Spreading K File Notes

This is your basic kritik of spreading. Its separated into three separate impacts fairness, education, and linguistic nonviolence. IN THE 1NC: just read the section tagged spreading kritik 1NC. IN THE 2NC read the thing called 2NC overview before anything (and tell the judge you have an overview on the kritik in your roadmap. This section contains important meta-issues and framework/Role of Ballot). EDUCATION ARGUMENTS: If theyve made arguments that resemble spreading is good for education, read the whole block 2NC education. If they havent spent a long time on this in the 2AC (5+ minutes), you should go for it for the WHOLE 2NC/1NR and refute every claim they make point by point, and read the extensions as well. ANSWERS AT THE END: Ive included a number of things that begin with 2NC AT ----. The term AT stands for Answer to and refutes a common, anticipated argu ment. So for example if they make a perm, you go to the AT perms section and read that. STRUCTURING THE 2NR: if you go for this argument in the 2NR, it should be the ONLY argument you go for (its better to win one whole argument than half win two arguments). You should begin with an overview, where you summarize each of your three impacts (education, fairness, linguistic nonviolence), extend the role of the ballot, and argue why it justifies dropping them. Then (much like the 2NC/1NR) do line by line refutation of their arguments in the 1AR. With love, Christian

1NC (Long)
Spreading has become a framing device that shapes the educational and social opportunities and exclusions in the debate space. On face, spreading excludes many persons with various disabilities. People who have manual and motor impairments cannot flow at the rapid rates necessary to participate in spread debate. People who have auditory disabilities that prevent hearing the slurred syllables, tone, and pitch at high speeds are similarly barred from meaningful participation in the activity. Spreading also creates a class barrier to participating in policy debate. While resource differentials are inevitable, spreading magnifies the impact of these resource differentials to unnecessarily expand the scope of individuals barred from meaningful participation. Individuals with lower socio-economic status often must work one or multiple jobs to contribute to their familys basic survival needs. The exhaustion created by working complicates taking a full course load at schools, where students of lower-socioeconomic status must compete with students of means personalized tutors and prep courses for tests that determine their futures. Only once they have completed their economic work and their education can their work on policy debate begin. We must in our spare time compete with major schools like Glenbrooks North and Damien. We must compete with their coaches and squads of debaters, who cut and update a plethora of files. Our school has no policy program, no expensive coaching infrastructure, no access to the factors that otherwise create success in policy. We are the 51.4 million Americans the Census Bureau documented who live in crowded intergenerational homes that have no room for us to practice spreading because our relatives are asleep. We are here because a college debater gave his spare time to help us succeed and are otherwise entirely untrained in policy debate. The class and social impact of spreadings exclusion has a global and local effect. In 2000, the National Federation of High School Associations documented a statewide experiment in Vermont. Directly because Vermont began enforcing state-wide speed rules in policy debate, they saw a drastic increase in the number of schools participating. While this impact is perhaps sufficient to justify a rejection of spreading, we also point to the local effect namely that spreading can and does exclude us from the debate space, especially given our specific request to the affirmative prior to the round not to spread. Our resource disadvantage leaves us comparatively unable to engage with speed debate. And, spreading has become a crucial part of policy debates identit thanks to its nigh-ubiquity across the nation speed has come to significantly constitute the image of policy debate. By voting negative, you can help us challenge this exclusive facet of debate while preserving all its educational benefits. Policy debate isnt bad, but spreading is no permutation can claim to have the argumentative resolve or the chance to challenge the image of speed debate like a negative ballot can. While this is a sufficient reason to reject spreading as a practice, we also levy a normative objection to the ontology produced by the practice of spreading.

Subpoint A is linguistic nonviolence.

In 1987, Carol Cohn presented a groundbreaking criticism of the sanitized language used to talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear war. We quote her now because we see that spreading has a similar effect in disconnecting individuals from the lived experiences of people they purport to discursively represent. 1 Cohn writes:

