the idea that all currently held ideas are not correct and that, over time, some will come to be replaced by others. This may be momentarily upsetting, but the social good is clearly served by such a process. Morally, the acceptance of tolerance and empathy requires the willingness to set outside of our own egocentric beliefs and stand in the position of the other. It does not necessarily require rejecting our own beliefs. Instead, debaters are asked to be willing to consider a position from multiple simultaneous points of view. Finally, while debaters are required to argue on behalf of state politics, in the long-run the training, skills, and knowledge that they receive from doing so will make them much more effective advocates of the anti-bureaucratic cause. Given all of this, while the anti-SSD view is understandable based on the short-term sacrifices that it may require, it alone does not warrant a reversion to a process of debating from conviction. Switch Side debate focused on government action fosters advocacy skills thats a prerequisite for activism Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
Frequently, for strategies for change, the devil lies in the details. It is not possible to simply click ones ruby red slippers together and wish for alternatives to come into being. Lacking a plausible mechanism to enact reforms, many have criticized critical theory as being a fatally flawed enterprise (Jones 1999). For activists, learning the skills to successfully negotiate hazardous political terrain is crucial. They must know when to and when not to compromise, negotiate, and strike political alliances in order to be successful. The pure number of failed movements in the past several decades demonstrates the severity of the risk assumed by groups who do not focus on refining their preferred means of change. G iven the importance of strategies for change, SSD is even more crucial. Debaters trained by debating both sides are substantially more likely to be effective advocates than those experienced only in arguing on behalf of their own convictions. For several reasons, SSD instills a series of practices that are essential for a successful activist agenda. First, SSD creates more knowledgeable advocates for public policy issues. As part of the process of learning to argue both sides, debaters are forced to understand the intricacies of multiple sides of the argument considered. Debaters must not only know how to research and speak on behalf of their own personal convictions, but also for the opposite side in order to defend against attacks of that position. Thus, when placed in the position of being required to publicly defend an argument, students trained via SSD are more likely to be able to present and persuasively defend their position s. Second, learning the nuances of all sides of a position greatly strengthens the resulting convictions of debaters, their ability to anticipate opposing arguments, and the effectiveness of their attempts to locate the crux, nexus and loci of arguments. As is noted earlier, conviction is a result, not a prerequisite of debate. Switching sides and experimenting with possible arguments for and against controversial issues, in the end, makes students more likely to ground their beliefs in a reasoned form of critical thinking that is durable and unsusceptible to knee-jerk criticisms . As a result, even though it may appear to be inconsistent with advocacy, SSD actually created stronger advocates that are
more likely to be successful in achieving their goals (Dybvig and Iverson 2000).
18

Switch side debate promotes predictability and allows for the neg to intellectually respond to the aff. The process should take precedence over the advocacy. Gutmann and Thompson 96 * president of University of Pennsylvania and former prof @ Princeton, AND** (Harvard) Professor of
Government and the Alfred North Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He is also a professor of public policy in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the founding Director of the University Center for Ethics and the Professions (Amy, Dennis, Democracy
-predictability
and Disagreement, pp 1, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996) RaPa OF THE CHALLENGES that American democracy faces today, none is more formidable than the problem of moral disagreement. Neither the theory nor the practice of democratic politics has so far found an adequate way to cope with conflicts about fundamental values. We address the challenge of moral disagreement here by developing a conception of democracy that secures a central place for moral discussion in political life. Along with a growing number of other political theorists, we call this conception deliberative democracy. The core idea is simple: when citizens or their representatives disagree morally, they should continue to reason together to reach mutually acceptable decisions. But the meaning and implications of the idea are complex. Although the idea has a long history, it is still in search of a theory. We do not claim that this book provides a comprehensive theory of deliberative democracy, but we do hope that it contributes toward its future development by showing the kind of deliberation that is possible and desirable in the face of moral disagreement in democracies . Some scholars have criticized liberal political theory for neglecting moral deliberation.
Others have analyzed the philosophical foundations of deliberative democracy, and still others have begun to explore institutional reforms that would promote deliberation. Yet nearly all of them stop at the point where deliberation itself begins. None has systematically examined the substance of deliberation the theoretical principles that should guide moral argument and their implications for actual moral disagreements about public policy. That is our subject, and it takes us into the everyday forums of democratic politics, where moral argument regularly appears but where theoretical analysis too rarely goes.
Deliberative democracy involves reasoning about politics, and nothing has been more controversial in political philosophy than the nature of reason in politics. We do not believe that these controversies have to be settled before deliberative principles can guide the practice of democracy. Since on occasion citizens and their representatives already engage in the kind of reasoning that those principles recommend, deliberative democracy simply asks that they do so more consistently and comprehensively. The best way to prove the value of this kind of reasoning is to show its role in arguments about specific principles and policies, and its contribution to actual political debates. That is also ultimately the best justification for our conception of deliberative democracy itself. But to forestall possible misunderstandings of our conception of deliberative democracy, we offer some preliminary remarks about the scope and method of this book. The aim of the moral reasoning that our deliberative democracy pre-scribes falls between impartiality, which requires something like altruism, and prudence, which demands no more than enlightened self-interes t. Its first principle is reciprocity, the subject of Chapter 2, but no less essential are the other principles developed in later chapters. When citizens reason reciprocally, they seek fair terms of social cooperation for their own sake; they try to find mutually acceptable ways of resolving moral disagreements. The precise content of reciprocity is difficult to determine in theory, but its general countenance is familiar enough in practice . It can be seen in the difference between acting in one's self-interest (say, taking advantage of a legal loophole or a lucky break) and acting fairly (following rules in the spirit that one expects others to adopt). In many of the controversies dis-cussed later in the book, the possibility of any morally acceptable resolution depends on citizens' reasoning beyond their narrow selfinterest and considering what can be justified to people who reasonably disagree with them . Even though the quality of
deliberation and the conditions under which it is conducted are far from ideal in the controversies we consider, the fact that in each case some citizens and some officials make arguments consistent with reciprocity suggests that a deliberative perspective is not Utopian. To clarify what reciprocity might demand under non-ideal conditions, we develop a distinction between deliberative and nondeliberative disagreement . Citizens who reason reciprocally
can recognize that a position is worthy of moral respect even when they think it morally wrong. They can believe that a moderate pro-life position on abortion, for example, is morally respectable even though they think it morally mistaken. (The abortion exampleto which we often return in the bookis meant to be illustrative. For readers who deny that there is any room for deliberative disagreement on abortion, other political controversies can make the same point.) The presence of deliberative disagreement has important implications for how citizens treat one another and for what policies they should adopt. When a disagreement is not deliberative (for example, about a policy to legalize discrimination against blacks and women ), citizens do not have any obligations of mutual respect toward their opponents. In deliberative disagreement (for example, about legalizing abortion), citizens should try to accommodate the moral convictions of their opponents to the greatest extent possible, without compromising their own moral convictions. We call this kind of accommodation an economy of moral disagreement, and believe that, though neglected in theory and practice, it is essential to a morally robust democratic life. Although both of us have devoted some of our professional life to urging these ideas on public officials and our fellow citizens in forums
of practical politics, this book is primarily the product of scholarly rather than political deliberation. Insofar as it reaches beyond the academic community, it is addressed to citizens and officials in their more reflective frame of mind. Given its academic origins, some readers may be inclined to complain that only professors could be so unrealistic as to believe that moral reasoning can help solve political problems. But such a complaint would misrepresent our aims. To begin with, we do not think that academic discussion (whether in scholarly journals or college classrooms) is a model for moral deliberation in politics. Academic discussion need not aim at justifying a practical decision, as deliberation must. Partly for this reason, academic discussion is likely to be insensitive to the contexts of ordinary politics: the pressures of power, the problems of inequality, the demands of diversity, the exigencies of persuasion. Some critics of deliberative democracy show a similar insensitivity when they judge actual political deliberations by the standards of ideal philosophical reflection. Actual deliberation is inevitably defective, but so is philosophical reflection practiced in politics. The appropriate comparison is between the ideals of democratic deliberation and philosophical reflection, or between the application of each in the non-ideal circumstances of politics. We do not assume that politics should
19

