 First high school debate programs are on the decline in urban city schools, Hoffman 2013. Since 2010-14, schools have dropped the debate Kansas City program, resulting in a 90% funding cut for the UMKC or supported urban debate league. Debate in city schools across America is pretty much dead. Second lack of federal funding is a problem and it is causing participation by urban debate teams to falter. This is Paul and I in 2006. The problem is that federal and private funds dried up this year for the Seattle Debate Foundation. It has 15,000 of just the 15,000 it needs to get through the fall. Finally, access to debate is unequal. This is Tom Evans in 2012. Debate stands out as a high school activity that we know can be tremendously intellectually rewarding, but to truly gain those benefits, students need access to rigorous camps, quality coaching, and a chance to attend competitive tournaments. So as it stands, the intellectual rewards of debate are, for the most part, reserved only for those who can afford its high cost of admission. Because we believe every student in the United States should have access to the academic and intellectual rewards of debate, we offer the following plan. The Department of Education will mandate starting and or maintaining a comprehensive forensics program that includes inter-scholastic debate for students at all public secondary schools in the United States, funding guaranteed in the amount of $520 million from the Department of Education discretionary budget. Observation to a solvency. First district funding is key to successful high school debate programs. This is Lesley in 1988. Debate coaches are professional educators and retinas is on being paid for their time and expertise. Some of this money is spent on travel, both local and national. Then there are assistant coaches providing a sizable edge in training and support over the program that has only one coach. It also pays for already supplied basic debate materials. A school's debate budget, therefore, converts into competitive advantages at a rather high level of efficiency. Second to statistical research proves that long-term stable funding is necessary to not just participation but competitive success. This is Bill Meason and Jason Cramer, 2001. This study proves that the economic standing of a high school is directly related to the success of that high school at debate tournaments. Students from economically underprivileged high schools were not as successful as students from richer high schools. These findings point to the need for debate outreach at economically underserved schools. Advantage 1 is critical thinking. First secondary school students in the US currently lack the necessary training and education in critical thinking. This is Christopher Koch, 2011. Everything is being done with the guidance of a teacher going through the steps of a procedure and this is where the problem is. The bottom line is teachers need to encourage critical individual thinking among their students. This critical thinking problem is pervasive among secondary school students in both reading and writing. This is Shmoly Yankiewicz, 2013. Only 6% of 12th graders can make informed critical judgments about written texts and only 15% of 12th graders demonstrate the proficiency to write well organized essays that consist of clear arguments. The result of this is citizens who lack knowledge and are easily taken in by simplistic thinking and irrational arguments. This is Lawrence Davidson, 2013. Rick Schenkman in 2008 demonstrated that most Americans were ignorant about major international events and knew little about their own government who runs it and who runs it were nonetheless willing to accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thoughts suggested they were back for the country and were readily swayed by stereotyping simplistic solutions, irrational fears, and public relations babble. Luckily, research shows that debate cultivates critical thinking. This is Cezal Ayake, 2010. Because debate requires logical persuasion to participants, debate has been regarded as useful for cultivating logical thinking or debating skills and practice in educational contexts as debate learning. This characteristic of debate is also useful for cultivating critical thinking. A foundation in argumentation and exploration of multiple perspectives on issues produced not only more educated and engaged citizens but also increases epistemic and world development of our youth and hence our future leaders. This is Shmoly Yankiewicz, 2013. Thinking and argument skills, the ability to both generate and critique arguments are crucial elements in decision making. When applied to academic settings, argumentation may promote the long-term understanding and retention of course content. In all careers, academic classes and relationships, argument skills can be used to enhance learning when we treat reasoning as a process of argumentation. It is imperative that high school students of diverse, personal, moral, and intellectual commitments become prepared to confront multiple perspectives on unclear and controversial issues when they move on to college and their careers. This is not only important for assuring students are equipped to compete in the marketplace of ideas but also to maximize their own cognitive development more broadly. School-based nursing of that development will lead to students' autonomous critical thinking and their formation as responsible citizens. We must invest in the education of our youth, that they are our future. In addition, individuals who think critically live reasonably and empathetically. They avoid simplistic thinking and consider the rights and needs of others. Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers and commit themselves to lifelong practice towards self-improvement. This consideration and empathy is necessary to avoid dehumanizing others. Jerome Vest et al 2012. An adequate understanding of humanist, denied to others when they are dehumanized, is necessary in order to get a full grasp of what it means to dehumanize others. Dehumanization causes violence, cruelty, and genocide. This is Thomas Homer Dixon 2012. Participants in violent conflicts often dehumanize their opponents. Indeed, some form of dehumanization is arguably a defining feature of the most brutal acts of human violence, such as saturation of the environment of civilian populations, terrorist attacks on urban centers, intense battlefield combat, and genocide. Human life is a society of total domination, lacking in freedom and choice. Dehumanization destroys the values of life and outweighs all calculable impacts. This is Dr. David Baroo 1997. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Thank you. Can I have a copy of your plan text? Please. Okay, so how did you get how much money the Department of Education is going to allocate through all these schools? So the Department of Education is giving $520 million from their discretionary budget, and how we got to that is we took a number of public schools across the United States and multiplied that by the amount of money it takes to run a successful debate program. So now debate is more like an extracurricular activity. How are you going to, how's this going to be mandatory for all students to do this? It's going to debate, by fostering these debate programs, it's going to be an extracurricular activity that students can be involved with, but by creating more access to these, to this program that results in these critical being skills, we're going to allow for more people to get involved with it. So just having that access is going to create more involvement. I see that. So then, but how is the Department of Education from federal government, how is it going to ensure that these students will want to do this just with $520 million that you're going to give? Well, in my cards, I've showed how access to debate is unequal right now, and so just by giving all of these schools the funding they need to incorporate and implement these programs, it's going to allow for more student participation in such programs. Okay, so down on your impact of your first advantage? My advantage or my impact? The impact, the dehumanization. So, what you're saying is that people who aren't going to be doing debate now, they're going to go into dehumanization. Students who already don't want to be. I'm talking about how the lack of critical thinking skills in society right now leads to dehumanization, that a lack of critical thinking skills is the root cause, the underlying problem of dehumanization. So then, I guess more for now, is your funding through normal means? Yes. Okay. So then, I guess just my main question is, I don't see how the Department of Education like you're just okay, you took money from it, but how is this going to force teaching the debate in these schools? Well, the problem is that these debate programs aren't being funded. I talked about how in my first observation, my inherently part, about how the Seattle Debate League has 15,000 of the 50,000 it needs to get through the fall. So by providing this funding to these schools, we're allowing for more participation, we're allowing for these teams to get to the advantage of critical thinking. Okay. Okay, so roadmap. I will be doing three off cases and then on case to solvency, and then down to the dehumanization impact. Be sure to sign those. So to first begin, T, education is a process of teaching. A, interpretation. The affirmative team must alter the way something is taught. Miriam Online Dictionary 2013, education, the action or process of teaching someone, especially in a school, college, or university via the violation. The affirmative team does not alter the action or process of teaching. And C, standards. One is a bright line. Then again, the negative interpretation clearly distinguishes between topical and non-topical agents and two, ground, due to the immense power of Congress, the negative interpretation offers significant ground for affirmative plans and three, limits. The negative interpretation provides fair limits to the resolution that prevent plans from spitting off into obscurity. And three, predictability. The negative definition comes from a Miriam Webster definition. The affirmative must be prepared to face such predictable definitions and five, dictionary definitions are best. Choose the dictionary definition because its authors seek to define the words while writing their books. And D, this is a voter's fairness. Since the negative team has a larger research burden, it is imperative that you allow us to establish reasonable limits to preserve the fairness of the debate and to education. Unpredictable affirmatives don't allow us to have an educational conversation. And three, jurisdiction. As judges of the resolution is outside of your jurisdiction to vote for a plan that is not topical. Simply that her plan is not altering the way something is taught right now. She's just taking money strictly from the DOE and then publicating it. Next