Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Third, turn: Utopian thinking is good: Imagining Utopia makes progression possible. Paul
Streeton 99
Streeten 1999 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118)
First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as physicists assume an atmospheric vacuum for some
purposes, so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which they can start afresh. The physicists’ assumption plainly would not be useful for the
for long-
design of parachutes, but can serve other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow’s problems, Utopianism is not helpful. But
term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which can get
lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the second-best
of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost. Third, excessive
concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In negotiations, it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any
reform. Unless the case for change can be represented in the same detail as the case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the
conjuncture of circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable to even radical innovation.
Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday could have appeared
utterly Utopian, the reformers will lose out by default. Only a few years ago nobody would have
expected the end of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the disappearance of the Soviet Union,
the unification of Germany, the break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization of China, the end of apartheid
in South Africa. And the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the
Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailing the self interested pressures of the obstructionist groups. Ideas thought
to be Utopian have become realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them,
and those in power have to yield to their demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical
example. It is for these five reasons that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their
proposals and from thinking the unthinkable, unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political
constraints. They should elaborate them in the same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to
its elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic vision.
It is well known that there are three types of economists: those who can count and those who can’t. But being able to count up to two, I want to distinguish between two types of
people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the Utopians. The names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in a different context. The Pedants or
technicians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an emotional vested interest in keeping them this way. I have come
across them in the British civil service, in the bureaucracy of the World Bank, and elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservative, and no good companions for
reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians, the idealists, the visionaries who dare think the unthinkable. They are also admirable, many of them young people. But they lack
the attention to detail that the Pedants have. When the day of the revolution comes, they will have entered it on the wrong date in their diaries and fail to turn up, or, if they do turn
up, they will be on the wrong side of the barricades. What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the Utopians, between the technicians who pay attention to the details
and the idealists who have the vision of a better future. There will be tensions in combining the two, but they will be creative tensions. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will
work out in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed fantasy. Otherwise, when the opportunity arises, we shall miss
it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the opponents of reform, to those who want to preserve the status quo.
Third, it annihilates our ability to counter the opposing team, which destroys fairness. 2 reasons:
a) Destroys ground – we can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine
away all of life’s problems.
b) No literature – aff/neg can’t research answers to utopian positions because they simply
DON’T EXIST.
c) Fairness is a voter – <insert fairness is a voter>
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 4 of 15
Fairness is a Voter
2. Check abuse.
Fairness is a necessary check against abuse, otherwise debaters would always have an incentive to
utilize unfair arguments as no-risk issues.
3. Key to education.
Fairness is more important than substance or any theoretical standards because if debaters can’t fairly
engage is substantive discussion they won’t have any incentive to debate, meaning that we can’t access
the benefits of education or any other standards.
4. Reject opposition.
Rejecting the opposing team sends a message that argument that destroy fairness are inherently
detrimental; voting against them is the most effective way to do this.
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 5 of 15
2. No brightline.
There's no brightline for how much fairness is enough, so judge intervention is necessary to determine
when to pull the trigger.
3. Fairness is impossible.
Complete fairness would be giving both teams the same number of speeches and the same time in each.
That’s not true, and already fairness is thrown out as impossible to achieve.
6. Not a voter
As a last resort, we can sustain a fair playing field by kicking the unfair argument; there's no need to
vote us down because of an unfair argument; we’ll just drop it.
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 6 of 15
Education is a Voter
2. Permeates.
Education is a voter because it contains actual out-of-round implications; substantive discussion of the
topic is valuable only insofar as it garners a link to education.
3. Most important
Education is more important than text or any other standards because if debate isn’t educational then
schools won’t have an incentive to fund debate and debaters would quit if they weren’t doing anything
productive.
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 7 of 15
1. No brightline
There's no brightline for how much education is enough to vote on.
7. Wrong forum
LD is centered on debating the resolution, and the judge is asked to evaluate the resolution, not which
side was more educational.
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 8 of 15
1. Destroys clash
Vagueness is unfair because I can’t effectively engage his position if I don’t know what it is until his
later speeches.
2. Moving target
Vagueness is unfair because he can just kick out of all my responses by narrowing his advocacy down to
something that they don’t apply to.
3. Education disrupted
Instead of focusing on the issue, we're forced to focus on the technicalities in order to understand the
issue. This means less education overall in the round. <insert education a voter>
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 9 of 15
1. CX checks.
They can pin down my position by just asking a few questions.
4. Context checks
Debate is self-disambiguating as it contextualizes argumentation. If specific clauses within the case are
vague, it is only because of their isolation from the rest of the debate.
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 10 of 15
1. Education permeates
Education is more important because it has outside value; the educational value attained through debate
helps us in the real world, whereas fairness is only valuable in a hypothetical debate setting.
1. Fairness is a prerequisite
Fairness always comes first as it indicts our ability to evaluate education; we can’t assess other
theoretical standards without first securing a fair playing field.
1. Speech order
Aff gets to speak first and last; I’m caught in the middle.
2. Number of speeches
Aff gets three speeches; I only get two – they can refute everything I say, always, I’m caught cramming
everything into two time periods
3. Preparation
They have infinite prep time before the round, meaning I have to prep for all possible cases.
4. No CX after 1AR
Prefer negative theory because the negative lacks cross-ex after the 1AR as a check against confusing
theory that they might run, so the negative always outweighs on risk.
1. Time Skew
Err aff on theory because time skew is against me; I have four minutes to answer a seven-minute NC
and preempt six minutes of NR responses. Always err aff otherwise the negative can take advantage of
the time skew by forcing me to cover bad theory.
AT: Preparation
They have infinite prep time before the round too, and, most negatives present negative cases to counter
aff cases. That means that I have to prep for all possible negative cases too. There’s nothing unique here.
1. Sends a message
Rejecting the opposing team send a swift and effective message that this kind of argumentation/theory
will not be tolerated. Rather than beating around the bush, it lays down the law: that the
argumentation/theory is a bad procedure and should not be used.
3. Promotes fairness
Voting on theory makes the debate more fair to both sides. <insert fairness is a voter>
Will Malson LD Theory File Page 15 of 15