be a realm where the logical syllogism rules. Nor do we expect even the more appropriate standard of mutual respect always to prevail in politics. A deliberative perspective sometimes justifies bargaining, negotiation, force, and even violence. It is partly because moral argument has so much unrealized potential in democratic politics that we believe it deserves more attention. Because its place in politics is so precarious, the need to find it a more secure home and to nourish its development is all the more pressing. Yet because it is also already part of our common experience, we have reason to hope that it can survive and even prosper if philosophers along with citizens and public officials better appreciate its value in politics. S ome readers may still
wonder why deliberation should have such a prominent place in democracy . Surely, they may say, citizens should care more
about the justice of public policies than the process by which they are adopted, at least so long as the process is basically fair and at least minimally democratic. One of our main aims in this book is to cast doubt on the dichotomy between policies and process that this concern assumes. Having
good reason as individuals to believe that a policy is just does not mean that collectively as citizens we have sufficient justification to legislate on the basis of those reasons . The moral authority of collective judgments about policy depends in part on the moral quality of the process by which citizens collectively reach those judgments . Deliberation is the most appropriate way for citizens collectively to resolve their moral disagreements not only about policies but also about the process by which policies should be adopted. Deliberation is not only a means to an end, but also a means for deciding what means are morally required to pursue our common ends.
20

Mitchell now agrees that switch-side policy debate is superior debate should be protected space for students to take imaginary positions that go against their convictions Mitchell, 02 (11/9/02, Gordon, [eDebate] Adri and Ross, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2002-November/044264.html) Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998, when I wrote that debate institutions should pay more attention to argumentative agency, i.e. cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of critical thinking, public speaking, and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment. Back then I was highly skeptical of the "laboratory model" of "preparatory pedagogy," where students were kept, by fiat, in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen. Now I respect much more the value of a protected space where young people can experiment politically by taking imaginary positions, driving the hueristic process by arguing against their convictions. In fact, the integrity of this space could be compromised by "activist turn" initiatives designed to bridge contest round advocacy with political activism. These days I have much more confidence in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating, and the heuristic value for debaters of arguing against their convictions. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as isolated and politically protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense. However, I worry that a narrow diet of
competitive contest round debating could starve students of opportunities to experience the rich political valence of their debating activities. I have preliminary ideas of how to cope with this political conundrum, yet could make great use of follow-on feedback.
AT: Mitchell ev.
21