off case is a counterplan. The 50 states and all relevant U.S. territories should mandate starting and or maintaining comprehensive forensics program and that includes inter-scholastic debate for students at all public secondary schools in the United States. Solvency. States are able to run education policy without the federal government. CATO Institute 2009 a federal rules has suppressed innovation and diversity in state education systems. Researchers have found the serious shortcomings with many federal education programs. Experience has shown that the federal funding and top down intervention are not ways to create a high quality K-12 education system. So the plan and the counterplan are mutually exclusive. The federal government and 50 states do not would not do the same policy that the permutation will fail. And this that's why I also bring forth next off case is disadvantage. Federalism disadvantage. The United States Constitution does not grant the power to regulate education to the federal government done as 2011 by no university. The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution states the powers do not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states. Or reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Since education is not mentioned in the Constitution is one of those powers reserved to the states. And the Obama Administration is stepping beyond its constitutional authority and expanding federal power via education policy. Board check 2001. Education is necessarily a state and local concern. Even if the subjects of education are the same everywhere the needs and the character of any given community are often quite different from others. The result is an acclimation of power in Washington DC and the expense of states and local authority and responsibility to many Americans and their elected leaders labor labor under the belief that there's no problem the federal government cannot solve in reality. The problem of public education only worsens the more federal bureaucracies inference and increased federalism advances hegemony. Revelling 92. If the United States is to be an effective world leader it cannot afford overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the states. Effective domestic policy is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs and hegemony prevents multiple scenarios of nuclear work. Hagan 2007. Where the United States to diminish its influence other nations would settle these feats through wars. Most of these powers possessed nuclear weapons. War would erupt between China and Russia and Georgia conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible as does conflict between Iran and Israel other Middle Eastern states. These could draw into other powers. So with proposing the counterplan of the 50 states do this this avoids this federalism disadvantage which would lead to nuclear wars. And now on to case. So first going under the solvency is the solvency press that she simply stated that students just we need more money to help fund debate programs in schools. But this is but since the DOE is just allocating this money to them it is not specifically saying we need X amount of teachers for debate we need this type of tool to help teach debate. So this is not really altering the way something is being taught as what I brought in Tava Cali and then down to the impact of dehumanization. You can always rehumanize people an example in the Holocaust is that people who the survivors are out of it were able to be rehumanized were able to come out of that. So this impact is not way in this case and please prefer my impact of nuclear war from the federalism disadvantage and it is more probable and more likely and more realistically going to happen not dehumanization from lack of critical thinking which has not been true. Okay, on Tava Cali what was your interpretation of it? You must alter the way something is taught. Also can you give me, this is off-case to your kind of thing, can you give me an example of when all states have come together to pass 180 by law? Absolutely, for example the highways having a speed limit or alcohol age being able to legally drink. So you're using the passage of speed limit laws synonymously with education reform. No, you asked me for an example of what in unison all 50 states have agreed upon. I was just giving you an example of how a realist can probably learn to actually have it. Yeah, that's my question. How are the states going to be able to fund this if you're giving the education reform delegation facts of states? Right, okay. So what it would do is as you've seen in a lot of public schools have become chartered so therefore they're allowed to use their own money within their local communities. So, for example, that they're allocating this money without having to rely on federal government, oh here's only X amount of dollars, when they're able to see the funds and be able to properly allocate it in exactly what specific programs need to help rather than just throwing huge dollar amount in states. Okay, you didn't exactly answer my question, where is the money coming from from the states? I mean. Yeah, I said local, local communities. Public schools have their own budgets. And that budget wouldn't they have to cut from another program then to fund these big programs that don't exist in the state as well. Every state uses 87% of their own money to fund each one of their public schools. So it's only relying on what, and the 10% of the federal government anyways. On