Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
First, presume aff since a) affirming is harder as proven by the 7% neg bias 1 on a sample
size of over 30 thousand rounds, so in the case of a tie I will have overcome the greatest
disadvantages and thus do the better debating, and b) we always presume something true
until proven otherwise because otherwise we wouldnt be able to begin to consider
anything because our thought process would itself be suspect Second, all potential
theoretical objections to the AC must be brought up in cross-ex, in order to give the aff
the opportunity for clarification regarding potentially confusing or misinterpretations of
arguments, and also to give the aff the option of making concessions to rectify any
possible abuse. This is best for competing interpretations because it prevents the
establishment of norms based on ambiguity and misunderstandings. Third, if the aff wins
offense to a counter interp, that he is reasonably fair, wins an I meet on T or theory, or
that their opponent violates their own shell, vote aff, because a) the neg can spread the aff
out in the 1AR; theory in particular requires huge time commitments because it is a game
over issue. The only fair thing is to let the aff collapse to theory in the 1AR, forcing the
neg to defend their interpretation, and b) competing mutually exclusive theoretical
interpretations of the resolution force the aff into a double bind of being subject to theory
no matter what is run in the AC, which also means no neg RVIs. At worst, drop the
argument for me, and the debater for the neg because I have to defend one interpretation,
and thus am subject to theory every round. Fourth, utilitarianism triggers presumption
because every action has an effect, which has another effect, and so on. There is no end
point at which we can say weve counted all the effects, since effects are part of an
unending chain. Within an infinite sequence, an action will, by definition, generate equal
good and bad outcomes. Thus both worlds will have equal utility, and thus equal offense.
Fifth, the negatives evaluative mechanism must allow for instances in which oppression
is desirable. Any other type of standard would destroy aff ground because under a
standard that categorically rejects violations of autonomy it would be a truism that you
negate, since the aff has to defend oppression. Thus, any other interp would obliterate
affirmatives ability to access turn ground, which is key to generating offense on other
places of the flow. Sixth, the best way to minimize the amount of deaths that will occur
in the future is through immediate death. This is true as there will be eons in the future
where the human race exists, and for every human that exists a human has to die.
Comparatively, the immediate death of people would prevent a much greater number of
people from experiencing death in the future. Death is axiomatically bad under expected
utility since death robs someone of any capacity for good. Seventh, the negative must
only prove that no government is more desirable than oppressive government. Any other
interp kills reciprocity since it also gives the access to proving both worlds are equally
desirable, or indicting an assumption, giving them a 3:1 advantage. Reciprocity is key to
fairness since it ensures an equal opportunity to win. Eighth, oppressive is defined as the
exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Prefer this
definition because it is the first on dictionary.com and they place their definitions in order
of common usage, which is key to fairness since it ensures stable interpretations of the
resolution. All forms of government are burdensome in some ways because they have
laws that limit citizens freedoms. For example, the United States forces taxes upon its
citizens. Thus, all forms of government are oppressive and are aff ground.
1 Fantasy Debate. National Statistics. Fantasydebate.com/ld-national-statistics
BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 1

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
Observation 1 is evaluative subjectivity. The only logically consistent conception of
desirability is one that deems it subjective. First, evaluations of situations must be
derived subjectively since we are unable to escape our own perspectives. Thomas Nagel2:
In the pursuit of this goal, however, even at its most successful, something will inevitably be lost. If we try to understand
experience from an objective viewpoint that is distinct from that of subject[s] of the experience, then even if we continue to credit its
perspectivial nature, we will not be able to grasp its most specific qualities unless we can imagine them
subjectively. We will not know exactly how scrambled eggs taste to a cockroach
even if we develop a detailed objective phenomenology of the cockroach sense of [their] taste.
When it comes to values, goals, and forms of life, the gulf may be even more profound. Since this is so, no objective
conception of the mental world can include it all. But in that case it may be asked what the point is of looking
for such a conception. The aim was to place perspective and their contents in a world seen from no particular point of view. It turns out that some aspects of those
perspectives cannot be fully understood in terms of an objective concept of mind. But if some aspects of reality cant be captured in an objective conception, why
not forget the ambition of capturing as much of it as possible? The world just isnt the world as it appears to one highly abstracted point of view that can be pursued
by all rational beings. And if one cant have complete objectivity, the goal of capturing as much of reality as one can in an objective net is pointless and
unmotivated. I dont think this follows. The pursuit of a conception of the world that doesnt put us at the center is an expression of philosophical realism, all the

Reality is not just objective reality,

and any objective conception of reality must include an acknowledg[e]ment of its own
incompleteness.
more so if it does not assume that everything real can be reached by such a conception.

