Reasons T is a voting issue

Decisionmaking

A fundamental problem with the affirmative’s perspective is that it ignores that WE ARE ALL POLICY MAKERS. Debating about alternative government policies is the best way to instill a METHOD OF DECISIONMAKING that is useful in all parts of life. Smith, former debate coach at Wake Forest University, 7 (4/4/2007, Ross K., “Challenge to the Community,” https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox, JMP)

Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every time we decide to undertake a course of action. Most policies are non-governmental. We have an obligation to ourselves and others to be good policy makers and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in our spheres of influence.Policy Deliberation and Debate: a METHOD for making and advocating better policy decisions.Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of teaching the SKILLS needed for successful use of a METHOD of making and advocating good decisions . Public policy topics are especially useful because the research base is public. While we could debate about private actions by private agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of information that would help make those debates good ones . There is a side benefit that some of what we learn about the public policy topics sometimes informs our later lives as citizens engaged in public deliberation regarding those same policies, but that is not the primary reason that public policy topics are necessary.Andy Ellis is a policy maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself and for/with others. But a topic about what Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and, frankly, largely none of our business.But Andy Ellis has been well served by having the training in one of the better methods of choosing among and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for. That method is policy debate.Debate about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is "debatable" because there is a common research base. The fact that the subject matter is at a remove from us personnally while still residing in the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.

The primary purpose of debate should be to improve our skills as decision-makers. We are all individual policy-makers who make choices every day that affect us and those around us. We have an obligation to the people affected by our decisions to use debate as a method for honing these critical thinking and information processing abilities. Freeley and Steinberg 9 (Austin J. and David L., John Carroll University and University of Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, p. 1-4, googlebooks)

After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by United Nations's resolutions. Debate about a possible military* action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.¶

Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate their growing family or should sacrifice

living space to reside in an area with better public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these* situations called for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned decisions.¶

Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make choices , and decision-making bodies from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social organizations . ¶ We all make many decisions every day. To refinance or sell one's home, to buy a high-performance SUV or an economical hybrid car. what major to select , what to have for dinner, what candidate to vote for , paper or plastic, all present us with choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration? ¶ Is the defendant guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what information should I rely to make my decision? Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which amendment to vote for, what television program to watch, what course to take, which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to pursue all present unique challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions . Yet even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making . In 2006, TIME magazine named YOU its "Person of the Year." Congratulations! Its selection was based on the participation not of ''great men" in the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in the evolution of information. Through blogs. online networking. You Tube. Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other "wikis," knowledge and "truth" are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian control of newspeople, academics, and publishers. We have access to infinite quantities of information, but how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs? ¶ The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative validity and strength . Critical thinkers are better users of information , as well as better advocates. ¶ Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely recognized.¶ Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the form of debates. These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in which we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or they may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the decisions of others.¶ Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a job oiler, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a customer for out product, or a vote for our favored political candidate.

A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productive inculcation of decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all facets of life---even if their position is contestable that’s distinct from it being valuably debatable---this still provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussion to avoid mere statements of factSteinberg & Freeley 8 (*Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-)

Debate is a means of settling differences , so there must be a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value or policy, there is no need for debate : the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas , proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate. In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered . For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy . To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions , frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007.Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions , they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posed —such as "What can be done to improve public education?"—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step . One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear argumentation . If

we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose.Although we now have a general subject , we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad , too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?" The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy ; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging . The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference , which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Switch side debate goodEven if the resolution is wrong, having a devil’s advocate in deliberation is vitally important to critical thinking skills and avoiding groupthinkMercier and Landemore 11 (Hugo and Hélène, Philosophy, Politics and Economics prof @ U of Penn, Poli Sci prof @ Yale, Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation, Political Psychology, http://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/publications)

Reasoning can function outside of its normal conditions when it is used purely internally. But it is not enough for reasoning to be done in public to achieve good results. And indeed the problems of individual reasoning highlighted above, such as polarization and overconfidence, can also be found in group reasoning (Janis, 1982; Stasser & Titus, 1985; Sunstein, 2002). Polarization and overconfidence happen because not all group discussion is deliberative. According to some definitions of deliberation, including the one used in this paper, reasoning has to be applied to the same thread of argument from different opinions for deliberation to occur . As a consequence, “If the participants are mostly like-minded or hold the same views before they enter into the discussion, they are not situated in the circumstances of deliberation .” (Thompson, 2008: 502). We will presently review evidence showing that the absence or the silencing of dissent is a quasi-necessary condition for polarization or overconfidence to occur in groups. Group polarization has received substantial empirical support. 11 So much support in fact that Sunstein has granted group polarization the status of law (Sunstein, 2002). There is however an important caveat: group polarization will mostly happen when people share an opinion to begin with. In defense of his claim, Sunstein reviews an impressive number of empirical studies showing that many groups tend to form more extreme opinions following discussion. The examples he uses, however, offer as convincing an illustration of group polarization than of the necessity of having group members that share similar beliefs at the outset for polarization to happen (e.g. Sunstein, 2002: 178). Likewise, in his review of the group polarization literature, Baron notes that “The crucial antecedent condition for group polarization to occur is the presence of a likeminded group; i.e. individuals who share a preference for one side of the issue.” (Baron, 2005). Accordingly, when groups do not share an opinion, they tend to depolarize. This has been shown in several experiments in the laboratory (e.g. Kogan & Wallach, 1966; Vinokur & Burnstein, 1978). Likewise, studies of deliberation about political or legal issues report that many groups do not polarize (Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Luskin, Fishkin, & Hahn, 2007; Luskin et al., 2002; Luskin, Iyengar, & Fishkin, 2004; Mendelberg & Karpowitz, 2000). On the contrary, some groups show a homogenization of their attitude (they depolarize) (Luskin et al., 2007; Luskin et al., 2002). The contrasting effect of discussions with a supportive versus dissenting audience is transparent in the results reported by Hansen ( 2003 reported by Fishkin & Luskin, 2005). Participants had been exposed to new information about a political issue. When they discussed it with their family and friends, they learned more facts supporting their initial position. On the other hand, during the deliberative weekend—and the exposition to other opinions that took place—they learned more of the facts supporting the view they disagreed with. The present theory, far from being contradicted

by the observation that groups of likeminded people reasoning together tend to polarize, can in fact account straightforwardly for this observation. When people are engaged in a genuine deliberation, the confirmation bias present in each individual’s reasoning is checked, compensated by the confirmation bias of individuals who defend another opinion. When no other opinion is present (or expressed, or listened to), people will be disinclined to use reasoning to critically examine the arguments put forward by other discussants, since they share their opinion. Instead, they will use reasoning to strengthen these arguments or find other arguments supporting the same opinion. In most cases the reasons each individual has for holding the same opinion will be partially non-overlapping. Each participant will then be exposed to new reasons supporting the common opinion, reasons that she is unlikely to criticize. It is then only to be