Talking about nuclear weapons is fun. The words are quick, clean, light, they trip off the tongue. You can reel off dozens of them in seconds, forgetting about how one might interfere with the next, not to mention with the lives beneath them. Nearly everyone I observed--lecturers, students, hawks, doves, men, and women--took pleasure in using the words; some of us spoke with a self-consciously ironic edge, but the pleasure was there nonetheless. Part of the appeal was the thrill of being able to manipulate an arcane language, the power of entering the secret kingdom. But perhaps more important, learning the language gives a sense of control, a feeling of mastery over technology that is finally not controllable but powerful beyond human comprehension. The longer I stayed, the more conversations I participated in, the less I was frightened of nuclear war. How can learning to speak a language have such a powerful effect? One answer, discussed earlier, is that the language is abstract and sanitized, never giving access to the images of war. But there is more to it than that. The learning process itself removed me from the reality of nuclear war. My energy was focused on the challenge of decoding acronyms, learning new terms, developing competence in the language--not on the weapons and the wars behind the words. By the time I was through, I had learned far more than an alternate, if abstract, set of words. The content of what I could talk about was monumentally different.
Noticeably, Cohns description of the language of Cold War defense intellectuals parallels the practices of spreading in modern policy debate. The pleasure of commanding nuclear jargon in Cohns arcane language and fo cus on technical process over content is mirrored in the pleasure of commanding breakneck speeds in debate and focus on techne, producing a similar abstraction and subsequent disconnect from the subjects involved in the debate. Christian Chessman, a former policy debater from the University of Florida writes about the ways in which spreading parallels the linguistic conventions of nuclear defense intellectuals that Cohn criticized.
He writes: spreading sanitizes the subjects we talk about. There's something to be said for fully appreciating the topic at hand, or stopping to smell the verbal roses. If we're talking about the mass slaughter and rape of men, women, and children, the gravity of that discussion bears pause and consideration; it bears exploration in detail. "solves genocide johnson 12" does not evoke that kind of humane connection. Spreading disconnects us from the things we talk about, which itself is probably ethically problematic, but also means we get bad education; we only have a snippet snapshot of the subjects we're discussing. We miss out on details that don't look relevant on face because we're just certain we know what's relevant.

No one has pointed out the ethical problems inherent with this desensitized disconnect than Gordon Mitchell2. He writes that The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality [i]s one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8)

The ethical problems inherent in spreading extend beyond the desensitized disconnect it fosters. Bill Shanahan, inventor of the kritik, explains how spreading fosters a subjectivity of militarism in everyday
1

COHN, 87 (Carol, Director of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Slick 'Ems, Glick 'Ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June, http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtm l)
2

Mitchell 98 (Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the William Pitt Debating Union at the Universit y of Pittsburgh. Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, Volume 35, Issue 2. Fall 1998. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6699/is_2_35/ai_n28720712/) SLS

life3. The second critical generation exposed violent forms of domination throughout debate practice, including, at times insurmountable, access barriers for those whose tastes ran less to insular, idiosyncratic policymaking. Brutalizing forms of technique that is, outrageous levels of speed in concert with impressive word economy that conspired to leave even the most engaged participants desperate for more than a few scribbles with a date, near slavish devotion to the afore-mentioned minutiae of flowing where ink passes for argument and a drop is as good as a kill, and inevitable, speech reconstruction by debaters during cross-ex and prep time, and by judges during extended decision-time after debates were a lightening rod of critical attention and served to help reduce those access barriers for a whole host of alternative, different perspectives to enter debate, now with concomitant opportunities to succeed. While you may initially balk at the comparison between wars of weapons and wars of words, Shanahan explains the importance of everday conduct in fostering subjectivities and broader worldviews. 4
These vast research skills translated into a ferocious techne, one which combined the dazzling speed and word economy from earlier generations with a level of unparalleled argumentative sophistication. In the transition however, strategy had become mundane and repetitive. Debates had begun to resemble its flows, practically inverting their representational relationship. Specifically, flows have long resembled a terrifying Civil War reenactment, where armies (or arguments) are lined up against one another, thrown into battle, and those left standing (extended) are sized up, with winners declared. The battlefield carnage might seem too distant and inappropriate to desecrate in analogy. The violence out there is also ordered in the realities of this essay and of debate rounds. Jayan Nayar argues for the absolute importance of struggling against dominant, violent order-ings in all of our realities. Cf. `We are participants in ordered worlds, not merely observers. The choice whether we wish to recognize our own locations of ordered violence and participate in the struggle to resist their orderings, or whether we wish merely to observe violence in far-off worlds in order that our interventionary participation out there never destabilizes the ground upon which we stand. I suggest that we betray the spirit of transformatory struggle, despite of our expressions of support and even actions of professional expertise, if our own locations, within which are ordered and from which we ourselves order, remain unscrutinized (p. 628).

