Part I. The StandardCopy Anchor Link

1. The Concerned Reader StandardCopy Anchor Link

   1. Judges can evaluate debates only through the lens of a reasonable and concerned reader resolved to read the affirmative as an article that each person considers and projects what approaches society should agree on a given issue. Under hermeneutic theory of interpretation, evidence can be evaluated only within the context in which it was written (Mantzavinos, 2020). We can only evaluate articles as written to ask members of the public to form social values and support an action. Teams need not defend roleplaying policymakers, since we're just practicing how to debate the media that we read, but we can only interpret and compare within the original context of arguments competing to persuade the public on societal issues. The ballot's only role is to see if a reasonable person would still agree with the thesis advocated, or if the negative dissuaded the intended readers from any supporting sentences. This is how debates are properly evaluated, regardless of field. Debate fails to teach persuasive critical thinking if it masks teaching logic fallacy. Judges should know their ABCs to avoid activism, bribery, and corruption. Negatives cannot be allowed to reframe to see “vote negative to reject racism and capitalism instead" or to look at it from another perspective, even if the judge finds that interesting, when the persons who'd normally be reading the case articles face systemic harms and would not find unfeasible mindset shifts persuasive in lieu of political action. The temptation of baiting judges to endorse activism waters down and distracts from learning to dissuade with relevant specifics, needed in the real world. Critique reframing “just because we can, as we are only learning anyways” produces cynical failure to persuade those people who'd be reading the case articles since they experience ongoing harms. Picking which quotes have more personal value impact is entirely subjective and not our purpose. We're here to learn to be persuasive and responsive with research. Critics mis-educate students to think it is persuasive to say that “if a policy uses money, one should reject it because capitalism is the root of all evils outweighs all concerns.” A critical gateway is equal to a spam bot that replies to every article to say people should read philosophy instead to solve all the issues. Those claiming “plan-focus fails to question ethics and assumptions” embarrass themselves by showing they misunderstand debate. Affirmatives already defend underlying claims needed to support a thesis. Negatives have to sufficiently contradict to dissuade a reader supporting the thesis. Critics moot that to discuss their “more interesting” thesis about a value in abstract contexts to manipulate as relevant. Debate so distorts evaluation that it misteaches that logic “works that way” to justify negligence to harm.

![][image2]Copy Anchor Link

Figure 3: The Concerned Reader Standard evaluates persuasive specifics over ideological reframing.

2. The unique context of a round matters – their quotes are misapplied here. We came to a tournament to present one side of views, without a narrow mindset, using the state and systems only because we have to, and expecting to hear all relevant fields of thought. These authors would not reject the debate due to flawed discourse, but rather demand we debate the case to teach to compare the discourse in order to do their process of accurate assessment: "we are forced by the nature of the subject matter to bracket the internal processes that constitute the state, to temporarily reify it, in order to get on with the systemic analysis. So yes, I am saying that we can be constructivists in one respect while reifying in another (Smith); indeed, I am saying we have to be. No one, not even the most relentlessly problematizing postmodernist, can problematize everything at once. It all depends on the question one is asking. Against a book on the states system, therefore, calls to ‘stop reifying the state!’ should be seen really as calls to ‘change the subject!” (Wendt, 2000). Critics cannot force defending one consistent mindset, as we cannot be expected to even know what mindsets relevant actors would have and then to prejudice. One inescapably engages in the mindset of the society they critique, but they do not assume the mindset is valid or have to defend it: just how to work around it. Krause & Williams (1997) explain that "to stand too far outside prevailing discourses is almost certain to result in continued disciplinary exclusion [...] [A]nalyzing state policy need not therefore be tantamount to embracing the statist assumptions of orthodox conceptions. To exclude a focus on state action from a critical perspective on the grounds that it plays inevitably within the rules of existing conceptions simply reverses the error of essentializing the state." It is the critics who should defend essentializing prejudice, as their concerns are not intrinsic to the advocacy and can coexist with it; engaging the state to address a harm is not the same as endorsing the state's foundational assumptions. Derrida (2004) agrees that by being statist “sovereignist only under certain conditions, one is already calling into question the principle of sovereignty. Deconstruction begins there.” Teams do not defend the system is good if they “use” it, as they call on the system for help as that is all there is. Affirmative defends the advocacy's consequences, not the belief system of any author; mindsets are revisable in-round, not intrinsic commitments. Judges reward critical frameworks claiming that any single policy fails to dismantle and thus perpetuates underlying systems, like capitalism, securitization, and flawed discourse. Critics get the judge to feel ethically outraged by something else to reject instead of listening to issues of the day, crowding out policy research that gives our lives value. Nietzsche (1990/1888) wrote, "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." We too lack integrity if we reduce each debate to simply a matter of whose system is fundamentally right, when the media in our pluralist society is written to appeal to many value systems. Critical scholars would want one to learn to persuade those with the mainstream mindset, not misrepresent their views as an excuse to reject considering shaping policy persuasion. We do not have to strictly defend policy roleplay, only that we are students practicing how to evaluate arguments on issues to learn how to persuade others in a pluralist society.

   3. Critiques over decades have not resulted in much more than hackneyed tokenizing ideas in critical theory that seems more interesting instead, then using intellectualism to find ways to use these to turn more types of people cynics against mainstream discourse. Judges tolerate it as some want to reward a student for explaining a complex critical theory discipline, but it gives up a better way of relevance without gatekeeping obstruction. There'd be no American revolution had every specific grievance in the Declaration of Independence been rejected as it left the colonial system intact. Projecting one's own mindset over outcomes justifies a Catholic nun not wanting to get her hands dirty considering secular abortion policy & imposing her will that others should reject their unholy ways as solving the root problem. Using Marxism to gatekeep considering problems is like using the Bible to fool people into not helping: if one uses anything secular, justify the root of all evil. Voting for critics is not inherently tied to us finding that literature more interesting. It cannot be supposed that we act as if everyone would agree to live by one side of sentences or another. Some authors would find it objectionable how their application in a debate teaches followers to reject mainstream discourse on issues to just focus on sentences about ethics instead. That was just a rule that someone made up to shift policy debate, as everyone wants to be creative and find a way to apply their unique interest. We miss the opportunity cost to evaluate as compartmentalized debates by dividing the specifics to debate about into separate core question areas that real–world topic literature focuses on. Other formats apply such quotes of values and -isms differently when relevant in context. We should stop tokenizing these sentences cherry-picked from humanities journals to construct some form of gamified logic-flow that mentally abuses students as if logical persuasion works that way in the real world. “If you advocate for an action onto a society, first defend all deeper societal flaws.” We tolerate this to make more people find interest in debate but these authors would compartmentalize as separate topics to avoid frameworks that weight impacts across different worlds of thought in order to teach critique cynical dichotomies. If they can make a judge view the case from any lens, then the total critique against American society can be seen via the lens of a terrorist recruitment video as inspiring quotes to justify the loss of lives for a higher value-to-life purpose to destroy the system. One can look at critiques rejecting the U.S..