XT F/W (597) 1. We meet their interpretation We defend that the USFG sho !d s "stantia!!

!# red $e its presen$e in t%o of the topi$ $o ntries& that's the (rea! " siness) of the senten$e *. +/,- The aff sho !d ha.e to defend the reso! tion as a /ood idea thro /h a topi$a! p!an te0t. 1. We meet the $o nterinterp %e defend a topi$a! p!an te0t 2. 3refer the $o nterinterp 4. Stri$t!# po!i$# frame%or5s e0$! des other forms of dis$o rse& ma5in/ de"ate e0$! sionar# 6 !#n#$h& 97, Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica, Performing Politics: Foucault, Habermas, and Postmodern Participation, Polity, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( inter, !""#$, 3!%&
3'(, accessed )stor$

the entire attempt to set $onditions for 7idea! spee$h7 is ine.ita"!# e0$! si.e. The model of an ideal speech situation establishes a
It is not only that acquiring language is a process of mastering a symbolic heritage that is systematically gendered, but norm of rational interaction that is defined by the very types of interaction it e cludes. The norm of rational debate favors critical argument and reasoned debate over other forms of communication.!" #efining ideal speech inevitably entails defining unacceptable speech. What has been defined as unacceptable in $abermas%s formulation is any speech that is not intended to convey an idea. &peech evocative of identity, culture, or emotion has no necessary place in the ideal speech situation, and hence persons 'hose speech is richly colored 'ith rhetoric, gesture, humor, spirit, or affectation could be defined as deviant or immature

a definition of $iti8enship "ased on parti$ipation in an idea! form of intera$tion $an easi!# "e$ome a too! for the e0$! sion of de.iant $omm ni$at ors
communicators. Therefore,

from the $ate/or# of $iti8ens. This sort of normali(ation creates citi(ens as sub)ects of rational debate. *orrelatively, as 9. We m st in$orporate a!ternati.e perspe$ti.es !i5e o rs in order to stop .io!en$e 9!ei5er ':1 (0oland, prof of International 0elations 1 U of 2ueensland, 3risbane, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, ,-(,4, p. 56"4J7

+raser e plains, because the communicative action approach is procedural it is particularly unsuited to address issues of speech content.,- Therefore, by definition, it misses the relationship bet'een procedure and content that is at the core of feminist and deconstructive critiques of language. . procedural approach can require that 'e accommodate all utterances and that 'e not marginali(e spea/ing sub)ects. It cannot require that 'e ta/e seriously or be convinced by the statements of such interlocutors. In other 'ords, a procedural approach does not address the cultural conte t that ma/es some statements convincing and others not.

;ope for a "etter %or!d %i!!, indeed, remain s!im if %e p t all our efforts into searching for a mimetic understanding of the international. Issues of global 'ar and Third World poverty are far too serious and urgent to be left to on!# one form of in< ir#, especially if this mode of thought suppresses important faculties and fails to understand and engage the crucial problem of representation. We need to emp!o# the f !! re/ister of human perception and intelligence to nderstand the phenomena of %or!d po!iti$s and to address the dilemmas that emanate from them. 8ne of the /ey challenges, thus, consists of legitimising a greater variety of approaches and

+. Their definition is o t of $onte0t The We"ster's $ard states that ,F the part after the $o!on is the main " siness of the senten$e& $apita!i8e the $!a se after the $o!on. ,t's stri$t!# a"o t $apita!i8ation& tota!!# o t of $onte0t. 2. =d $ation 4. >is$ rsi.e ed $ation is 5e# to po!i$# ed $ation sin$e dis$o rse shapes po!i$# that's the >ot# '91 e. from the 14+ that means %e /ain interna!s to a!! of their offense %e $an't de"ate po!i$# %itho t de"atin/ dis$o rse 9. We pro.ide a$$ess to "oth $riti$a! and po!i$# ed $ation that's "etter& and %e don't pre.ent po!i$# ed $ation +. 4!! ed $ation /ained from po!i$#-on!# %i!! "e f!a%ed d e to 4meri$an =0$eptiona!ism 5. Fairness 4. %e $an't /et so!.en$# for an#thin/ %itho t e0aminin/ dis$o rse that's the entire 14+. 9. ?e$ipro$it# t rns s%it$h-side de"ate %e sho !dn't pre.ent the aff from $riti$i8in/ the s< o @ st !i5e %e sho !dn't pre.ent +3's +. We a!%a#s defend the p!an te0t& sti!! !in5s to /eneri$s no offense on fairness ma5e them pro.e spe$ifi$ a" se.

insights to 'orld politics. .esthetics is an important and necessary addition to our interpretative repertoire. It helps us understand 'hy the emergence, meaning and significance of a political event can be appreciated only once 'e scrutinise the representational practices that have constituted the very nature of this event.