Competitive, switch side debate engages students and encourages them to find solutions, preventing nihilism Zainuddin and Moore 3
(Zainuddin, Hanizah, professor at Florida Atlantic University, and Moore, Rashid, professor at Nova Southeastern University, Enhancing Critical Thinking with Structured Controversial Dialogues, The TESL Journal, http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zainuddin-Controversial.html)FS Structured controversy can enhance the development of many skills that are central to academic learning. These
AT: nihilism/ethics
skills include: searching for information and new experiences to resolve a dilemma or an uncertainty; organizing information; preparing an advocacy position and rationalizing the position; seeing issues from a different perspective and learning to debate the merits of each position ; and synthesizing issues and conceptualizing a new position or reaching consensus based on careful analysis and evaluation of all positions of the issue. By using structured controversy, students' curiosity for searching for solutions to the problem will be sparked, engaging them in active learning that will help develop their understanding and appreciation of diverse points of views . It also requires students to use complex reasoning and critical thinking skills . As a result, students are exposed to a greater range of ideas that will help them to generate creative solutions and new conclusions to their controversial problem . Switch side debate overcomes outside pressure and encourages pluralism solves ethics Butt 10 Ph.D. in Philosophy at Wayne State University. Attended George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, graduating with degrees in International
Studies and Communication in 1993. Neil completed his Masters Degree in Communication and Policy Analysis, also from GMU, in 2000. He has coached policy debate at the high school and college level since 1988, and has taught classes at the college level since 1993, including public speaking, interpersonal and small group communication, argumentation and debate, research methods, and rhetorical criticism. (Neil Stuart, Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, And Decision-Making: A Content Analysis Of Argumentation And Debate Textbooks, (2010), Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 77. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77) RaPa Over the years, many scholars (e.g. Murphy, 1963) have argued that the predominant switch-side model of debate is unethical and
encourages sophistry because it requires students to defend positions that they do not actually believe . This argument, while perhaps intuitive, is not consistent with the observed results of decades of switch-side debate. Both Bellon
(2000) and Goodwin (2003) found that students become more open minded through participation in switch side debate. Muir (1993) addresses this argument in more detail, explaining that switch side debate promotes pluralism not relativism, allows students to overcome
socialization and peer pressure, and promotes tolerance and empathy without promoting moral irresponsibility . Switch side debate is the strongest defense against cooption critical thinking skills fosters advocacies that can withstand strong amounts of scrutiny. Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
Critics of SSD have argued that debating both sides is a tactic of cooption by dominant beliefs because speaking on behalf of evil ideas moderates extreme views. Instead of sharpening and refining the prior beliefs of debaters, the argument goes, engaging in switch side debating changes the beliefs of students, slowly drawing them close[r] to the middle (Massey 2006). Mirroring the broader critical move toward a depoliticized expression of struggles, they argue that this is undesirable
because only extreme views are pure, in the sense that they avoid entanglement in bureaucratic 36 structures of government (Boggs 1997, p. 773). Essentially, the argument boils down to brainwashin g: switching sides causes students to abandon their original
(presumably correct) beliefs in favor of more moderate and less politically effective idea s. Three responses effectively dispatch with this criticism and support the benefits of SSD. First, the foundational premise of the case for switch side debating indicts the notion that true conviction can be held prior to a rigorous analysis of all sides of an issue through debating both sides. As far back as A. C. Baird (1955), proponents of switch side debating have argued that conviction was a result of reasoned consideration of the issues surrounding a particular policy rather than a pre-condition for it . For instance, Baird argues, Sound conviction... should stem from mature reflection. Discussion and debate facilitate the maturing of such reflective thinking and conviction (1955, p. 6). Many debaters, especially those new to collegiate debate, do not yet have calcified opinions about many controversial subjects. Instead, they develop their beliefs over time, as they spend time thinking through the nuances of each relevant argument in preparation for competitive debating . By arguing on behalf of both the affirmative and the negative sides of a given resolution, switch side debaters are exposed to many avenues to test their initial thoughts on controversial subjects. Traditionally, the formation of belief in this manner has coincided more closely with the meaning of conviction . Defined as beliefs that are formed as a result of exposing
fallacies through the give-and-take of rebuttal, sound convictions can only be truly generated by the reflexive thinking spurred by debating both sides.
While some students may honestly believe that they have thoroughly considered the merits of a particular opinion before arguing for or against it in a debate, experimenting with ideas in a competitive SSD is still a necessary endeavor. Only in debate, a relatively isolated political space, are many arguments able to be presented in an ideally open, no-holdsbarred manner (Coverstone 1995). Moreover, when faced with the prospect of being forced to advocate a position, students receive the necessary motivation (through competitive and other impulses) to thoroughly research all of the complexities of a given subject. Also, through the requirement of advocacy, students are
22

encouraged to actively listen, a crucial element of rich argumentative engagement (Lacy 2002). In the end, the switch side debater emerges with a deeper understanding of more sides of an issue and may be ready to come to some degree of conclusion and conviction about which side to support. Conviction generated through debating both sides is almost universally preferable to dogmatic and non-negotiable assertions of belief (Baird 1955, p. 6). Switching sides grounds belief in reasonable reflective thinking; it teaches that decisions should not be rendered until all positions and possible consequences have been considered in a reasoned manner. This method is closely linked to the value that debate places on critical thinking. Unsurprisingly, many authors have noted the importance of SSD for generating such
rigorous decision-making skills (Muir 1993; Parcher 1998; Rutledge 2002; Speice & Lyle 2003; English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods 2007).
The critical thinking taught by SSD provides the ultimate check against dangerous forms of cooption. Over time, certain arguments will prevail over others only if they have a strong enough logical foundation to withstand thorough scrutiny. Debaters will change their minds to support the moderate side of certain positions only ifafter reasoned reflection and sound convictiondoing so is found to be preferable. While such a marketplace of ideas may be marked by some imperfections, one of its most effective incarnations is undoubtedly in academic debate rounds. There, appeals to wealth, status, and power are minimized by a focus on logic and formal rules, which protect the ability of all participants to contribute in an honest and open manner. As a result , it should be assumed that the insights generated through debates dialectic process will be generally correct and that any shifting beliefs are the reflection of a social good (the replacement of false ideas with truth). Conceiving of conviction in this manner redefines the role of debate into what Baird calls an
educational procedure: the formation of a pedagogical playground to experiment with alternative ideas and coalesce assertions and unwarranted beliefs into sound conviction (1966, p. 6). Treating debate as a training ground for advocacy and decision-making has several benefits:
it allows debaters the conceptual flexibility to experiment with minority and extreme ideas, protects them from outside influences, and buys them time before they are forced to publicly put forward their opinion s (Coverstone 1995). As a result, the primary focus of the activity shifts from arguing to deciding, giving critical thinking its crucial importance. A fundamental premise of the anti-SSDs claim about cooption is thoroughly indicted: it is impossible to lose ones convictions before they have truly been discovered. Switch Side debate is ethically responsible Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
Since its inception, the practice of debating both sides in academic contests has consistently remained a fruitful subject for controversy (Ehninger, 1958, p. 128). In particular, the selection of engagement of China as the 1954 national debate topic marked a
particularly contentious moment that incited the first widespread written arguments about switch side debating. On that topic, Resolved: That the United States should extend diplomatic recognition to the communist government of China 4 , affirmatives were required to defend a statement that contradicted the United States official policy of containment toward communist China. Conservatives objected to this position as socially dangerous
support for an enemy of the United States (English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods, 2007, p. 222). Some, including the U.S. Naval
and Military academies and several teacher colleges, refused to argue such a position and boycotted the topic. This generated a deep ripple effect of controversy and intense national discussion of SSD, including written coverage in The New York Times (Greene and Hicks 2005, p. 100). One of the earliest criticisms of SSD is The Ethics of Debating Both Sides, by Richard Murphy in 1957. Murphy, a professor of speech at the University of Illinois and former director of debate at the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Colorado, and the University of Illinois, sets out the foundational ethical charge against debating both 4 A list of national topics from 1946 to the present is available on the National Debate Tournament homepage, online at: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/HistoricalLists/topics.html 21 sides by arguing that the practice is immoral because a public statement is a public commitment (1957, p. 2). Debaters, like politicians, policy experts, and public advocates, are expected to sincerely advocate only the
positions that they personally believe. To do otherwise and abandon conviction is to lie in publican immoral and unethical act. A major premise of Murphys critique is that competitive debate, like other speaking activities, is a public enterprise. He argues that, the
debater speaks before school assemblies, at the student council, to service clubs, and at a number of organizations of which he is a member (Murphy 1957, p. 7). As a result, debate must submit to the same ethical constraints as other public activities, and cannot claim to be an isolated oasis or distinct testing ground with a primarily pedagogical purpose. A speaker advocating a position that they do not believe in could actually persuade others to adopt such a view (a dangerous form of sophistry). Thus, responsible students have a duty to only speak on behalf of arguments that they personally hold as conviction. In
response to Murphys ethical indictment of SSD, Nicholas Cripe, another debate coach and professor of speech at Baylor University, defended the merits of the practice. Cripe took issue with Murphys criticism on two levels: the pragmatic and the ethical. First, Cripe argues that abandoning SSD in favor of argument from conviction would render the larger tournament format of inter-collegiate debate infeasible. In a postSSD world, students would choose their side (affirmative or negative) based solely on their personal beliefs. Using anecdotal evidence, Cripe demonstrates that large disparities in the number of affirmative and negative teams would exist on certain topics (this seems to still be true, given the debate communitys generally liberal political leanings). With an uneven number of teams, pairing would be very difficult, if not impossible. As a result, 22 he wrote that if the proponents of ethical debate are correct many schools would have to discontinue debate as we practice it today
(Cripe 1957, p. 209). Second, Cripe responds directly to Murphys contention that switching sides is immoral because it violates the debaters public statements. While agreeing with Murphys general contention about public commitments, Cripe argues that tournament debating is a special
case of public speaking that is altogether different from the types of open exposition to which Murphy analogizes it. Rather than being a persuasive activity where debaters primarily seek to coax the judge into agreeing with their position,
23