expected that group members should strengthen their support for the common opinion in light of these new arguments. In fact, groups of like-minded people should have little endogenous motivation to start reasoning together : what is the point of arguing with people we agree with? In most cases, such groups are lead to argue because of some external constraint. These constraints can be more or less artificial—a psychologist telling participants to deliberate or a judge asking a jury for a well supported verdict—but they have to be factored in the explanation of the phenomenon. 4. Conclusion: a situational approach to improving reasoning We have argued that reasoning should not be evaluated primarily, if at all, as a device that helps us generate knowledge and make better decisions through private reflection. Reasoning, in fact, does not do those things very well. Instead, we rely on the hypothesis that the function of reasoning is to find and evaluate arguments in deliberative contexts. This evolutionary hypothesis explains why, when reasoning is used in its normal conditions—in a deliberation—it can be expected to lead to better outcomes, consistently allowing deliberating groups to reach epistemically superior outcomes and improve their epistemic status. Moreover, seeing reasoning as an argumentative device also provides a straightforward account of the otherwise puzzling confirmation bias—the tendency to search for arguments that favor our opinion. The confirmation bias, in turn, generates most of the problems people face when they reason in abnormal conditions— when they are not deliberating. This will happen to people who reason alone while failing to entertain other opinions in a private deliberation and to groups in which one opinion is so dominant as to make all others opinions—if they are even present—unable to voice arguments. In both cases, the confirmation bias will go unchecked and create polarization and overconfidence. We believe that the argumentative theory offers a good explanation of the most salient facts about private and public reasoning. This explanation is meant to supplement, rather than replace, existing psychological theories by providing both an answer to the why-questions and a coherent integrative framework for many previously disparate findings. The present article was mostly aimed at comparing deliberative vs. non-deliberative situations, but the theory could also be used to make finer grained predictions within deliberative situations. It is important to stress that the theory used as the backbone for the article is a theory of reasoning. The theory can only make predictions about reasoning, and not about the various other psychological mechanisms that impact the outcome of group discussion. We did not aim at providing a general theory of group processes that could account for all the results in this domain. But it is our contention that the best way to reach this end is by investigating the relevant psychological mechanisms and their interaction. For these reasons, the present article should only be considered a first step towards more fined grained predictions of when and why deliberation is efficient. Turning now to the consequences of the present theory, we can note first that our emphasis on the efficiency of diverse groups sits well with another recent a priori account of group competence. According to Hong and Page’s Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem for example, under certain plausible conditions, a diverse sample of moderately competent individuals will outperform a group of the most competent individuals (Hong & Page, 2004). Specifically, what explains the superiority of some groups of average people over smaller groups of experts is the fact

that cognitive diversity (roughly, the ability to interpret the world differently) can be more crucial to group competence than individual ability (Page, 2007). That argument has been carried over from groups of problem-solvers in business and practical matters to democratically deliberating groups in politics (e.g., Anderson, 2006; Author, 2007, In press). At the practical level, the present theory potentially has important implications. Given that individual reasoning works best when confronted to different opinions, the present theory supports the improvement of the presence or expression of dissenting opinions in deliberative settings. Evidently, many people, in the field of deliberative democracy or elsewhere, are also advocating such changes. While these common sense suggestions have been made in the past (e.g., Bohman, 2007; Sunstein, 2003, 2006), the present theory provides additional arguments for them. It also explains why approaches focusing on individual rather than collective reasoning are not likely to be successful. Specifically tailored practical suggestions can also be made by using departures from the normal conditions of reasoning as diagnostic tools. Thus, different departures will entail different solutions. Accountability—having to defends one’s opinion in front of an audience—can be used to bring individual reasoners closer to a situation of private deliberation. The use of different aggregation mechanisms could help identify the risk of deliberation among like-minded people. For example, before a group launches a discussion, a preliminary vote or poll could establish the extent to which different

opinions are represented. If this procedure shows that people agree on the issue at hand, then skipping the discussion may save the group some efforts and reduce the risk of polarization. Alternatively, a devil’s advocate could be introduced in the group to defend an alternative opinion (e.g. Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986).

Switch-side policy debate enables activism. Brad Hall, 8 – Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special Projects Manager with the Offices of Al and Tipper Gore(Brad, “[eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair,” 7-11-2008, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html)

As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andy overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "political agency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly reiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision making process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do not directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), the skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example, policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards in 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learn a number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But most importantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue teaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life. Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at think tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has produced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is one of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has been produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be. The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process, or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate), what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of debate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional non-policy debate have on the "real world"? To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public money be spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate.

This turns their case at the most basic level---people will ignore the 1AC because you don’t give the other side a fair chance to respond Michael Underwood, summarizing Carl Hovland, communication at Yale University, 2000 (Psychology of Communication, www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html)

Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends very much on your audience. If you know that they already agree with you, a one-sided argument is quite acceptable. If they are opposed to your point of view, then a one-sided message will actually be less effective, being dismissed as biased . Even if your audience don’t know much about the subject, but do know that there are counterarguments (even if they don’t know what they are) will lead them to reject your views as biased. Hovland’s investigations into mass propaganda used to change soldiers’ attitudes also suggests that the intelligence of the receivers is an important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be more persuasive with a more intelligent audience.

Striving for change through debates fails because of the emphasis on winning – maintaining a resolutional focus is keyAtchison and Panetta, 09 – *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, “Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future,” The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334)

The final problem with an individual debate round focus is the role of competition. Creating community change through individual debate rounds sacrifices the “community” portion of the change. Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are more interested in creating change than winning debates. What is clear, however, is that the vast majority of teams that are not promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous. Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams to consider their purpose in debating, their style in debates, and their approach to evidence are all critical aspects of being participants in the community.However, the dismissal of the proposed resolution that the debaters have spent countless hours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the debaters often have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing. Should a debate team lose because their director or coach has been ineffective at recruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because their coach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to the activist program? Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change.The larger problem with locating the “debate as activism” perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for

addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents’ academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes that each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.If the debate community is serious about generating community change, then it is more likely to occur outside a traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community for the other team to win, then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within the community. Creating change through wins generates backlash through losses. Some proponents are comfortable with generating backlash and argue that the reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed.From our perspective, the discussion that results from these hostile situations is not a productive one where participants seek to work together for a common goal. Instead of giving up on hope for change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate community should try the method of public argument that we teach in an effort to generate a discussion of necessary community changes. Simply put, debate competitions do not represent the best environment for community change because it is a competition for a win and only one team can win any given debate, whereas addressing systemic century-long community problems requires a tremendous effort by a great number of people.

Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly researching and debating both sides of an issue – it is hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defend both sidesMuir, 93 – Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., “A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)

In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical, Windes responds with a series of propositions:

Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . , This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con . . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions

[therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and negative positions.""*

Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues."" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two

opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction.