Our lack of knowledge about desires, or the desires of another actor, leaves us only to
only consider subjective desires.
Second, any attempt to establish an objective metric for desirability devolves into agents
subjective desires, since objective reasoning is finite. Alasdair Macintyre3:
An agent can only justify a particular judgment by referring to some
universal rule from which it may be logically derived, and can only justify
that rule in turn by deriving it from some more general rule or principle; but
on this view since every chain of reasoning must be finite, such a process of
justificatory reasoning must always terminate with the assertion of some rule
or principle for which no further reason can be given.
Thus, any attempt to ground a system of objective desirability ultimately regresses to an
individuals subjective conception of it, so the resolution must be evaluated through a
subjective perspective.
Third, all truth claims function within a particular conceptual framework. These
conceptual frameworks determine what counts as evidence for a truth claim, making it
impossible to rationally debate between frameworks and reach an objective truth. Richard
Joyce4:
This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and stepping out of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to

linguistic frameworks (as Carnap calls them) bring

ways of talking: accepting the language of things licenses

Carnaps distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain

with them

new

terms and

2 Nagel, Thomas. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford UP, 1986. 25. Print.
3 Macintyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1981.
4 Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press,
2002. p 45-47.
BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 2

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
making assertions like The shirt is in the cupboard; accepting mathematics allows one to say
There is a prime number greater than one hundred; accepting the language of propositions permits
saying Chicago is large is a true proposition, etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial

philosophers have interested themselves in the external question the issue of the
adequacy of the framework itself: Do objects exist?, Does the world exist?, Are there
numbers?, Are the propositions?, etc. Carnaps argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does
not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to
the question Do numbers exist? is just trivially Yes. From a perspective which has not accepted
matter. But traditionally

mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: Shall I accept the framework of
mathematics?, and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the

philosophers questions But is mathematics true?, Are there really numbers? are pseudoquestions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form Shall I adopt...?, Carnap is offering a noncognitive
(traditional)

analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective that we can ask whether there are any noninstitutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions and that such questioning would not amount to a Shall we adopt...? query, Carnaps position represents a
threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the thing language, which involves reference to objects that exist in

To step out of the thing language and ask But does the world exist? is a mistake, Carnap
because the very notion of existence is a term which belongs to the
thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, hence
this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself. 16 Moving on to the
time and space.
thinks,

external question Do numbers exist? Carnap cannot use the same argument he cannot say that existence is internal to the number language and thus cannot be
applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what
other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to
generalize to all further cases:

persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do
are not arguing over the truth of a proposition,

not know what they are arguing over, thus they

but over the
practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway
the debate one way or the other.

Thus, desirability cant exist as an objective concept because it would require an alternate
framework to reconcile conflicting conceptual schemes. And, the differences between
different objective conceptual schemes means that the it would be impossible to debate
without looking to subjective desirability. Debatability is key to fairness since it ensures
each side can engage each other with a chance of winning.
Observation 2 is US Specification. Since desires vary from actor to actor, we ought to
evaluate the desirability of oppressive government through the subjective lens of the US.
Therefore, the affirmative burden is to prove that oppressive government is more
desirable than no government from the perspective of the United States government.
Prefer this interpretation:
1. Citizenship: We are currently debating in the United States and are citizens of it
so an evaluation of its desires and foreign policy has the most relevance to our
lives. Citizenship has the strongest internal link into education because a) what
we take from debate is our ability to learn ideas and use them in our future lives.
However, without having influence on the country we debate about, we cant help
to change and mold its policies, and would have no way to apply our knowledge.
And, b) most skills in debate leave us after we leave the activity and stop
practicing, but we will be US citizens for the rest of our lives, so citizenship
outweighs on longevity.
2. Topic Literature: The best topic lit is based in the US since a) the US is a
superpower meaning its perspective is one that is most recognized as
internationally legitimate on issues of global stability. And b) the US has had an
enormous number of interventionist policies since the beginning of the Cold War,
BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 3