competitive debate is a contest where each side attempts to prove that they are the better debaters. In fact, situations commonly arise where teams with substantively worse and less defensible arguments are victorious because of pure debating skills. Cripe regards debate as an educational, rather than persuasive, activity (1957, p. 210). Given this alternative prior goal of debate, Cripe argues that Murphys indictment is flawed because the purpose determines the relevant ethical considerations. Debaters have an ethical duty to defend the best possible (and, in their opinion, most successful) argument. To do so, they commonly have to switch sides and argue the case for positions that they do not personally believe . Five years later,
Murphy replied to the defenses of SSD voiced by Cripe and others by reinvigorating his original case for debating from conviction. While still defending his original claim that switching sides violates the ethical norms that govern public speaking, he develops several additional arguments that indict the value of training students by debating both sides. First, Murphy claims that those who view debate as a training ground for practicing the form of argumentation risk lapsing into support for 23 dangerous forms of disputation that have been criticized by rhetoricians since Socrates (1963, p. 246). Second, he fears that SSD may corrupt students views of important issues by causing them to change their opinion after becoming pseudo-advocates for certain positions. Murphy writes that, there seems to be an abundance of experimental evidence that verbalizing tends to strengthen ones belief (1963, p. 247). Finally, Murphy attempts to discredit the practice of debating both sides by positing another fundamental purpose and ultimate end of public debate: reaching a decision on complex and controversial issues. He fears that SSD may teach students all of the arguments surrounding contentious issues and how to argue them, but not motivate them to coalesce those thoughts into a final conviction about which side to support. While the Murphy-Cripe debates were certainly a prominent feature of the early controversy over the ethics of SSD, they were not the only members of the debate community to comment on the practice. A. Craig Baird (1955) and George Dell (1958) were also prominent proponents of debating both sides. Both largely agreed with Cripes central contention that contest debating is an activity that is categorically different than other forms of public speaking and thus exempt from its rigid ethical limitations on advocacy. Additionally, Baird advanced the discussion about the role of conviction in debate by arguing that a rigorous testing of all sides of an
argument including switching sides was a prerequisite to conviction the opposite of what Murphy had argued. Baird argued that sound conviction was the result of student exercises that allowed debaters to thoroughly understand the issues at hand before rendering a conclusive judgment upon them (1955, p. 5). This, once again, redefined the purpose of debate. Here, debate
became 24 a testing ground: a pedagogical playground where debaters could role-play different positions in an isolated space in order to investigate their relative merits. Baird wrote that, Debate and discussion training is essentially training in reflective thinking, in the defense
of different sides (role playing as some call it), and in the revelation of the strength and weakness of each position. In essence we are practicing techniques of problem-solving . (1955, p. 6) Thus, according to Baird, those who defend arguing only from personal belief defend a method of pure dogmatism and not true conviction, a level of understanding that can only arise after both sides of an issue have been examined. Despite his vigorous critique, it soon
became clear that Murphys indictment of SSD was unsuccessful at persuading his colleagues to abandon the practice in competitive debate contests. Empirical data confirmed the consensus supporting the ethical value of SSD. After conducting a survey of debate coaches in the American Forensics Association and the National Forensics League, Donald Klopf and James McCrosky found that over ninety percent of coaches found SSD to be both ethical and good debate practice (1964, p. 38). Interpreting this result as a demonstration of an overwhelming collective
opinion in favor of switching sides, they declared the controversy over the ethics of SSD to be finished. Klopf and
McCrosksy attempted to refocus the debate about debate, arguing, The relative ethic has been accepted by a large majority of those involved directly with academic debate. Both by their opinions and their actions they believe switch-sides debating is ethical. So do we. The controversy over the ethics of 25 debating both sides is pau! The controversy over the pedagogical value of debating both sides hardly has begun. [Emphasis Added] (1964, p. 39) After this time, due more to consensus of opinion than a resolution of Murphys arguments, the debate about debate shifted to a discussion of the educational merits of such a practice and the controversy over ethics was closed.
Switch Side debate is an important part in reinforcing tolerance- thats solves their morality arguments Muir 93 Communication studies at George Mason University (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.
26, No. 4 (1993), pp. 277-295, ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40237780) RaPa The rle of switch-side debate is especially important in
the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the moral complications of acting on such belief s. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility . As Freeley notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multi valued world, both within and between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In this view, the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students to validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions.38 Values clarification, Stewart is correct in pointing out, does not mean that no values are developed. Two very important values tolerance and fairness inhere to a significant degree in the ethics of switch-side debate. A second point about the charge of relativism is that tolerance is related to the development of reasoned moral viewpoints. The willingness to recognize the existence of other views, and to grant alternative positions a degree of credibility, is a value fostered by switch-side debate: Alternately debating both sides of the same question . . . inculcates a deep-seated attitude of tolerance toward differing points of view. To be forced to debate only one side leads to an ego-identification with that side. . . . The other side in contrast is seen only as something to be discredited. Arguing as persuasively as one can for completely opposing views is one way of giving recognition to the idea that a strong case can generally be made for the views of earnest and intelligent men, however such views may clash with one's own. . . . Promoting this kind of tolerance is perhaps one of the greatest benefits debating both sides has to offer .39 289 The activity should encourage debating
both sides of a topic, reasons Thompson, because debaters are "more likely to realize that propositions are bilateral. It is those who fail to recognize this fact who become intolerant, dogmatic, and bigoted."40 While Theodore Roosevelt can hardly be said to be advocating bigotry, his efforts to turn out advocates convinced of their rightness is not a position imbued with tolerance. At a societal level, the value of tolerance is more conducive to a fair and open assessment of competing ideas. John Stuart Mill eloquently states the case this way: Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being
24