Even Malcolm X understood the value of switch side debate – he’d take the side of his opponents in order to better understand their arguments and later defeat them. Branham 95 (Robert, Professor Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, “`I Was Gone On Debating': Malcolm X's Prison Debates And Public Confrontations,” Winter, vol. 31, no. 3, p.117)

As Malcolm X sought new outlets for his heightened political consciousness, he turned to the weekly formal debates sponsored by the inmate team. "My reading had my mind like steam under pressure," he recounted; "Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided to do this by putting my name down to debate" (1965b, p. 184). Malcolm X's prison debate experience allowed him to bring his newly acquired historical knowledge and critical ideology to bear on a wide variety of social issues. "Whichever side of the selected subject was assigned to me, I'd track down and study everything I could find on it," wrote Malcolm X. "I'd put myself in my opponent's place and decide how I'd try to win if I had the other side; and then I'd figure out a way to knock down those points" (1965b, p. 184). Preparation for each debate included four or five practice sessions.

Fun/Participation

Rules are key to harness the educational value of intellectual contests – this accesses the educational value of funPrensky 01 – Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust(Marc, “Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging,” 2001, www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)

So fun — in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure — puts us in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our involvement, which also helps us learn . Both “fun” and “play” however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard-to-define concepts. But there exists a more formal and structured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and play in the learning process — the powerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in some detail.Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful distinction between fun, play and games? What makes games engaging? How do we design them?Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they are a “child”, inheriting all the characteristics of the “parents.” They therefore carry both the good and the bad of both

terms. Games, as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make them particularly appropriate and well suited for learning.So what is a game?Like play, game, has a wide variety of meanings, some positive, some negative. On the negative side there is mocking and jesting, illegal and shady activity such as a con game, as well as the “fun and games” that we saw earlier. As noted, these can be sources of resistance to Digital Game-Based Learning — “we are not playing games here.” But much of that is semantic. What we are interested in here are the meanings that revolve around the definition of games involving rules, contest, rivalry and struggle.What Makes a Game a Game? Six Structural FactorsThe Encyclopedia Britannica provides the following diagram of the relation between play and games: 35PLAY spontaneous play organized play ( AMES)noncompetitive games competitive games (CONTESTS)intellectual contests physical contests (SPORTS)(repreinted with permission from Britanica.com © 1999-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.)Our goal here is to understand why games engage us, drawing us in often in spite of ourselves. This powerful force stems first from the fact that they are a form of fun and play, and second from what I call the six key structural elements of games:1. Rules2. Goals and Objectives3. Outcomes & Feedback4. Conflict/Competition/Challenge/Opposition5. Interaction, and6. Representation or Story.There are thousands, perhaps millions of different games, but all contain most, if not all, these powerful factors. Those that don’t contain all the factors are still classified as games by many, but can also belong to other subclasses described below. In addition to these structural factors, there are also important design elements that add to engagement and distinguish a really good game from a poor or mediocre one.Let us discuss these six factors in detail and show how and why they lead to such strong engagement.

Rules are what differentiate games from other kinds of play. Probably the most basic definition of a game is that it is organized play, that is to say rule-based. If you don’t have rules you have free play, not a game. Why are rules so important to games? Rules impose limits – they force us to take specific paths to reach goals and ensure that all players take the same paths . They put us inside the game world, by letting us know what is in and out of bounds. What spoils a game is not so much the cheater, who accepts the rules but doesn’t play by them (we can deal with him or

her) but the nihilist, who denies them altogether. Rules make things both fair and exciting. When the Australians “bent” the rules of the America’s Cup and built a huge boat in 1988, and the Americans found a way to compete with a catamaran, it was still a race — but no longer the same game.

While even small children understand some game rules (“that’s not fair”), rules become increasingly more important as we grow older. The rules set the limits of what is OK and not OK, fair and not fair, in the game. By elementary school, kids know to cry “cheater” if the rules are broken. Monopoly and even Trivial Pursuit have pages of written rule sets, and by adulthood we are consulting Hoyle, hiring professional referees to enforce rules, and even holding national debates — the designated hitter, the 2 point conversion, the instant replay — over whether to change them.

Fun debate is a prerequisite to education and retentionPrensky 01 – Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust

(Marc, “Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging,” 2001, www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)

Fun and LearningPeople with the notion that learning cannot and should not be fun are clearly in an archaic mode.-Mark Bieler, former head of HR, Bankers Trust CompanySo what is the relationship between fun and learning? Does having fun help or hurt? Let us look at what some researchers have to say on the subject:“Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning new tools since the learner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to learn.”6 " The role that fun plays with regard to intrinsic motivation in education is twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire for recurrence of the experience… Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activities with which they have little or no previous experience." 7"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8"When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to increase motivation for learners. 10

It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create relaxation and motivation . Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put forth effort without resentment.

LimitsFailure to enforce limits will kill novice debate and eventually entire programs.Rowland 84 (Robert C., Debate Coach – Baylor University, “Topic Selection in Debate”, American Forensics in Perspective, Ed. Parson, p. 53-54, nkj)

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called “NDT”

programs, are diminishing both in scope and size. This decline in policy debate is tied , many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics . The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme breadth. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and

figuratively covers a lot of ground. National debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy change. The move from narrow to broad topics has had , according to some, the effect of limit ing the number of students who participate in policy debate. First, the breadth of topics has all but destroyed novice debate . Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing students to the debate process. Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske believes that NDT debate is not the

best vehicle for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad topics terrify novice debaters , especially those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with the breath of the topic and experience “negophobia,” the fear of debating negative . As a

consequence, the education al advantages associated with teaching novice through policy debate are lost : “Yet all of these benefits fly out the window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caught without evidence or substantive awareness of the issues that confront them

at a tournament.” The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the activity and limiting the number of debaters who eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate . In addition to

noting the effect on novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much time and effort to be competitive on a broad topic that students who are concerned with do ing more than just debate are forced out of the activity . Gaske

notes, that “broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research.” The final effect may be that entire programs wither cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this point: “It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a competitive

imbalance between institutions that participate in academic debate.” In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs .

DogmatismDebate has unique potential to change attitudes and grow critical thinking skills because it forces pre-round internal deliberation on a of a focused, common ground of debateGoodin and Niemeyer 3 Australian National University (Robert E. and Simon J., When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy, POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 627–649, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x/pdf, twm)