A. 4/T Shi.e!# - We cannot rely upon common terms for discussion as they so often freeze alternative thought and prevent real debate from occurring. Bleiker, 98 asst. prof. of *nternational +tudies at Pusan National ,ni-ersit. (/oland, /etracing and redra0ing t1e boundaries of e-ents: Postmodern interferences 0it1 international t1eor.2, Alternatives, 3ct&4ec !""5, Vol. 23, *ssue '$ *n t1e absence of aut1entic 6no0ledge, t1e formulation of t1eoretical positions and practical action re7uires modest.. Accepting difference and facilitating dialogue becomes more important than searching for the elusive Truth. 3ut dia!o/ e is a pro$ess& an ideal, not an end point. Bften there is no $ommon dis$ rsi.e /ro nd& no !an/ a/e that $an esta"!ish a !in5 "et%een the inside and the o tside. The !in5 has to "e sear$hed first. 7. 4T- S%it$h-side !itch"side debate kills advocacy and prepares a !orld of neocons panos # (
illiam, in )oe 8illers9 :oo6 ;ross&e< pg. '(#$)F+ 4ear )oe 8iller, =es, t1e statement about t1e >merican debate circuit .ou refer to 0as made b. me, t1oug1 some .ears ago. * strongl. belie-ed t1en ?and still do, e-en t1oug1 a certain uneasiness about ob@ecti-it.2 1as crept into t1e p1ilosop1. of debate2 A t1at debate in bot1 t1e 1ig1 sc1ools and colleges in t1is countr. is assumed to ta6e place no01ere, e-en t1oug1 t1e

in the debate !orld, it doesn$t matter !hich position you take on an issue A sa., t1e ,nited +tates9 unilateral 0ars of preemption A as long as you %score points&. The !orld !e live in is a 0orld entirel. dominated by an %e'ceptionalist& America 01ic1 1as perenniall. claimed t1at it 1as been c1osen b. Bod or Histor. to fulfill 1isCits errand in
issues t1at are debated are profoundl. 1istorical, 01ic1 means t1at positions are al0a.s represented from t1e perspecti-e of po0er, and a matter of life and deat1. * find it grotes7ue t1at t1e 0ilderness.2 D1at claim is po0erful because >merican economic and militar. po0er lies be1ind it. >nd an. alternati-e position in suc1 a 0orld is -irtuall. po0erless. Bi-en t1is ine<orable 1istorical realit., to assume, as t1e protocols of debate do, t1at all positions are e7ual is to efface t1e imbalances of po0er t1at are t1e fundamental condition of 1istor. and to annul t1e 8oral aut1orit. in1ering in t1e position of t1e oppressed. D1is is 01. * 1a-e said t1at t1e appropriation of m. interested 0or6 on education and empire to t1is transcendental debate 0orld constitute a tra-est. of m. intentions. 8. sc1olars1ip is not disinterested.2 *t is militant and intended to ameliorate as muc1 as possible t1e pain and suffering of t1ose 01o 1a-e been oppressed b. t1e democratic2 institutions t1at 1a-e po0er precisel. b. 0a. of s1o0ing t1at t1eir language if trut1,2 far from being disinterested2 or ob@ecti-e2 as it is al0a.s claimed, is informed b. t1e

those in the debate !orld 01o felt li6e 1im should call into (uestion t1e traditional ob@ecti-e2 debate protocols and t1e instrumentalist language t1e. pri-ilege in fa-or of a concept of debate and of language in 01ic1 life and deat1 mattered. * am -er. muc1 a0are t1at the arrogant neocons !ho no! saturate the government of t1e :us1 administration A @udges, pentagon planners, state department officials, etc. learned their disinterested2 argumentative skills in t1e high school and college debate societies and t1at, accordingl., they have become masters at disarming the @ust causes of t1e oppressed. D1is 6ind leaders1ip 0ill reproduce itself (along 0it1 t1e in-isible oppression it perpetrates$ as long as t1e training ground and t1e debate protocols from 01ic1 it
0ill to po0er o-er all manner of ot1ers.2 D1is is also 01. * told m. interlocutor t1at 1e and emerges remains in tact. > re-olution in t1e debate 0orld must occur. *t must force t1at un0orldl. 0orld do0n into t1e 1istorical arena 01ere positions ma6e a difference. Do in-o6e t1e late Ed0ard +aid, onl. suc1 a re-olution 0ill be capable of deterring democrac.2 (in Noam ;1oms6.9s ironic p1rase$, of instigating t1e secular critical consciousness t1at is, in m. mind, t1e sine 7ua non for a-oiding t1e immanent global disaster to0ards 01ic1 t1e blind arrogance of :us1 >dministration and 1is neocon polic. ma6ers is leading.

C. XT Under their standards& e.er# aff is ntopi$a! sa#in/ %e $an't deri.e ad.anta/es from the o tside-reso! tion "enefits of the 14+ stran/!es aff /ro nd means %e $o !dn't e.en r n e$on or re!ations ad.s. 9. Do $an't .ote ne/ to endorse o r pro@e$t that's o r 9!ei5er and o r Spanos e.iden$e. This means #o .ote aff "e$a se #o thin5 it's a /ood idea for de"ate or in /enera! 1:. 9ad po!i$#ma5in/ no% that's 14+ 3arsnea & .otin/ aff is the on!# $han$e to so!.e 11. B r 14+ is no more one-sided than an# t#pi$a! po!i$# aff %e sti!! /i.e the ne/ a $han$e to pro.e the p!an is a "ad idea or that o r $riti$ism is f!a%ed.