your other off-case advantage, how do you personally define Hedemany? I mean that was an impact. But Hedemany means it's sort of kind of like a U.S. president. It's kind of setting the example of, look at this is what we're doing and this is how to be an effective country, especially through education. So if that goes down, then other countries are going to look to the United States and say, oh look how much they're deteriorating or look how it's, look how much they're failing. So we just kind of have to set this global precedent. An example of how well to run a country and how effective that we have been in the past. And I think if we do this through federal government it's going to decrease our, um, this Hedemany. Okay, sounds ethnocentric, but okay I'm done with process. Okay, so for road map um, same order that's my top calorie campaign. Okay, everyone ready? So first on topicality, uh, on education the way instruction is given, that's the affirmative definition. Um, the interpretation is that the affirmative team must change the way instruction is given. However I'm going to offer a counter interpretation of education from Google search engine. The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. It's my counter interpretation of the word education. Um, I need this definition of education because adding this as giving instruction and um, creating more learning in the student environment. For counter standards, education. By broadening this definition of education a more thorough and in-depth understanding of the issues required, which is good for learning. Her definition of education is way too over limiting on my side. We're not going to have this, this breadth and depth of education in this debate round if we have this over limiting definition that the negative side, um, interprets. So we're decreasing education in that aspect. On predictability, uh, the affirmative definition comes from my Google search. And it would be the first definition in the search results when you type it into Google. And Google is a widely used tool and is available to the negative side. So, on predictability, she should have been more aware and know that I would have used this definition. So her, uh, standard on predictability is, um, turned on that case. Um, on reasonability, the definition used is not only fair but reasonable. She talked about how it's not reasonable to use any other definition. But as I just told you, my definition comes from a Google search engine. It's more predictable in that sense. Um, the negative definition is way too over limiting as I've said, and it's unreasonable to debate around. Um, she also talked about how dictionary definitions are best. I've given you countless, uh, examples of how when you type into Google, my definition is the first one that comes up. So you should, um, uh, vote for my interpretation on that. And this is a non-voter issue. She said that she voted for her based on topicality. It's a non-voter issue because I just gave you a counter-definition. I just told you why how all her standards on the on, on ground and limits predictability and how dictionary are best do not make sense because I offered you with that, uh, counter-definition. Now on to the 56th counterpoint. I offer a permutation to you both. So there's no reason that the federal government can't act in unison with the 50 states. It ensures integration on all levels. Um, federal action is key. The department ensures equality and access to education of DILA 2010. Although federal funding makes up a comparatively small portion of the total funding for public education, many of our schools rely heavily on these, uh, on this money to serve their most at-risk students. Uh, third, solvency deficit. The counter-plan doesn't guarantee solvency for critical thinking and dehumanization because of funding issues at the state level through 2014. Any week now, the Kansas Supreme Court will rule on a lawsuit filed by parents in school districts alleging that school spending could, um, violate the state's constitution. In New York last week in Education Advocacy Group filed suit claiming the state is nearly $4 billion short of fulfilling its school spending obligation. And in Texas, lawyers earlier this month wrapped up closing arguments in a similar lawsuit. Across the country, litigation is pending against 11 states over inadequate or inequitable school funding. Basically, I just gave you examples over the state how they don't have this money to fund these debate programs. And so that's why the federal government is the key actor in this regard. The states are going to go bankrupt. As an analog argument, California is one of, um, the eight biggest economy across the world. And, um, sure, they might be able to fund it, but what about the smaller states? They're not going to be able to fund it. We're going to see this decrease in, um, the economy because the states are going to go bankrupt trying to fulfill this, this plan and trying to create these debate programs. So her counter-plan of going through the states doesn't have any solvency in that regard. Um, also, um, there are no examples of all 56 acting in a uniform way on any issue and none of their solvency assumes 56 agreeing to, uh, build one similar pilot plan amongst the 50s. She gave me an example of, um, speed limit laws, but they vary across states. I mean, um, they're not all the same. So we're not going to have that same standard of debate programs that we see when passing my plan through the 50 states. So she