[Tournament Name]
right. ... the
Suo
peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race. ... If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with error.41 At an individual level, tolerance is related to moral identity via empathy and critical assessments of differing perspectives. Paul posits a strong relationship between tolerance, empathy, and critical thought. Discussing the function of argument in
everyday life, he observes that in order to overcome natural tendencies to reason egocentrically and sociocentrically, individuals must gain the capacity to engage in self-reflective questioning, to reason dialogically and dialectically, and to "reconstruet alien and opposing belief Systems empathically."42 Our System of belief s is, by definition, irrational when we are incapable of abandoning a belief for rational reasons; that is, when we egocentrically associate our beliefs with our own integrity. Paul describes an intimate relationship between private inferential habits, moral practices, and the nature of argumentation. Critical thought and moral identity, he urges, must be predicated on discovering the insights of opposing views and the weaknesses of our own beliefs. Rle
playing, he reasons, is a central element of any effort to gain such insight. Only an activity that requires the defense of both sides of an issue, moving beyond acknowledgement to exploration and advocacy, can engender such powerful rle playing. Redding explains that "debating both sides is a special instance of role-playing,"43 where debaters are forced to empathize on a constant basis with a 290 STAR A. MUIR position contrary to their own. Th is rle playing, Baird agrees, is an exercise in reflective thinking, an engagement in problem solving that exposes weaknesses and strengths.44 Motivated by the knowledge that they may debate against their own case, debaters constantly pose arguments and counter-arguments for discussion, erecting defenses and then challenging these defenses with a different tact.45 Such conceptual flexibility, Paul argues, is essential for effective critical thinking, and in turn for the development of a reasoned moral identity A final point about relativism is that switch-side debate encourages fairness and equality of opportunity in evaluating competing values. Initially, it is apparent that a priori fairness is a fundamental aspect of games and gamesmanship.46 Players in the game should start out with equal advantage, and the rules should be construed throughout to provide no undue advantage to one side or the other. Both sides, notes Thompson, should have an equal amount of time and a fair chance to present their arguments. Of critical importance, he insists, is an equality of opportunity.47 Equality of opportunity is manifest throughout many debate
procedures and norms. On the question of topicality whether the affirmative plan is an example of the stated topic the issue of "fair ground" for debate is explicitly developed as a criterion for decision. Likewise, when a counterplan is offered against an affirmative plan, the issue of coexistence, or of the "competitiveness" of the plans, frequently turns on the fairness of the affirmative team's suggested "permutation" of the plans. In these and other issues ,
the
value of fairness, and of equality of opportunity, is highlighted and clarified through constant disputation. The point is simply that debate does teach values, and that these values are instrumental in providing a hearing for alternative points of view. Paying explicit attention to decision criteria, and to the division of ground arguments (a function of competition),
effectively renders the value structure pluralisme, rather than relati vistic. In a tolerant context, convictions can stili be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical, Windes responds with a series of propositions: Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under
consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . . 291 This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con . . . . The learner's sound
conviction covering controversial questions [therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and negative positions.48 Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned
assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues.49 It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction. Debate encourages strong ethics when presenting advocacies ODonnell 9 (Chair: Timothy ODonnell, University of Mary Washington, Members: Neil Butt, Wayne State University, Stefan Bauschard, Lakeland
School District, New York, Joseph Bellon, Georgia State University, Warren Decker, George Mason University, John Kastulas, Boston College, William Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, James Lyle, Clarion University, Danielle Verney OGorman, U.S. Naval Academy, Joseph Packer, University of Pittsburgh, A Rationale for Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty-first Century, 2009, Wake Forest National Debate Conference, PDF) GANGEEZY Teaching students ethical advocacy has always been mentioned as an important educational benefit of debate (Capp and Capp 1965; Freeley and Steinberg 2005; Hunt 1994; Ulrich 1984; Ziegelmueller, Kay, and Dause 1990). To enforce ethical conduct by participants, guidelines have been promulgated by governing bodies of debate, including the American Forensic Association, the American Debate Association, the Cross Examination Debate Association, and the National Debate Tournament Committee. Rules prohibiting the misuse and fabrication of
evidence, rules establishing the eligibility of debaters, and rules prohibiting sexual harassment by students and judges have been adopted. Through their participation in debate, students learn the importance of conforming to these standards as well as the benefits of participating in a scholarly community characterized by academic integrity. Coaches teach students how to avoid plagiarism and to cite evidence properly. They are also taught never to cite evidence out of context. Students
participating in debate receive constant reinforcement from their coaches, from judges, and from other student competitors, stressing the ethical requirement to obey these communal norms. As a result, the misuse, distortion, and fabrication of evidence are extremely rare in academic
debate. At the same time, concerns that debate advocacy is unethical because it emphasizes competitive success over educational learning have been expressed over the years. Some have feared that the emphasis on winning will produce sophists who are
devoid of ethical responsibility (Gow 1967; Haiman 1964; Horn and Underberg 1991). If this were the case, students might be more likely to distort the truth
25