What happened in this particular case, as in any particular case, was in some respects peculiar unto itself. The problem of the Bloomfield Track had been well known and much discussed in the local community for a long time. Exaggerated claims and counter-claims had become entrenched, and unreflective public opinion polarized around them. In this circumstance, the effect of the information phase of deliberative processes was to brush away those highly polarized attitudes, dispel the myths and symbolic posturing on both sides that had come to dominate the debate, and liberate people to act upon their attitudes toward the protection of rainforest itself. The key point, from the perspective of ‘democratic deliberation within’, is that that happened in the earlier stages of deliberation – before the formal discussions (‘deliberations’, in the discursive sense) of the jury process ever began. The simple process of jurors seeing the site for themselves, focusing their minds on the issues and listening to what experts had to say did virtually all the work in changing jurors’ attitudes. Talking among themselves, as a jury, did very little of it. However, the same might happen in cases very different from this one. Suppose that instead of highly polarized symbolic attitudes, what we have at the outset is mass ignorance or mass apathy or non-attitudes. There again, people’s engaging with the issue – focusing on it, acquiring information about it, thinking hard about it – would be something that is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the deliberative process. And more to our point, it is something that is most likely to occur within individuals themselves or in informal interactions, well in advance of any formal, organized group discussion. There is much in the large literature on attitudes and the mechanisms by which they change to support that speculation.31 Consider, for example, the literature on ‘central’ versus ‘peripheral’ routes to the formation of attitudes. Before deliberation, individuals may not have given the issue much thought or bothered to engage in an extensive process of reflection.32 In such cases, positions may be arrived at via peripheral routes, taking cognitive shortcuts or arriving at ‘top of the head’ conclusions or even simply following the lead of others believed to hold similar attitudes or values (Lupia, 1994). These shorthand approaches involve the use of available cues such as ‘expertness’ or ‘attractiveness’ (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) – not deliberation in the internal-reflective sense we have described. Where peripheral shortcuts are employed, there may be inconsistencies in logic and the formation of positions, based on partial information or incomplete information processing. In contrast, ‘central’ routes to the development of attitudes involve the application of more deliberate effort to the matter at hand, in a way that is more akin to the internal-reflective deliberative ideal. Importantly for our thesis, there is nothing intrinsic to the ‘central’ route that requires group deliberation. Research in this area stresses instead the importance simply of ‘sufficient impetus’ for engaging in deliberation, such as when an individual is stimulated by personal involvement in the issue.33 The same is true of ‘on-line’

versus ‘memory-based’ processes of attitude change.34 The suggestion here is that we lead our ordinary lives largely on autopilot , doing routine things in routine ways without much thought or reflection. When we come across something ‘new’, we update our routines – our ‘ running’ beliefs and pro cedures, attitudes and evaluations – accordingly . But having updated, we then drop the impetus for the update into deep- stored ‘memory’. A consequence of this procedure is that, when asked in the ordinary course of events ‘what we believe’ or ‘what attitude we take’ toward something, we easily retrieve what we think but we cannot so easily retrieve the reasons why. That more fully reasoned assessment – the sort of thing we have been calling internal-reflective deliberation – requires us to call up reasons from stored memory rather than just consulting our running on-line ‘ summary judgments’ . Crucially for our present discussion, once again, what prompts that shift from online to more deeply reflective deliberation is not necessarily interpersonal discussion. The impetus for fixing one’s attention on a topic, and retrieving reasons from stored memory, might come from any of a number sources: group discussion is only one. And again, even in the context of a group discussion, this shift from ‘online’ to ‘memory-based’ processing is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the process, often before the formal discussion ever begins. All this

is simply to say that, on a great many models and in a great many different sorts of settings, it seems likely that elements of the pre-discursive process are likely to prove crucial to the shaping and reshaping of people’s attitudes in a citizens’ jury-style process. The initial processes of focusing attention on a topic , providing information about it and inviting people to think hard about it is likely to provide a strong impetus to internal-reflective deliberation , altering not just the information people have about the issue but also the way people process that information and hence (perhaps) what they think about the issue. What happens once people have shifted into this more internal-reflective mode is, obviously, an open question. Maybe people would then come to an easy consensus, as they did in their attitudes toward the Daintree rainforest.35 Or maybe people would come to divergent conclusions; and they then may (or may not) be open to argument

and counter-argument, with talk actually changing minds. Our claim is not that group discussion will always matter as little as it did in our citizens’ jury.36 Our claim is instead merely that the earliest steps in the jury process – the sheer focusing of attention on the issue at hand and acquiring more information about it, and the internal-reflective deliberation that that prompts – will invariably matter more than deliberative democrats of a more discursive stripe would have us believe. However much or little difference formal group discussions might make, on any given occasion, the pre-discursive phases of the jury process will invariably have a considerable impact on changing the way jurors approach an issue. From Citizens’ Juries to Ordinary Mass Politics? In a citizens’ jury sort of setting, then, it seems that informal, pre-group deliberation – ‘deliberation within’ – will inevitably do much of the work that deliberative democrats ordinarily want to attribute to the more formal discursive processes. What are the preconditions for that happening? To what extent, in that sense, can findings about citizens’ juries be extended to other larger or less well-ordered deliberative settings? Even in citizens’ juries, deliberation will work only if people are attentive, open and willing to change their minds as appropriate. So, too, in mass politics. In citizens’ juries the need to participate (or the anticipation of participating) in formally organized group discussions might be the ‘prompt’ that evokes those attributes. But there might be many other possible ‘prompts’ that can be found in less formally structured mass-political settings. Here are a few ways citizens’ juries (and all cognate micro-deliberative processes)37 might be different from mass politics, and in which lessons drawn from that experience might not therefore carry over to ordinary politics: • A citizens’ jury concentrates people’s minds on a single issue . Ordinary politics involve many issues at once. • A citizens’ jury is often supplied a background briefing that has been agreed by all stakeholders (Smith and Wales, 2000, p. 58). In ordinary mass politics, there is rarely any equivalent common ground on which debates are conducted . • A citizens’ jury separates the process of acquiring information from that of discussing the issues. In ordinary mass politics, those processes are invariably intertwined. • A citizens’ jury is provided with a set of experts. They can be questioned, debated or discounted. But there is a strictly limited set of ‘competing experts’ on the same subject. In ordinary mass politics, claims and sources of expertise often seem virtually limitless, allowing for much greater ‘selective perception’. • Participating in something called a ‘citizens’ jury’ evokes certain very particular norms: norms concerning the ‘impartiality’ appropriate to jurors; norms concerning the ‘common good’ orientation appropriate to people in their capacity as citizens.38 There is a very different

ethos at work in ordinary mass politics, which are typically driven by flagrantly partisan appeals to sectional interest (or utter disinterest and voter apathy). • In a citizens’ jury, we think and listen in anticipation of the discussion phase, knowing that we soon will have to defend our views in a discursive setting where they will be probed intensively . 39 In ordinary mass-political settings, there is no such incentive for paying attention. It is perfectly true that citizens’ juries are ‘special’ in all those ways. But if being special in all those ways makes for a better – more ‘reflective’, more ‘deliberative’ – political process, then those are design features that we ought try to mimic as best we can in ordinary mass politics as well. There are various ways that that might be done. Briefing books might be prepared by sponsors of American presidential debates (the League of Women Voters, and such like) in consultation with the stakeholders involved. Agreed panels of experts might be questioned on prime-time television. Issues might be sequenced for debate and resolution, to avoid too much competition for people’s time and attention. Variations on the Ackerman and Fishkin (2002) proposal for a ‘deliberation day’ before every election might be generalized, with a day every few months being given over to small meetings in local schools to discuss public issues. All that is pretty visionary, perhaps. And (although it is clearly beyond the scope of the present paper to explore them in depth) there are doubtless many other more-or-less visionary ways of introducing into real-world politics analogues of the elements that induce citizens’ jurors to practice ‘democratic deliberation within’, even before the jury discussion gets underway. Here, we have to content ourselves with identifying those features that need to be replicated in real-world politics in order to achieve that goal – and with the ‘possibility theorem’ that is established by the fact that (as sketched immediately above) there is at least one possible way of doing that for each of those key features.

