![][image3]
Figure 4: Rational calculation and specific interventions avert crisis paralysis.
-
We do not need to defend roleplaying, we are just here to learn to correctly compare competing claims in context. We can only assume the context of the intended perspective. We practice how to persuade fellow citizens saying they should support that “the federal government should provide national healthcare.” The critic's mindset has to totally preclude a reasonable person from supporting the thesis. Under either mindset, the judge has to decide if general readers would still agree with the central thesis that the audience should support public action. Negatives use a framework trick claiming that since it is only a debate in a classroom the judge can also think of it as teaching us to pick a better mindset. Real-world readers, including the audiences for Lincoln-Douglas-style newspaper debates, would never find persuasive that, "abolition traps slaves into capitalism, so the reader should think of the whole debate via the question of is capitalism ethical." We cannot redefine each round to fit an ad-hoc framework as educational about that issue that the judge finds interesting. This trains distraction tactics rather than the persuasive dissuasion needed to avert history's worst decisions. In 1945, advisors to Pres. Truman on using nuclear weapons could have proposed striking oil infrastructure instead — an intrinsic alternative that served his actual aim of demonstrating will-to-use, since the enemy depended on oil. Arguments to bomb a different city for extrinsic ethical benefits, were a waste of time and only made the original choice more certain. In the 1993 Bosnia crisis, U.S. politicians criticized action “without proposing a practical alternative,” resulted in thousands dead and the delayed intervention was "close to the one that realists had initially proposed—and the one that had also been roundly condemned on moral grounds" based on "the belief that high-flown words matter more than rational calculation" (Gvosdev, 2005). The analogy to debate is thousands of lost chances to apply theory in action, not just to delay debate as if the harms are not real.
- Competitive debate is aimed against abusing argumentative logic that fails to prepare and would not work in debates that occur in real-world literature. The negative cannot win just on one flawed assumption alone (even if it is educational to learn about it), because then any of a hundred case issues would function that way. For example, “rethink that the economy is resilient and appeal to positive values.” From its founding 1947 national tournament, the purpose of debate has been to find persuasive argument logic to avoid conflict though words not swords. We must avoid logic fallacies that misapply logic from history to specific contexts. “Don't use the system that created the problem” depends on context; for example, doctors use drugs to rehabilitate drug addicts. We have no choice but to use the system while transitioning to better mindsets. Critic teams hope to win all year with one field of literature, killing building coalitions with others. Some judges allow them because they like hearing radical anti-modern arguments, forcing the affirmative to strawperson as the state. Providing space to discuss broader questions would work better for all if we did not extremify the authors, but instead there may be fair rules and evidence shared to consensually debate a broader topic-related philosophic question with clear burdens to meet. Topic papers may outline central questions in the literature. Platforms can enable in-person and online rounds of mutual-preference topic choice or the annual topic. If people want to debate anything interesting then we should avoid contriving and allow separate issues, since one topic is too narrow for how debate has grown.