Fortunately, this perspective has been totally discredited by empirical research (Rogers 2002, 2005). In fact, research demonstrates that debaters are less likely than nondebaters to distort the truth and ignore conflicting evidence of contrary viewpoints . Moreover, debaters are less likely to engage in situational ethics, that is, to conveniently shift their ethical position depending on the circumstances (Rogers
and be encouraged to lie. If true, this would be a damning indictment of the activity of debate. 2002, 2005). There is a far stronger case to be made that participation in switch-side debating teaches students to form a sound ethical foundation. For example, Star Muir argues that firm moral commitments to a value system are founded in reflexive assessments of multiple perspectives (1993, 291).
By forcing students to defend both sides of an argument, switch-side debating cultivates a healthy ethic of tolerance and pluralism and leads students to appreciate the validity of opposing belief systems, while instilling responsible and critical skepticism toward dominant systems (Harrigan 2008, 37). This process of debate and self-reflection over time produces a more ethical belief system because it is grounded in critical thought. Nurturing debate about alternative viewpoints and trying on others ideas through simulated and situational argument is the essence of a free society and the basis for an ethical society. Debate increases personal empowerment which can be used to change the underlying conditions in schools and communities ODonnell 9 (Chair: Timothy ODonnell, University of Mary Washington, Members: Neil Butt, Wayne State University, Stefan Bauschard, Lakeland
School District, New York, Joseph Bellon, Georgia State University, Warren Decker, George Mason University, John Kastulas, Boston College, William Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, James Lyle, Clarion University, Danielle Verney OGorman, U.S. Naval Academy, Joseph Packer, University of Pittsburgh, A Rationale for Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty-first Century, 2009, Wake Forest National Debate Conference, PDF) GANGEEZY In addition to cultivating educational skills , participation in debate has long been recognized as having positive benefits
in shaping the personality of students (Mayer 1936). Because debate requires students to debate both sides of controversies, they become more flexible arguers and more tolerant of opposing viewpoints (Bellon 2000; Muir 1993). There
is also evidence that debaters are more socially tolerant and less likely to accept conventional social norms (Rogers 2002, 2005). This is a unique benefit to switch-side debating. Rogers explains: as debaters become exposed to various resolutions and topics for debate, conduct
research on both sides of usually controversial social subjects , organize and write briefs for both sides, and go through the process of arguing those positions, they have the opportunity to develop a wider view of differing social perceptions (2002, 1314). Research also shows that debaters are more inclined to become members of intercultural organizations and enroll in cross-cultural classes (Rogers 2005). These tendencies are improved and enhanced when debate programs engage in community outreach . Beth Breger observes that
these programs encourage a dialogue that not only results in profound learning but also becomes the bridge across the chasms of difference (1998, 67). This finding is consistent with empirical research that has linked service learning with building citizenship (Morgan and Streb 2001). Empirical research proves that debate involvement enhances beneficial argumentative skills, while reducing verbal aggression (Colbert 1993, 1994). Debate helps students deal with other types of aggression as well . Reflecting on the Open Society Institutes lengthy experience, Breger reports that debate
teaches students to command attention with words, provides students with an alter nate outlet for day-to-day conflicts, and gives them a tool with which they can combat physical aggression (1998, 6667). As
Melissa Wade explains, If one knows how to advocate on ones own behalf in a way that will be acknowledged by the listener, one does not have to resort to violence to get the attention of decision-makers (1998, 63). This contention has been confirmed by empirical research that documents a link between debate participation and a sharp decline in disciplinary referrals (Winkler 2009). The personal benefits of debate extend well beyond social attitudes and behavioral control. Participants often experience debate as a form of personal empow erment. This includes feelings of personal
efficacy, educational engagement, and political agency. Robert Branham explains that debaters evaluate what they are told, and therefore come to see their own knowledge about the world as earned instead of passively received from instructors or textbooks (1991, 20). Many authors (e.g., Freeley and Steinberg 2009) have noted that debate experience gives students the confidence they need to interact with peers and authority figures. Debaters see themselves as citizens who can successfully engage complex questions of policy. As Cori Dauber explains, debate
teaches students that they ought not be intimidated by the rhetoric of expertise surrounding policy issues. They know that they are capable of making and defending informed choices about complex issues outside of their own area of interest because they do so on a daily basis (1989, 207). This sense of
empowerment is not an abstraction. Debaters gain the skills and the attitude they need to engage important issues in their lives and their communities. Gordon Mitchell (1998, 53) outlines the empowering potential of a variety of debate practices. He describes debate as a political activity that has the potential to empower students and teachers to change the underlying conditions that cause inequities among schools and communities . Reflecting on their study of Latina involvement in debate, Casey Arbenz and Sylvia Beltran conclude, debate can be a useful vehicle for providing empowerment and educational opportunities lacking in the
public school system (2001, 14).
26