doesn't have solvency in that regard either. Also on a timeframe issue, getting the 50 states to agree on the pilot plan and approved building, uh, could take years. Too much bureaucracy would lead to inaction. Um, next on to, uh, her solvency specification, uh, argument. Um, this is not a procedural argument. This is solvency-pressed. Our, my plan provides a specific actor mandating and funding and enforcement. Um, role-playing as policy actors is a better education in real world congressional focus. Simulation of different roles through fiat encourages learning and empowerment. Ends in Boer, 1999. Role-playing will help to eliminate the sentiment of effective consensus processes. Role-playing allows players to let go of actual or assumed constraints and to develop ideas for creating new conditions and possibilities. So she talks about how it's, uh, non-constitutional and the federal government can't mandate this, uh, education reform. I'm not mandating anything so it is constitutional because I'm giving money to the states. I'm giving money to develop these debate programs. So it is constitutional and, and besides that, we're role-playing. In this room right now, we are Congress. We are the policymakers, which allows for a more, more creative and educational plan text, which is why we should prefer, um, my plan of having the federal government be the actor. Now, on case, she talks about my impact about rehumanizing. Okay, why did we have the holocaust then? If we were, if we can still, uh, still call, uh, rehumanize people, we wouldn't have had the holocaust. So the real point of why we have these genocides, all these wars, is because we have the underlying problem of dehumanization. And I solve for that. Once I solve for critical thinking skills, which I do through this fostering and maintaining of these debate programs, I solve for dehumanization, which means I solve for all her impacts of war and whatnot, because I solve for the underlying, underlying problem of dehumanization. Thank you. I'll be going T counter, disadvantage, and then directly down to an under-view as to the plan underlying this. Yes, T kind of plan this in case, down the flow. Okay, so to first begin on T, um, there's no offense on kicking it. And then now down on to the counter plan. So first she says that perm, we can do both no reason that they can act in unison. I said in my first speech, under the counter plan, the plan and counter plan are mutually exclusive, and the 50 states would not do the same policy. That means her perm would fail. I said this beginning the first right underneath my counter plan, so she does, she cannot perm at all, and her perm does not stand in this, because I have said how the federal government is bad and cannot work in unison with this. And then down to her second point, that federal action is key, that DOE ensures equality in all access to education. Again, I had said how the federalism is not good with this, so the DOE is only giving a dollar amount. How does this, how does this access to all people education? She, it does not, that's why the states are able to do this better. And under her solvency deficit, that the counter plan doesn't guarantee for critical thinking dehumanization, because it's at the state level, that's exactly what my counter plan is doing, is that I gain access to all of her advantages and all of her impacts, and the fact that the states are being able to do it their own way, and know exactly how much money is to go to every single one of the debate programs. I would say that it's actually a turn, and we actually solve for and dehumanization a lot better. And under her, when she told me that I only give, that there's been no example of all 50 states doing one unison law, I said that alcohol age and speed limit. So she did not, she dropped my alcohol age during cross examination, and the fact that all states have agreed upon to have a speed limit law, not necessarily the difference of speed limit laws. So that was my example. And time frame it's actually, it's happening a lot quicker that the 50 states are able to do this better, because they know their own schools within their own states. So without having to rely and wait on the federal government to give them this money, they can do it right then and now. So that's why it is a time frame more probable that the counter plan still stands. We are able to solve for all the advantages and impacts in the case a lot quicker, and it is more probable that the 50 states all do this. And now I want to go down to my disadvantage. First I want to say that she had dropped my federalism disadvantage, that I still gain access to the United States Constitution does not grab the power to regulate education. The federal government, you can extend and flow all those cards throughout your flow sheet. And also that this is pretty critical that the Obama administration is stepping beyond its constitutional authority and expanding federal power and education. And also I want to say that the greatest impact to this disadvantage is that hegemony prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear war. So I still have this greatest impact that is more probable right now that nuclear war is going to happen so which exactly goes back down on to her case. So she gave when I was talking about her solvency that I said this is a solvency press and she had read up here that this was not a solvency press. So I think we kind of have, she did not address what I was saying about how I made the aim a little argument