The judge is an intellectual evaluating the 1AC speech act.

Regardless of intentions,
voting aff gives symbolic legitimacy to their representations
-Cassey Harrigan = MSU Director of Debate
James K. Stanescu 09 PhD student at Binghamton University (SUNY) in the Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture
program 11-8-09 http://wrongforum.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/reps-ks/
Harrigan argues that the representations of the affirmative are not necessary components of the plan,
and therefore the judge can choice to ignore them if they are problematic. He goes on to say that the most offensive person can have a good
idea. However, Harrigan does not provide a guide for how we are to read the plan text. In Harrigans articulation, it seems as if the plan
text is the only part of the 1AC that is solid, that is a proposition for action. Everything else in the 1AC seems to
be so much chatter, so much ephemeral hints, so many ghosts. Under his view of the round, if someone were
to propose not giving missile defense shields to Japan, and had as one of their advantages that our
foreign policy should only be dictated by protecting Aryan civilizations, the judge could simply choose
to ignore that because the affirmative had other, non-racist advantages. What is missed by this view is that
every 1AC, every speech, has many propositions . There are more propositions of what should be done than those under
the heading of plan text, and there is no reason that the neg cannot focus on rejecting those propositions (well,
there are reasons of course, but that should be in the debate, not predetermined by the judge). Furthermore, the plan text itself is
never a full bill (for good reason). But that means we never completely know the ways that a plan will be
implemented and interpreted. The representations of the 1AC give us a context , a way to read the
plan text. For example, you could have two different people advocating that abortion should be legal in
some particular country. One person could be advocating greater social autonomy, more reproductive choices
and rights for women, etc. Another person could be advocating that abortion could be a tool for
scientific eugenics. The reasons given for a policy could be a hint for the ways that a policy is
intended to be implemented. There seems no reason to radically decontextualize plan text, because plan text always
needs a contextualization . Also, the reasons given for pushing for a policy agenda could splinter
groups, making the real world implementation of such a policy harder to come about. To use the example
above, think about the ways that such eugenicist discourses surrounding abortion supporters in the US not only made it hard to get support
among women of color, but also further fragmented the feminist movement which has constrained their ability to make other goals. Lastly, it
seems to me that Harrigan ignores the importance of symbolic battles. Harrigan seems to purpose that the only thing
voted for at the end of the round is plan text. However, to use his example of a town hall meeting (which, I am not granting this is the right
framework/analogy to understand debate, but to think within it for a bit), it isnt just a plan that is being debated about,
but an entire series of relays and rhetorics that support such a plan. If, for example, the Nazis really
were suggesting health care reform to better protect Aryans, and I said, Man, I hate Nazis and
racism, but health care reform seems grand I would be allowing the symbolic strength of the Nazis
to increase by letting them win a battle of the importance of health care reform. The policy is not the
only thing granted legitimacy, but the entire apparatuses and relays that garner support for the
policy is also given legitimacy . I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that it might be more important to stop the Nazis and their
racist agenda than it would be to pass the parts of the Nazi agenda I agree with. Every debate has a series of symbolic
battles, that gather legitimacy through wins , and through the repetitions of those arguments . Now, I
understand that all of the examples I give are extreme, but it seems that Harrigan invites such examples by saying that the worst sort can still
have good ideas. In short, I think the extreme examples give us an ability to determine if reps sometimes should win the day. And if we believe
that, then the entire type of discussion shifts. Debaters give many representations, and many propositions, for
their plan texts. They have many rounds at a tournament, and many tournaments in a year. If we
want them to not repeat certain representations, we have to open up the possibility that they can
lose a round based on such representations. Otherwise, certain symbols are given more legitimacy at
the end of the round, and others are given less. There are a lot of things that happen in the 1AC, and all of them are open for
debate.