Switch side debate doesnt force people to violate their beliefsthe resolutional point of stasis still allows argument flexibility Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
defense of switch side debate, http://dspace.zsr.wfu.edu/jspui/bitstream/10339/207/1/harrigancd052008, p. 57-59)RaPa One outstanding issue that deserves further consideration is the form of the debate resolution and its impact on switch side debating. One question that has been raised is whether or not the current method of topic construction mandates true switch side debating. Presently, a norm exists that the year-long topic for debate should be written to allow for significant latitude in affirmative case selection. As a result, it is frequently possible for teams to
--AT: violate beliefs
select a case that they do not personally disagree with when affirmative . For example, on the aforementioned 2006-2007 Courts topic, affirmative teams who did not want to debate about abortion could choose from three other decisions (dealing with enemy combatants, school desegregation, or federalism) instead . When negative, the mainstreaming of affirmative-inclusive arguments like counterplans and critiques has allowed teams to agree with nearly all parts of the affirmative case. Thus, the question arises: is the current form of argumentation really switch side debate? 71 Some have said no: the core areas of controversy are allowed to go uncontested as long as debaters wish (Ellis 2007). The fundamental mistake here is the assumption that some issues are more switch side-worthy than others. The current requirement that teams debate on both the affirmative and negative of the topic does require, at some level, switching sides. True, not all issues relevant to a given topic receive this treatment. However, at least one major issue must be debated from both sides. On the Courts topic, the resolutional stem (Resolved: that the United States Supreme Court should overrule) was the point of pivot, a normative statement that had to be contested regardless of which specific decision was being debated. To say that this is not true SSD places an undue priority upon certain parts of the topic (the branches rather than the
stems) based on personal preference for controversy.
Switch Side debate doesnt conflict with personal convictions and even if it does it moderates extreme beliefs Harrigan 8 NDT champion, debate coach at UGA (Casey, thesis submitted to Wake Forest Graduate Faculty for Master of Arts in Communication, A
defense of switch side debate, http://dspace.zsr.wfu.edu/jspui/bitstream/10339/207/1/harrigancd052008, p. 57-59)RaPa Second, the link between debating both sides and the moderation of students beliefs is far from clear. Admittedly, there has been little to no formal empirical research investigating this connection. Yet, it seems equally likely that SSD may bolster the original beliefs of debaters (especially if they held beliefs that are found to be desirable after all related issues have been discussed) by
allowing him or her to develop thoughtful responses to the best arguments against their original position. If a debaters beliefs are altered because he or she realizes that he or she has made an error in their initial conviction, then that seems to be a clear benefit, rather than a drawback, of SSD. Incidentally, if a position is so weak that debaters are likely to alter their opinion about it as a result of merely temporarily positioning themselves as advocates of it, then the utility of such a view must surely be held with a high degree of skepticism. Moreover, even if SSD does moderate the beliefs of debaters, this alone is not evidence of an insidious plot to undermine radical activism. The statistical notion of regression to the mean can explain a great deal of this phenomenon. Referring to the purely statistical tendency for extreme results to become more moderate over time, it explains how, when beginning from intellectually extreme positions, debaters can only become more moderate over time . Thus, any
form of debatingfrom conviction or SSDis likely to have the same moderating effect and SSD should not be subject to unique criticism on these grounds alone.
Debate is a game but switch side debate still teaches advocacy skills and discourages peer pressure as well as conforming to societal norms this solves your offense. Even when debating against our convictions, we become better advocates by understanding our opponents mindset Muir 93 Communication studies at George Mason University (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.
26, No. 4 (1993), pp. 277-295, ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40237780) RaPa The comparison between moral education and debate is useful because it contextualizes the process of moral development within an educational setting. Several objections have been raised about the practice of moral education, and these objections have direct relevance to the issue of switch-side debate. A view of debate as a form of moral education can be developed by addressing questions of efficacy, of isolation from the real world, and of relativism. The first issue is one of effectiveness: Do clarification activities achieve the espoused goals? Social coercion and peer pressure, for example, still occur in the group setting, leaving the individual choice of values an indoctrination of sorts.27 Likewise, the focus of clarification exercises is arguably less analytic than expressive, less critical than emotive.28 The expression of individual preferences may be guided by simple reaction rather than by rational criteria. These problems are
minimized in the debate setting, especially where advocacy is not aligned with personal belief. Such advocacy requires explicit analysis of values and the decision criteria for evaluating them . In contemporary debate, confronted with a case they believe in, debaters assigned to the negative side have several options: present a morass of arguments to see what arguments "stick," concede the problem and offer a "counterplan" as a better way of solving the problem, or attack the value structure of the affirmative and be more effective in defending a particular hierarchy of values. While the first option is certainly exercised with some frequency, the second and third options are also often used
and are of critical importance in the development of cognitive skills associated with moral judgment. For example, in attacking a case that restricts police powers and upholds a personal right to privacy, debaters might question the reasoning of scholars and justices in raising privacy rights to such significant heights (analyzing Griswold v. Connecticut and other landmark cases), offer alternative value 284 STAR A. MUIR structures (social order, drug control), and
27

Even within the context of a "see what sticks" paradigm, these arguments require debaters to assess and evaluate value structures opposite of their own personal feelings about their right to privacy. Social coercion, or peer pressure to adopt certain value structures, is minimized in such a context because of the competitive pressures . Adopting a value just because everyone else does may be the surest way of losing a debate. A second objection to debate as values clarification, consonant with Ehninger's concerns about gamesmanship, is the separation of the educational process from the real world. A significant concern here is how such learning about morality will be used in the rest of a Student 's life . Some critics question whether moral school knowledge "may be quite separate from
defend the criteria through which such choices are made (utilitarian vs. deontological premises). living moral experience in a similar way as proficiency in speaking one's native language generally appears quite separate from the knowledge of formal grammar imparted by school."29 Edelstein discusses two forms of segmentation: division between realms of school knowledge (e.g., history separated from science) and between school and living experience (institutional learning separate from everyday life). Ehninger's point, that debate becomes a
pastime, and that application of these skills to solving real problems is diminished if it is viewed as a game, is largely a reflection on institutional segmentation. The melding of different areas of knowledge, however, is a particular benefit of debate, as it addresses topics of considerable importance in a real world setting. Recent college and high school topics include energy policy, prison reform, care for the elderly, trade policy, homelessness, and the right to privacy. These topics are notable because they exceed the knowledge boundaries of particular school subjects, they reach into issues of everyday life, and they are broad enough to force students to address a variety of value appeals. The explosion of "squirrels," or small and specific cases, in the 1960s and 1970s has had the
effect of opening up each topic to many different case approaches. National topics are no longer of the one-case variety (as in 1955's "the U.S. should recognize Red China"). On the privacy topic, for example, cases include search and seizure issues, abortion, sexual privacy, tradeoffs with the first amendment, birth control, information privacy, pornography, and obscenity. The multiplicity of issues pays special dividends for debaters required to
defend both sides of many issues because the value criteria change from round to round and evolve over the year . The development of flexibility in coping with the intertwining of issues is an essential component in the interconnection of knowledge, and is a major rationale for switch-side debate.
28