Debates that forces students to take a particular position on a political issue helps gain greater insight into contemporary world issues. It moves the debate from stale argument over principles to real world policy analysis. Joyner 99 Prof of International Law (Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, [5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377])

Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own . But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their

subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers . Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the

former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.

Effective education requires the advocacy of a particular policy position. Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 1 [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]

Based on a review of the literature, the authors’ experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors think debates on important policy questions have numerous benefits: prompt ing students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to investigate and analyze competing alternatives , compelling them to advocate a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning process.

Policy analysis is necessary to develop critical thinking skills that isn’t promoted by methodological focus --- checks dogmatism Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 1 [Thomas E., James K., and Tracy K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]

Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities:* value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions;* conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options;* interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner;* political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and* position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy.

These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives , and taking a position and advocating for its adoption . Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking.

Switch side debate checks dogmatismKeller, et. al, 1 – Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost) // SEP

SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and legislation (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In recent decades, the concept of policy practice has encouraged social workers to consider the ways in which their work can be advanced through active participation in the policy arena (Jansson, 1984, 1994; Wyers, 1991). The emergence of the policy practice framework has focused greater attention on the competencies required for social workers to influence social policy and placed greater emphasis on preparing social work students for policy intervention (Dear & Patti, 1981; Jansson, 1984, 1994; Mahaffey & Hanks, 1982; McInnis-Dittrich, 1994). The curriculum standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) require the teaching of knowledge and skills in the political process (CSWE, 1994). With this formal expectation of policy education in schools of social work, the best instructional methods must be employed to ensure students acquire the requisite policy practice skills and perspectives. The authors believe that structured student debates have great potential for promoting competence in policy practice and in-depth knowledge of substantive topics relevant to social policy . Like other interactive assignments designed to more closely resemble "real-world" activities, issue-oriented debates actively engage students in course content . Debates also allow students to develop and exercise skills that may translate to political activities , such as testifying before legislative committees. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, debates may help to stimulate critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas . R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126)John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On

the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28). The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective . The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue.

A discussion of specific policy-questions is crucial for skills development---we control uniqueness: university students already have preconceived and ideological notions about how the world operates---government policy discussion is vital to force engagement with and resolution of competing perspectives to improve social outcomes, however those outcomes may be defined---and, it breaks out of traditional pedagogical frameworks by positing students as agents of decision-making Esberg & Sagan 12 *Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New York University's Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009 Firestone Medal, AND **Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation “NEGOTIATING NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy,” 2/17 The Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108

These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very similar lessons for high-level players as are learned by students in educational simulations. Government participants learn about the importance of understanding foreign perspectives, the need to practice internal coordination, and the necessity to compromise and coordinate

with other governments in negotiations and crises. During the Cold War, political scientist Robert Mandel noted how crisis exercises and war games forced government officials to overcome ‘‘bureaucratic myopia ,’’ moving beyond their normal organizational roles and thinking more creatively about how others might react in a crisis or conflict .6 The skills of imagination and the subsequent ability to predict foreign interests and reactions remain critical for real-world foreign policy makers . For example, simulations of the Iranian nuclear crisis*held in 2009 and 2010 at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center and at Harvard University’s Belfer Center, and involving former US senior officials and regional

experts*highlighted the dangers of misunderstanding foreign governments’ preferences and misinterpreting their subsequent

behavior. In both simulations, the primary criticism of the US negotiating team lay in a failure to predict accurately how other states, both allies and adversaries, would behave in response to US policy initiatives.7By university age , students often have a pre-defined view of international affairs , and the literature on simulations in education has long emphasized how such exercises force students to challenge their assumptions about how other governments behave and how their own government works .8 Since simulations became more common as a teaching tool in the late 1950s, educational literature has expounded on their benefits , from encouraging engagement by breaking from the typical lecture format , to improving communication skills , to promoting teamwork .9 More broadly, simulations can deepen understanding by asking students to link fact and theory , providing a context for facts while bringing theory into the realm of practice.10 These exercises are particularly valuable in teaching international affairs for many of the same reasons they are useful for policy makers: they force participants to ‘‘grapple with the issues arising from a world in flux.’’11 Simulations have been used successfully to teach students about such disparate topics as European politics, the Kashmir crisis, and US response to the mass killings in Darfur.12 Role-playing

exercises certainly encourage students to learn political and technical facts * but they learn them in a more active style . Rather than sitting in a classroom and merely receiving knowledge, students actively research ‘‘their’’ government’s positions and actively argue, brief, and negotiate with others.13 Facts can change quickly; simulations teach students how to contextualize and act on information. 14

Focus on policy makingInvestigating Policy implications are necessary to test theory—a legitimate proposal must describe the consequences of implementing specific change because rhetorical criticism can make the world worse—the impact is education and it turns the caseFeaver 1 (Peter, Asst. Prof of Political Science at Duke University, Twenty-First Century Weapons Proliferation, p 178)

At the same time, virtually all good theory has implications for policy. Indeed, if no conceivable extension of the theory leads to insights that would aid those working in the ‘real world’, what can be ‘good’ about good theory? Ignoring the policy implications of theory is often a sign of intellectual laziness on the part of the theorist. It is hard work to learn about the policy world and to make the connections from theory to policy. Often, the skill sets do not transfer easily from one domain to another, so a formidable theorist can show embarrassing naivete when it comes to the policy domain he or she putatively studies. Often, when the policy implications are considered, flaws in the theory (or at least in the presentation of the theory) are uncovered . Thus, focusing attention on policy implications should lead to better theorizing. The gap between theory and policy is more rhetoric than reality. But rhetoric can create a reality–or at least create an undesirable kind of reality–where policy makers make policy though ignorant of the problems that good

theory would expose, while theorists spin arcana without a view to producing something that matters. It is therefore incumbent on those of us who study proliferation–a topic that raises interesting and important questions for both policy and theory–to bring the communities together . Happily, the best work in the proliferation field already does so.