that how is the DOE exactly going to solve for proper implementation of debate, education with all the schools and role playing. Yes, I'm going to turn this into a great role playing is good and that's not exactly what I, that's not what I was going for, I was going for that. There was no more structure as to where this money is going to with all these public schools. So I never was going against that we shouldn't all be congress here or we shouldn't all start thinking about how we're going to better fund these programs and then down on to her, on to the greatest impact of dehumanization about rehumanizing people that we would have that in the beginning. But what I was saying is that you are able to rehumanize so sure she wants to start like from a take a steps take a few steps back from this, but dehumanization is inevitable it's going to happen. So that's why I was saying you are able to rehumanize if it's going to happen. So just an interview as to why I'm winning in this round is that I've written to you that it's more realistic and more probable that 50 states can do this plan. That we can have the advantage of critical thinking among all students because it's more probable, it's more reasonable for all, for the 50 states to know which money how much money they're going to have within their states and give it to each one of their schools. And also you're not going to buy her case because she dropped my federalism disadvantage and that I think is one of the most important debates cases on in this debate that the federal government simply cannot, is not efficient in this it cannot solve for this and if we don't then we're going to have the greatest impact of nuclear war in this round and in out ways the dehumanization dehumanization impact. So the magnitude of the magnitude of this federal disadvantage is so great it is nuclear war. It is among us, it will happen throughout the United States and the world if we do not get this to happen the time frame is going to happen now. If we allow more power to the federal government then it will further than nuclear war will happen a lot sooner. And so that is why you need to vote for the negative in this round because I still have the counter plane which still stands with 56 consultants a lot better a lot quicker and if you don't then you're going to allow the federal government to do this and it will lead to the greatest impact of the round which is my federalism disadvantage. I'm going to give you three reasons why you're going to prefer the affirmative plan in this round. First on impact analysis, magnitude probability and time frame. So she talks about how nuclear war is the biggest impact in this round. Okay, I solve for nuclear war because what's the root cause of nuclear war? What's the root cause of genocide and all of these impacts? Dehumanization. And since my plan solves for dehumanization I solve for all of her impacts. All of her impact scenarios of nuclear war and what not because I solve for dehumanization through the fostering of these critical thinking skills in public education across America. Also on a utilitarianism scale I save the most lives because I'm solving for this dehumanization. She talks about how you're able to dehumanize people. Sure that's great but we still have dehumanization because we have this lack of critical thinking skills. I talked about how in the Holocaust what was the root cause of that dehumanization and I solved for that so we're going to move away from these impact scenarios like I said of nuclear war and what not. And on a time frame scale I talked about how I can do that now because I have the Department of Education enforcing and giving money to all of the public schools across America the $520 million from the discretionary budget I can have that impact of dehumanization be taken care of now. And on a probability scale I can do it because the Department of Education has this money they have the $520 million and more apart of their discretionary budget to allocate this funding to all schools so on a probability scale and a time frame scale I can solve for this. Now onto a magnitude scale I can do this now I'm going to solve for more lives I'm going to solve for more problems so on those three scales I solve and I have a bigger impact at the end of the day. Now onto the permutation she keeps talking about how you can do a permutation because they're mutually exclusive do any of you guys know what mutually exclusive means? She has no explanation for that she doesn't tell you why they're mutually exclusive she has no explanation for that so you can't vote for that because you don't even know what it is because she offers no explanation for that whereas I tell you you can't perm both my both my plan and her counterplan because you can have the federal government and the 50 states working together to pass this reforming of education allowing more debate teams across America and all public high schools so you can perm both my plan and her her counterplan and lastly you're going to be voting for me because the federal government has the means to allocate this money to all schools in the United States without going banks rough like the states we have the $520 million from the DOE discretionary budget so I can do this and so I've given you three reasons impact analysis, permutation and how the federal government can do this without having an economic disadvantage in the status quo so for all of those reasons and more you will be voting for the affirmative side in this round