Turn- ideological thinking is anti-political because it attempts to eradicate difference allowing conviction into the political realm is totalitarian Koyzis 3 (David Theodore, Prof. Pol. Sci. Redeemer U. College, Political visions and illusions, p. 20-21, Google Books)
But why ascribe to ideology a basically conservative role. Why differentiate between ideology and utopia? Cannot erroneous ways of thinking also be called into the service of new social and political projects? Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), Bernard Crick (1929-) and Vaclav Havel (1936-) clearly believe they can.
--AT: Hicks and Green
According to Arendt, whenever a purely rational construct, conceived within the realm of thought, is imposed on a community, it threatens to put an end to that action and speech contrary to constitute and maintain the free political realm. Ideologies attempt to offer a total explanation for the world and its history and thus "all ideologies contain totalitarian elements." They read the whole of reality through a single idea and deny the possibility that any genuine knowledge can be attained through experience apart from that idea . In contemporary parlance, they exempt themselves from a "reality check." It is a short step from ideology to totalitarianism, which not only interprets the world through a single idea but also attempts to mold it in accordance with its inexorable logic . Hence ideologies such as
Nazism and communism have caused much suffering in their attempt to control the supposedly autonomous historical forces they have ostensibly revealed. Following Arendt, Crick too believes that ideology threatens the continued existence of politics in his specific sense. Here ideology is once again a force for change, but the change it effects is the extinction of legitimate social diversity and of the ongoing conciliatory process flowing out of it. Ideological
thinking "is an explicit and direct challenge to political thinking." For Crick, as for Arendt, ideology is connected with totalitarianism. The latter is antipolitical because it attempts to eliminate different interests and to mold the people in accordance with a single idea. It tries to simplify the complexity of society into a monolithic vision, often of a utopian character. Politics is limited, while totalitarianism is not. Politics is content to make do with the existing state of society and to conciliate whatever interests are currently there. Ideology attempts to remake, not only government, but "education, industry, art, even domesticity and private affections." All of these are accountable to this all-embracing ideology, which, in having to politicize society, ends up destroying politics altogether. For Havel, ideology threatens not only politics but also the ordinary aims of life itself, as it continually did in his native Czechoslovakia from 1948 until the collapse of the communist regime in November 1989. "Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world ."15 In what he labels the "post-totalitarian" societies of the former Soviet bloc, ideology claims to offer the people a sense of identity and dignity while in reality stripping them of this. "It is a world of appearances trying to pass for reality." It constructs a world which assimilates all people into a self-contained alternative pseudo-reality in which slavery passes for liberty, censorship for free expression , bureaucracy for democracy, and arbitrary power for legal authority. Under such a regime people are compelled to "live within a lie" in which they are made to deny the real aims of life, with all its humanity and unpredictability. In Havel we find ideology realizing its darkest potential . The state and domination is inevitable --- only a risk that our interpretation fosters democracy capable of combating oppression Stannard, 06 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech,
April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html) If it is indeed true that debate inevitably produces other-oriented deliberative discourse at the expense of students' confidence in their first-order convictions, this would indeed be a trade-off worth criticizing. In all fairness, Hicks and Greene do not overclaim their critique, and they take care to acknowledge the important ethical and cognitive virtues of deliberative debating. When represented as anything other than a political-ethical concern, however, Hicks and Greene's critique has several problems: First, as my colleague J.P. Lacy recently pointed out, it seems a tremendous causal (or even rhetorical) stretch to go from "debating both sides of an issue creates civic responsibility essential to liberal democracy" to "this civic responsibility upholds the worst forms of American exceptionalism." Second, Hicks and Greene do not make any comparison of the potentially bad power of debate to any alternative. Their implied alternative, however, is a form of forensic speech that privileges personal conviction. The idea that students should be able to preserve their personal convictions at all costs seems far more immediately tyrannical, far more immediately damaging to either liberal or participatory democracy, than the ritualized requirements that students occasionally take the opposite side of what they believe. Third, as I have suggested and will continue to suggest, while a debate project requiring participants to understand and often "speak for" opposing points of view may carry a great deal of liberal baggage, it is at its core a project more ethically deliberative than institutionally liberal. Where Hicks and Greene see debate producing "the liberal citizen-subject," I see debate at
least having the potential to produce "the deliberative human being." The fact that some academic debaters are recruited by the CSIS and the CIA does not undermine this thesis. Absent healthy debate programs, these thinktanks and government agencies would still recruit what they saw as the best and brightest students. And absent a debate community that rewards anti-institutional political rhetoric as much as liberal rhetoric, those students would have little-to-no chance of being exposed to truly oppositional ideas. Moreover, if we allow ourselves to believe that it is "culturally imperialist" to help other peoples build institutions of debate and deliberation, we not only ignore living political struggles that occur in every culture, but we fall victim to a dangerous ethnocentrism in holding that "they do not value deliberation like we do." If the argument is that our participation in fostering debate communities abroad greases the wheels of globalization, the correct response, in debate terminology, is that such globalization is non-unique, inevitable, and there is only a risk that collaborating across cultures in public debate and deliberation will foster resistance to dominationjust as debate accomplishes wherever it goes.
Indeed, Andy Wallace, in a recent article, suggests that Islamic fundamentalism is a byproduct of the colonization of the lifeworld of the Middle East; if this is true, then one solution would be to foster cross-cultural deliberation among people on both sides of the cultural divide willing to question their own preconceptions of the social good. Hicks and Greene might be correct insofar as elites in various cultures can either forbid or
29

reappropriate deliberation, but for those outside of that institutional power, democratic discussion would have a positively subversive effect.
30

SSD Cards

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SSD Cards

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[Tournament Name] Suo

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

--decision making o/w edu.

fulfillment of peoples lives, both individually and collectively (p. 156).

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

--solves decision making ext.

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

--ext. solves critical thinking

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

AT: Mitchell ev.

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

--AT: violate beliefs

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

--AT: Hicks and Green

[File Name] Lexington 2009-2010

S-ar putea să vă placă și