AT Minority participation is more important than TThe act of creating different standards for different groups locks in socioeconomic disadvantages instead of working to overcoming them.Parcher 4 – former Director of Debate at Georgetown (Jeff, “The Ignorance Project”, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2004-April/055983.html)

Warning: If you suspect what I have to say will piss you off you are almost certainly correct. If you are tempted to take it personally - just imagine I said your plan would cause a nuclear war

rather than significantly increased dumbness. Get it? Making debate easier does not serve those who are underpriveleged. If you slow debate down, remove rational critieria, denegrate research and preparation, and reward appeals to win on the basis of superior victimhood, all you are doing is removing those aspects of debate that make a smart. Dumbness is not good for anyone. If we were all dumb we would not be more equal. Infact, if we all get dumber then money, social status, and color would all matter more, NOT less . Inner city schools that have dumbed down standards in recognition of poverty, white privelege, socio-economic injustice or for whatever barrier argument they give, have not served their populations

well. Two decades of research reveal that inner city youths are disadvantaged by "alternative" standards. They are disadvantaged when they get to college and they can't read, write, think, speak or perform mathematics. They are disadvanatged when they try to get jobs and don't have the discipline, leadership skills or critical thinking abilities to succeed . In what realm of society are those who reject such standards rewarded? It seems a poor prize to seize the badge of honor offered by entering some circle of rebellion if one remains poor and uneducated. The growhing and successful black middle class in this country is not being purchased at the alter of lower standards. Success has come from more integrated suburbs where african-american parents have been able to send their students to better schools - resulting in more blacks attending and graduating from college. And education (especially a college education) is the most important determinant of income in this country. None of this is meant to say that standards are more important than the resources we invest in education. Resources are crucial and raising

standards has a diminishing marginal utility. But the result of lowering standards (especially drastically lowering them) is apparent and also quite obvious. Dumber standards translates into less effort and consequently less education. All of the arguments made about "white privelege" and debate also apply to almost every other educational practice in this country. I dispute that research/evidence, rational method, speaking fast, plans, topical cases, etc advantage whites any more than any other standard we could choose. But to the extent standards do advantage some aspects of privelege - imagine how far and how silly this

argument becomes: What students arrive in kindergarten better prepared to engage in reading and math? White students or black students? That some black students are, for socioeconomic reasons, less prepared to learn to read or do math is NOT AN INDICTMENT OF READING OR MATH. It's an indictment of socio-economic inequality. What would happen if we told black children that they don't have to learn to read because "blacks are disadvantaged" if we have reading standards. DOES ANYONE SERIOUSLY BELIEVE BLACK CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEY READ LESS???? And does anyone really believe black debaters are better served in the long term by a slow down in debate, or rap in debate or cardless debate? How will that make them better candidates for law school? How does that make them smarter? Ultimately policy debate is good because it is hard. It's good that you have to learn to read, think and speak fast. It's good that you have to cut lot's and lot's of evidence. It's good that teams can't just interpret every resolution as a statement about white privelege and avoid learning anything at all about the world outside their personal experiences. That's what education means - it means learning something new. It means having the humility to admit that there are people who know more than you and that you have something to learn from them. Denigrating "expert evidence" and intepreting the resolution as a metaphor for the thing you want to talk about every round might be a good way to win ballots by tugging on the heart strings of white guilt - but it's quite obviously educational nonsense. Perhaps

debate as we dinosaurs have known it will eventually die out and/or evolve into some variant of parlimentary debate. But until it does die out - anyone who thinks it's too hard can still choose another activity like forensics or parli. The status quo solves your barrier arguments. And if debate does change or die out - it's hard for me to see how we are better off. Should we close down MIT because, well, it's just too hard for some students to get in and even harder to compete once they have. Very few blacks get in and

succeed there after all. Maybe we should just shut it down or turn it into a community college in the intersts of equality. P.S. If you are tempted to attack me just to flash your progressive credentials - please include in your post an explanation of what exactly is progressive about educational mediocrity. I will always believe that education is the great equalizer and

that there is nothing so dangerous as the notion that all truth is a product of power. The former is our great hope, the latter is unilateral surrender.

AT What switch side policy debaters have gone on to do anything useful

Neal Katyal debated at Loyal Academy and Dartmouth – he argued and won a case in the Supreme Court that challenged the policy of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.Georgetown.edu no date cited (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/katyal-neal-k.cfm#, accessed 2-10-14, twm)

While teaching at Georgetown, Katyal won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in the United States Supreme Court, a case that challenged the policy of military trials at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The Supreme Court sided with him by a 5-3 vote, finding that President Bush's tribunals violated the constitutional separation of powers, domestic military law, and international law. As former Solicitor General and Duke law professor Walter Dellinger put it "Hamdan is simply the most important decision on presidential power and the rule of law ever. Ever." An expert in matters of constitutional law, Katyal has embraced his theoretical work as the platform for practical consequences in the federal courts.

The type of debate that we advocate - resolution based, research intensive, switch side debate is what Katyal did.Derum 7 (Chad, “Practicing to Practice: Scholastic Debate as Law-Related Education, http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2007/04/practicing_to_practice_scholas.html, Feb., twm)

Before he argued the petitioner’s side in the Guantanamo detention case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld before the United States

Supreme Court last year, Georgetown Law Center professor Neal Katyal first tested his arguments in more than a dozen moot court sessions.1 It should come as no surprise that, for his first moot court session, Katyal invited the highly-regarded Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe to bombard him with questions. Along with Tribe, however, Katyal also invited Ken Strange, the coach of Katyal’s college debate team. Although

Strange is not a lawyer, this second invitation should be no more surprising than the first. Katyal had been a champion debater at Dartmouth College in the early 1990’s and Strange had been Katyal’s greatest teacher in the art of argument and persuasion – the very skills Katyal would need to make an effective argument before the Court. It is also unlikely that Strange’s invitation surprised Tribe, who had himself been a national champion debater at Harvard in the 1960s before beginning his own legal career.¶ The relationship between debate and the practice of law is more than simple coincidence. For generations, young people who wanted to grow up to be lawyers first experienced competitive advocacy on debate teams. Debate, perhaps better than any other academic training, teaches students how to “think like a lawyer” long before they ever set foot in a law school. The fact that Katyal invited his debate coach to attend his moot court in preparation for Hamdan demonstrates that the value some lawyers find in debate does not end when legal training begins.¶ Despite the obvious synergies between scholastic debate and the practice of law, debate is often overlooked as a natural element of law-related education. Although debate encompasses more than strictly “legal” topics, students who are equipped with the skills to analyze, research, and discuss topics ranging from agricultural policy to nuclear proliferation are well-prepared for the transition to legal research, thinking and writing. After all, the practice of law includes more than simply knowing the letter of the law. Legal practice may call upon a lawyer alternately to develop an ad hoc expertise on both the grandest and the most obscure human pursuits. It is the ability to think critically and creatively about diverse issues that is the lawyer’s true skill. Similarly, debate opens students’ minds to a world of facts and ideas – both big and small – and provides students with the necessary analytical tools to recognize the relationships and concepts that connect them. When students put these skills to work before a judge in a competitive debate round, the debate becomes a microcosm of the world many lawyers inhabit every day.¶ The time is particularly ripe for recognizing the important relationship between debate and the law. Even as many Utah lawyers can look to debate as providing the foundation for their subsequent legal careers, debate programs in some of Utah’s public schools are in real trouble. Programs that once flourished are now struggling to survive – the victims of evolving standards for academic achievement and slim budgets that strain resources for extracurricular activities like debate. For example, the debate program at Brighton High School – once a Utah powerhouse – has been eliminated altogether. As debate loses ground generally, the