The unquestioned norms and behaviors performed by the affirmative are not neutral or temporary, but actively cultivate and produce the subjectivities of the debaters who respond. Taken collectively, these individuals produce a violent and unquestioned ontology. Bill Shanahan5 explains, Due to editorial constraints, this essay limits itself to drawing a narrow strand out of and across contemporary debate theory and practice, in order to illustrate and lay to rest the controversy. The strategy on which secondgeneration kritik-ing pivoted was exposing interpretation at the heart of topicality. While of course much energy over the decades has been poured into interpreting the topic, most of that energy was spent on ways of effectively limiting the topic by delimiting the boundaries around it and creating itself through a constitutive outside. Little effort was devoted previously to examining the relationship involved in affirming the topic. The activity of affirmation was engaged unproblematically because the realities imbedded in it were so long habituated. Topical relationships are, by no means, the extent and limit of this critical movement. Nonetheless, tracing the contours of how this relationship changed so dramatically over the last seven or eight years should
3

Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol. 25. p3 -4

4Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism September 2004. Contemporary Argumen tation and Debate. Vol. 25. P5 5 Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol. 25. p7 -8

help us to better understand why debate desperately needed kritiks and how kritik-ing so handily became such an integral, inseparable part of debate.[continues 2 paragraphs later] One important theoretical consideration emerged from the discernment of a previously unnoticed topical function (that the topic might be considered to have particular functions at all was itself the result of the gradual influx of discourse theory). Every year and before every debate, the resolved-colon hails or interpellates debaters as affirmative subjects. Lacanian Marxist Louis Althusser, while discussing the mirror-structure of bourgeois capitalist ideology, argues that it ensures the interpellation of individuals as subjects and their mutual recognition of each other and themselves .2 For debate, the topic hails affirmative debaters and their 1acs answer that hail, either explicitly or implicitly. Too often, debaters presume that if they do not debate something then it does not matter. The second generation exposed this sentiment as fallacious and sought to argumentatively contradict it in debate rounds. An unacknowledged topical hail no less hails affirmative debaters. The implications are obvious and legion: Whether or not debaters accept the topical hail, they still are interpellated by it and can be defeated by it, if their opponents respond more effectively to it. The topics relationship to everyone in the debate was exposed and debatable.

The form and content of the 1AC are co-constitutive and cannot be separated the affirmatives performance is necessarily implicated by its deliberate and willful choice to spread. Carol Cohn explains,6 But learning the language is a transformative process. You are not simply adding new information; new vocabulary, but entering a mode of thinking not only about nuclear weapons but also about military and political power, and about the relationship between human ends and technological means. The language and the mode of thinking are not neutral containers of information; they were developed by a specific group of men, trained largely in abstract theoretical mathematics and economics, specifically to make it possible to think rationally about the use of nuclear weapons. That the language is not well suited to do anything but makes it possible to think about nuclear weapons should not be surprising.
We therefore ask you to reject the affirmatives speech act as an act of linguistic nonviole nce, rejecting the duality of ordered militarism and desensitization their performance necessarily embodies.

COHN, 87 (Carol, Director of the Bos3)ton Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Slick 'Ems, Glick 'Ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June, http://www.buildfreedo m.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml)

1NC (Short)
If Im too fast for anybody, please say clear. Spreading has become a framing device that shapes the educational and social opportunities and exclusions in the debate space.

Subpoint A is exclusivity.
On face, spreading excludes many persons with various disabilities. People who have manual and motor impairments cannot flow at the rapid rates necessary to participate in fast debate. People who have auditory disabilities that prevent hearing the slurred syllables, tone, and pitch at high speeds are similarly barred from meaningful participation in the activity. Participating in debate marred by spreading perpetuates the ablenormative hierarchies that exclude imperfect bodies from the rich education that our community can offer. Spreading also creates a class barrier to participating in policy debate. While resource differentials are inevitable, spreading magnifies the impact of these to unnecessarily expand the scope of individuals barred from meaningful participation. Individuals with lower socio-economic status often must work one or multiple jobs to contribute to their familys basic survival needs. The exhaustion created b y working complicates taking a full course load at schools, where students of lower-socioeconomic status must compete against students with personalized tutors and prep courses for tests that determine their futures. Only once they have completed their economic work and their education can their work on policy debate begin. The class and social impact of spreadings exclusion has a global and local effect. In 2000, the National Federation of High School Associations documented a statewide experiment in Vermont. Directly because Vermont began enforcing state-wide speed rules in policy debate, they saw a drastic increase in the number of schools participating. And, spreading has become a crucial part of policy debates identit thanks to its nigh-ubiquity across the nation speed has come to significantly constitute the image of policy debate. By voting negative, you can help us challenge this exclusive facet of debate while preserving all its educational benefits. Policy debate isnt bad, but spreading is no permutation can claim to have the argumentative resolve or the chance to challenge the image of speed debate like a negative ballot can.