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
making its lit pool very large. Topic Literature is key to fairness since it is key to
creating warrants, and thus dictates our ability to argue and win. Topic lit is also
key to education because the only way we learn about a topic is by reading the
literature.
3. Predictability: The US is where we live and thus its policies and practices are
those that are most well known to us. Choosing any country other than the one we
live in would be unpredictable since there are hundreds of other countries to pick
from, many of which are incredibly obscure, creating a near infinite research
burden. Predictability is key to fairness since it is key to preparing arguments and
thus win the round.
And, beating back why we should look to the subjective perspective of the US, absent
proving an alternate subjective mindset to look to, would mean there would be no way to
determine the desirability of affirming or negating because conceptions of objective
desirability are incoherent. As such, you would presume because there would be no way
for the aff or neg to garner any offense.
Observation 3 is Historical Support. The US perspective on balance deems oppressive
government more desirable than anarchy as reflected in its foreign policy.
First, there have been numerous instances in which the US has supported oppressive
governments over instability and anarchy. PBS5:
Despite many U.S. State Department proclamations that American interests lie in promoting the creation of democratic governments around the world, U.S.
power has at times supported oppressive regimes in the Middle East. During the
Cold War with the Soviet Union, many key policymakers saw a stable ally -- dictatorial or
not -- as far preferable to an unstable regime that might side with the Soviets. Even after [the
Cold War] the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. dollars and military assistance continue to
flow to regimes cited by human rights monitors for violations of human rights or lack of
democracy, including Saudi Arabia (where a Wahhabi regime limits women's
rights), Turkey (which has suppressed the movement for Kurdish autonomy),
Israel (which doesn't enforce equal rights for its Arab citizens), and the Egyptian government of Hosni
Mubarak (where an Egyptian American was jailed for encouraging voter participation). The U.S. also supported the
military coups in Tunisia (to depose President Bourguiba) and in Algeria, when the Islamists
appeared close to winning a national election -- and winning it fairly.
Thus, throughout history the US has believed that it is in its best interest to support
oppressive governments abroad.
Moreover, if the affirmative framework for the round is theoretically legitimate, the
negative must concede that standard and debate under it. Simply put, the negative may
not make substantive answers to my conception of desirability but may run theory saying
my framework is unfair or uneducational. To clarify, this is an interpretation. The
negative must run a counter-interpretation to challenge my framework. This would only
5 PBS; Global Connections: The Middle East; 2010;
<www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/>
BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 4

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
give the negative access to challenging the framework, however, to win the negative
would also have to win an RVI. AFC solves the unfairness caused by the time skew. In
the world of AFC the debate is limited to one issue, contentional debate. While the
affirmative still only has four minutes to answer seven minutes, the debate occurs on the
contention, so all the 1AR time can be focused on one issue. Frontlining the contention
debate also allows the affirmative to counteract the negative time bias and know what
issue the debate will come down to. Further, this solves the time skew completely by
making the 1AC 100% valuable, giving each side 13 minutes of argumentation on the
issue. In a world without AFC, the negative can make preclusive arguments for seven
minutes and mitigate the value of the 1AC. Preventing the aff from having to win
multiple parts of the flow checks back the time bias, which is key to fairness because it
gives the affirmative better access to time to make arguments.

BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 5

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
Table of Contents
THEORY FRONTLINES7
SUBSTANCE FRONTLINES...........................................................................................8
AT Resolution is in the Present Tense.....................................................................................8

BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 6

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
THEORY FRONTLINES

BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 7

Sam Natbony, Grant Reiter

Oppressive Government

THE DALE IS BACK

NSD 12

Desert Storm AC
SUBSTANCE FRONTLINES
AT Resolution is in the Present Tense
AT US Didnt Support Hitler

BASEBALL, HOT DOGS, APPLE PIE, AND CHEVROLET 8