opportunity to expand the activity among students that may be most in need of the opportunities debate provides is also lost. The Utah Bar and its membership, however, can make a difference in reversing these trends.¶ Many current members of the Utah State Bar were once debaters. As a former high school and college debater myself, I decided to conduct a brief survey of a few of Utah’s other debater/lawyers to collect their thoughts on the relationship between debate and the law.2 The few comments included here likely echo the views of many other members of the Bar.¶ Rich L. Humpherys¶ Before beginning his legal practice, Rich Humpherys of Christensen & Jensen, P.C. was a debater at Orem High School and later at Brigham Young University. Debate, in his view “was far more effective in preparing [him] for [his] profession as a litigator than any of [his] specific academic endeavors.” His comments provide an insightful overview of the role debate can play in the development of a legal career:¶ Though I have always desired to be a lawyer, my high school and college debate experience enhanced my desire. It helped me better understand many things, such as: (1) there are often good opposing views and authorities on both sides of a tough issue; (2) the most persuasive arguments focus on the real issues, not tangential issues; and (3) in life, we often face very difficult issues that don’t lend themselves to black and white answers.¶ My debate experience also taught me many things, such as (1) the need for thorough and accurate research; (2) how to take extensive research and synthesize it into an efficient and meaningful short presentation; (3) how to artfully and persuasively present information; (4) how to train my mind to think in advance about the possible opposing questions or viewpoints and be prepared to meaningfully respond to them (for example, when I prepare to try a case, I prepare different case presentations, depending on how the judge may rule on the admissibility of controverted evidence or how the defense may present its case – debate introduced me to and helped me succeed with this process); (5) to be comfortable and confident with an oral presentation; (6) how to find, analyze and focus on what is key and important, without being distracted by all of the other, though interesting, possible issues; and finally, (7) how to address the issues without giving in to the lure of exchanging personal attacks with the opposing side.¶ I have also found that many of the old debaters I got to know are now attorneys and our friendship continues.¶ Richard D. Burbidge¶ Richard Burbidge, of Burbidge, Mitchell & Gross, is one of Utah’s most respected trial lawyers. Before practicing law, Mr. Burbidge debated at South High School in Salt Lake City. Mr. Burbidge’s comments about his debate experience demonstrate that it can be difficult to overstate the value that debate can play in a would-be lawyer’s education:¶ I was enticed to [become a debater] in my senior year, having no prior interest whatsoever in that competitive arena.¶ The long and short of my encounter with the sport was full and complete engagement.¶ It was my first encounter with systematic critical thinking and the first opportunity in my educational career to begin to develop systematic skills for critical analysis. It is not an overstatement to say that my debate experience was the single most determinative factor in my choice of a life-long profession as a trial lawyer. I simply do not believe that there is a more rigorous or enlightening cognitive training available in a high school setting.¶ David C. Reymann¶ David Reymann, a partner at Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, debated at Vestavia Hills High School in Alabama, where, along with his twin brother, he was the 1992 national high school debate champion. Reymann then went on to debate for four years at Dartmouth College before attending the University of Chicago Law School. His comments highlight that although there are significant differences between debate and courtroom arguments, debate provides essential training in the core critical thinking skills every lawyer needs:¶ Of all of the subjects, classes, and preparations people take in order to get ready for law school and the practice of law, nothing prepares you like debate. Most people think this is because debate trains you for persuasive public speaking, but for me that is not the reason. Court arguments are rarely like debates. Rather, I think the most essential skill debate teaches is the ability to evaluate arguments critically and discern those that are likely to succeed. I believe this is also the most valuable skill for a litigator, and, unfortunately, the one that is most difficult to learn once you are immersed in the practice of law. By developing this skill early, debate plays an enormous role in training and educating future members of the bar.¶ David F. Mull¶ David Mull, an associate at Snow, Christensen & Martineau, was a champion high school debater in his native Alaska before going on to debate at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania, and then on to law school at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. For Mull, it is debate’s role in promoting active citizenship that has left the most lasting impression:¶ It is obvious that debate gives students practice in the nuts and bolts of making and analyzing arguments, and it builds public speaking skills. Just as important, I think, is that it shows students how much fun it can be to discuss and engage in issues of civic importance. People who have some confidence in analyzing public affairs are much more likely to engage in them.¶ Utah Judges¶ In addition to practicing attorneys, former debaters also number among the judges in the Utah courts. Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine M. Durham counts high school debate as an important stepping stone in developing the logic and language abilities essential to legal thought and practice:¶ I think that my early experiences with the structure and focus of debate programs introduced me to critical thinking, to persuasive logic, and to the deep significance of rhetoric (in the classical sense) for human communication and understanding about hard ideas. ¶ Debate also played a very significant role in United States District Court Judge Paul Cassell’s legal training. In fact, following a successful high school debate career in Idaho, Judge Cassell initially enrolled at Stanford University, but left Stanford for a time to attend Western Washington University where he could compete on that school’s outstanding debate team.3¶ An enthusiastic supporter of debate, Judge Cassell notes, “Debate has helped me see both sides of complicated issues and to understand the relationship between advancing a good argument and prevailing on issues in court.”¶ Judge Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was also a distinguished debater before he pursued law. In fact, Judge McConnell was the Kentucky State High School Debate Champion in 1972. His comments reflect on debate’s unique role in developing young minds:¶ More than any other student activity, debate requires the participant to match evidence to thesis in a logically compelling manner, and to communicate complex ideas to an audience. If some evil genius concocted a magic potion that made high school students voluntarily give up their weekends to engage in so intellectually worthwhile an activity, we would award him a Nobel Prize for pedagogical necromancy.¶ Debate as Law-Related Education¶ The common theme running through the comments of these practitioners, scholars, and judges is that debate develops important skills that transcend the typical classroom experience and translate exceptionally well into legal practice. These skills include developing the capacity for critical thinking, increasing the comprehension of substantive information, developing broad organizational skills, and providing the opportunity to make persuasive presentations that demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of these skills. In the context of a debate round, students must rely on both critical thinking and an ability to apply substantive knowledge in order to succeed. Students must learn to present the most effective argument within the bounds of the accepted rules and time constraints; they must learn how to argue from the evidence, rather than from personal opinions; and they must learn how to think and respond quickly, but carefully, to unexpected arguments, as well as to evolving events in a changing world.¶ With these perspectives in mind, it is fair to conclude that debate should properly be considered a form of law-related