Subpoint B is linguistic nonviolence.

In 1987, Carol Cohn presented the results of an experiment she performed concerning nuclear weapons and the way we related to nuclear war scenarios through language:
Cohn in 1987 (Carol, Director of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Slick 'Ems, Glick 'Ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June, http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml) Talking about nuclear weapons is fun. The words are quick, clean, light, they trip off the tongue. You can reel off dozens of them in seconds, forgetting about how one might interfere with the next, not to mention with the lives beneath them. Nearly everyone I observed--lecturers, students, hawks, doves, men, and women--took pleasure in using the words; some of us spoke with a self-consciously ironic edge, but the pleasure was there nonetheless. Part of the appeal was the thrill of being able to manipulate an arcane language, the power of entering the secret kingdom. But perhaps more important, learning the language gives a sense of control, a feeling of mastery over technology that is finally not controllable but powerful beyond human comprehension. The longer I stayed, the more conversations I participated in, the less I was frightened of nuclear war. How can learning to speak a language have such a powerful effect? One answer, discussed earlier, is that the language is abstract and sanitized, never giving access to the images of war. But there is more to it than that. The learning process itself removed me from the reality of nuclear war. My energy was focused on the challenge of decoding acronyms, learning new terms, developing competence in the language--not on the weapons and the wars behind the words. By the time I was through, I had learned far more than an alternate, if abstract, set of words. The content of what I could talk about was monumentally different.

The results of Cohns experiment remarkably parallel the policy debate experience: the practice of spreading makes it dangerously easy for individuals to disconnect from the lived experiences of people purported to be discursively represented in debaters impact scenarios. The pleasure of commanding nuclear jargon in Cohns arcane language and focus on technical process over content is mirrored in the pleasure of commanding breakneck speeds in debate and focusing on perfecting the technique, producing a similar abstraction and subsequent disconnect from the subjects involved in the debate.
Chessman in 2012 (Christian, former policy debater from University of Florida and current student of law, respected member of online policy debate
community & coach of underprivileged debaters <http://www.cross-x.com/topic/53901-non-competitive-discussion-for-problems-in-the-debatecommunity/page-3?hl=%2Bspreading+%2Bsanitizes+%2Bthe+%2Bsubjects#entry866175>)

spreading sanitizes the subjects we talk about. There's something to be said for fully appreciating the topic at hand, or stopping to smell the verbal roses. If we're talking about the mass slaughter and rape of men, women, and children, the gravity of that discussion bears pause and consideration; it bears exploration in detail. "solves genocide johnson 12" does not evoke that kind of humane connection. Spreading disconnects us from the things we talk about, which itself is probably ethically problematic, but also means we get bad education; we only have a snippet snapshot of the subjects we're discussing. We miss out on details that don't look relevant on face because we're just certain we know what's relevant.

The affirmatives mode of debate desensitizes debaters to human suffering and walls in the emancipatory potential of democratic pedagogy.
Mitchell in 1998 (Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the William Pitt Debating Union at the University of Pittsburgh.
Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, Volume 35, Issue 2. Fall 1998. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6699/is_2_35/ai_n28720712/) SLS

The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this

"spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive *deprives+ successor generations of their civic voice, to turn *and turns+ them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

The ethical problems inherent in spreading extend beyond the desensitized disconnect it fosters. Bill Shanahan, inventor of the kritik, explains how spreading fosters a subjectivity of militarism in everyday life:
Shanahan in 2004 *Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays+ Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism
September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol. 25. p3-4

The second critical generation exposed violent forms of domination throughout debate practice, including, at times insurmountable, access barriers for those whose tastes ran less to insular, idiosyncratic policymaking. Brutalizing forms of technique that is, outrageous levels of speed in concert with impressive word economy that conspired to leave even the most engaged participants desperate for more than a few scribbles with a date, near slavish devotion to the aforementioned minutiae of flowing where ink passes for argument and a drop is as good as a kill, and inevitable, speech reconstruction by debaters during cross-ex and prep time, and by judges during extended decision-time after debates were a lightening rod of critical attention and served to help reduce those access barriers for a whole host of alternative, different perspectives to enter debate, now with concomitant opportunities to succeed.