education, and promoted as such. Not everyone may call their debate coach to attend their moot court session to prepare for an argument before the Supreme Court. In a real sense, however, lawyers with a background in debate carry the skills they learned in debate into every argument they attend.¶ Looking Forward: Fostering the Bar’s Engagement with Debate¶ Decades ago, the Bar sponsored an annual debate tournament for high school students here in Utah called the “Utah State Bar Debate Tournament.” The event was very popular among Utah’s high school debate programs. For unknown reasons, the Bar’s sponsorship of that tournament ended abruptly in the mid 1980’s. In 2005, through the sponsorship efforts of the Bar’s Young Lawyers Division (YLD) and the Bar’s Litigation Section, the Bar’s involvement in high school debate found new life, and the “Young Lawyers Debate Tournament” was born. Now in its second year, the Young Lawyers Debate Tournament has brought together hundreds of students from more than two dozen Utah schools to participate in a weekend of intense scholastic competition. Highlighting the overlap between debate and the Bar, the tournament has been organized so that a panel composed of lawyers who were once debaters serve as judges for the final debate round.¶ The new debate tournament is an important step toward preserving an important link between debate and the legal community in Utah. The YLD and the Litigation Section deserve significant recognition for their efforts these past two years. Looking ahead, it is my hope that the Bar’s leadership will endorse sponsorship of the tournament on a long-term basis so that the connection between debate and the Bar will remain vital, even as the individuals involved in coordinating the tournament on an annual basis may change. With the support for this event from the highest levels of the Bar, the Bar can help turn a growing event into an established tradition and give back to the debate community what many members of the legal community have already received.¶ On an individual level, there are other ways to become involved in fostering and preserving scholastic debate. For example, David Reymann sets aside significant time to coach the debaters at Highland High School’s nationally recognized debate program. Robert Wing, an attorney at Holland & Hart, sets aside time to coach the team at Viewmont High School and to judge debate tournaments regularly. Others make financial contributions to the debate programs at Utah high schools, providing the opportunity for students to raise the funds needed to provide essentials that limited school budgets do not cover and to fund travel opportunities to debate tournaments nationwide. Individual law firms can also contribute to the Young Lawyers Debate Tournament or to individual debate programs as an extension of their charitable giving efforts.¶ Conclusion¶ Obviously, debate will not make a lawyer out of every participant. It may, however, convince some students who might otherwise pursue different careers, to choose law. As Neal Katyal noted, “I do not think there is any chance I would have become a lawyer were it not for debate, both in high school and in college.” Participation in debate – the direct engagement in advocacy on hard issues in the context of a head-to-head competition – teaches students much of what lawyers do in daily practice. But these skills are also important for every student we hope and expect to become an effective and engaged citizen. In this sense, creating links between debate and the law advances the Bar’s mission of leading society in the creation of a justice system that is understood, valued, respected, and accessible to all.

Coverstone debated at MBA and then Wake Forest and now he works to improve educational opportunities in Nashville.Graydon and Rau 9 (Amy Griffith and Nate, “Dean endorses Coverstone for charter schools job”, http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/dean-endorses-coverstone-charter-schools-job, June 28, twm)

School board member Alan Coverstone has considered resigning his seat on the board to accept a new Metro Nashville Public Schools position overseeing the implementation of new charter schools policies.¶ Should he take the plunge, he’ll have one prominent supporter. ¶ Mayor Karl Dean said Friday that he thinks Coverstone would be a good match for the job. The new position could be a starting point for building the kind of “incubator” Dean hopes Nashville will create for high-quality charter schools.¶ “He would certainly be somebody who would be ideal for that, since he was a strong advocate for charter school reform in Tennessee,” Dean said. “I’m gratified to hear that Dr. Register and the board are considering stepping up their efforts in the

charter school area. I think there is probably a need for an incubator to help create the charter schools we need, and to help recruit the high-quality national charters to Nashville.”¶ Pointing to the nonprofit organization New Schools for New Orleans as a model for Nashville, Dean said he would like to see Nashvillians partner to recruit and develop good charter schools. Whether a charter school “incubator” is housed within the school system or created through a public-private collaboration, Dean wants to work quickly to get a structure in place for deliberate charter school recruitment. ¶ Dean said development of such an incubator “could be” a use of Education First dollars, funds Dean raises from private sources to fund public education initiatives. He added that he is “open to” planning discussions now, and hopes serious talks will take place in the next few weeks. Plans should be made with an emphasis on preparing for the charter school review cycle coming up one year from this fall.¶ “Obviously, I want to work collaboratively with the schools to make sure we don’t do any duplication. I will be interested to know exactly what their emphasis is going to be,” Dean said. “There’s an opportunity to go about this in a real thoughtful, deliberate way, where the emphasis is on quality.”¶ Officials with Metro Nashville Public Schools said Friday that the district still has not determined plans for a new charter school office. According to the district’s description for the position, the 12-month administrative job would involve managing the charter school application process and overseeing regulatory requirements for compliance, as well as working with the Tennessee Department of Education and as a liaison between charter schools, private

schools and MNPS.¶ Coverstone now works as the academic dean at Montgomery Bell Academy. He was elected to the board last year and represents Bellevue and parts of Belle Meade. Should he leave his position on the school board, a replacement would be appointed by Metro Council.¶ Asked to respond to a spreading rumor that he was leaning toward applying for the position and resigning from the board should he be hired, Coverstone said, “it would be unusual, I think, if I weren’t interested in that position.”¶ Coverstone has been a staunch advocate for charter schools, which recently had their scope expanded by state legislation.¶ “Anybody who’s as into education and making a change as I am ought to be excited about this job opportunity. It would be foolish for me not to be interested,” Coverstone said. “I have a good job and I enjoy what I’m doing on the school board. … You’d like to know my top choice? I’d like to see a dynamite candidate come take this job, who has a great vision and is smarter than I am and ready to go. That would be my ideal. But I can’t underscore enough how important I think it is that it be done and be done well.”¶ Charter schools, which are publicly funded and privately operated, have seen some success in Nashville. The state legislature recently approved big changes to Tennessee’s current charter school laws, which allow expanded charter school eligibility and set a cap of as many as 20 charter schools that can be established in Nashville.¶ Metro Nashville Public Schools currently has three charter schools in operation: LEAD Academy, Smithson-Craighead, and KIPP Academy.¶ Two new charter schools — Smithson-Craighead's middle school and Global Academy — will start serving students this fall.¶ Once they are part of the school system, charter schools must meet the same federal and state educational guidelines as other public schools. Charter schools receive local and state funding, but no public funds for building or transportation.

Debate's emphasis on research provides effective preparation for pro-social activismCoverstone 5 – masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., “Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact,” Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05)

Purely Preparatory Pedagogy?Many have argued the value of an academic oasis in which to learn the skills of public participation (Coverstone, 1995; Farrand,

2000; Mitchell & Suzuki, 2004). Involvement in contest debates, especially those whose winners rely heavily on up to the minute research and daily involvement in the political and academic discourse of the day, without question offers a level of preparation for pro-social activism seldom surpassed in any educational institution today. Mitchell agrees that the skills developed in contest debates are incredibly useful as skills applied in public discourse (Mitchell, 2004, p. 10), and political news, advocacy groups, legal proceedings, academic institutions, and corporate boardrooms are littered with key figures who honed their skills in the

crucible of high-level contest debating.