While you may initially balk at the comparison between wars of weapons and wars of words, Shanahan explains the importance of everday conduct in fostering subjectivities and broader worldviews.
Shanahan in 2004 *Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays+ Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism
September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol. 25. p3-4

These vast research skills translated into a ferocious techne, one which combined the dazzling speed and word economy from earlier generations with a level of unparalleled argumentative sophistication. In the transition however, strategy had become mundane and repetitive. Debates had begun to resemble its flows, practically inverting their representational relationship. Specifically, flows have long resembled a terrifying Civil War re-enactment, where armies (or arguments) are lined up against one another, thrown into battle, and those left standing (extended) are sized up, with winners declared. The battlefield carnage might seem too distant and inappropriate to desecrate in analogy. The violence out there is also ordered in the realities of this essay and of debate rounds. Jayan Nayar argues for the absolute importance of struggling against dominant, violent order-ings in all of our realities. Cf. `We are participants in ordered worlds, not merely observers. The choice whether we wish to recognize our own locations of ordered violence and participate in the struggle to resist their orderings, or whether we wish merely to observe violence in far-off worlds in order that our interventionary participation out there never destabilizes the ground upon which we stand. I suggest that we betray the spirit of transformatory struggle, despite of our expressions of support and even actions of professional expertise, if our own locations, within which are ordered and from which we ourselves order, remain unscrutinized (p. 628).

The unquestioned norms and behaviors performed by the affirmative are not neutral or temporary, but actively cultivate and produce the subjectivities of the debaters who respond. Taken collectively, these individuals produce a violent and unquestioned ontology. Bill Shanahan explains:
Shanahan in 2004 *Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays+ Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism
September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol. 25. p3-4

Due to editorial constraints, this essay limits itself to drawing a narrow strand out of and across contemporary debate theory and practice, in order to illustrate and lay to rest the controversy. The strategy on which second -generation kritik-ing pivoted was exposing interpretation at the heart of topicality. While of course much energy over the decades has been poured into interpreting the topic, most of that energy was spent on ways of effectively limiting the topic by delimiting the boundaries around it and creating itself through a constitutive outside. Little effort was devoted previously to examining the relationship involved in affirming the topic. The activity of affirmation was engaged unproblematically

because the realities imbedded in it were so long habituated. Topical relationships are, by no means, the extent and limit of this critical movement. Nonetheless, tracing the contours of how this relationship changed so dramatically over the last seven or eight years should help us to better understand why debate desperately need ed kritiks and how kritik-ing so handily became such an integral, inseparable part of debate.[continues 2 paragraphs later] One important theoretical consideration emerged from the discernment of a previously unnoticed topical function (that the topic might be considered to have particular functions at all was itself the result of the gradual influx of discourse theory). Every year and before every debate, the resolved-colon hails or interpellates debaters as affirmative subjects. Lacanian Marxist Louis Althusser, while discussing the mirror-structure of bourgeois capitalist ideology, argues that it ensures the interpellation of individuals as subjects and their mutual recognition of each other and themselves .2 For debate, the topic hails affirmative debaters and their 1acs answer that hail, either explicitly or implicitly . Too often, debaters presume that if they do not debate something then it does not matter. The second generation exposed this sentiment as fallacious and sought to argumentatively contradict it in debate rounds. An unacknowledged topical hail no less hails affirmative debaters. The implications are obvious and legion: Whether or not debaters accept the topical hail, they still are interpellated by it and can be defeated by it, if their opponents respond more effectively to it. The topics relationship to everyone in the debate was exposed and debatable.

The form and content of the 1AC are co-constitutive and cannot be separated the affirmatives performance is necessarily implicated by its deliberate and willful choice to spread. Carol Cohn explains:
Cohn in 1987 (Carol, Director of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School
of Law and Diplomacy, Slick 'Ems, Glick 'Ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June, http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml)

But learning the language is a transformative process. You are not simply adding new information; new vocabulary, but entering a mode of thinking not only about nuclear weapons but also about military and political power, and about the relationship between human ends and technological means. The language and the mode of thinking are not neutral containers of information; they were developed by a specific group of men, trained largely in abstract theoretical mathematics and economics, specifically to make it possible to think rationally about the use of nuclear weapons. That the language is not well suited to do anything but makes it possible to think about nuclear weapons should not be surprising.

Or policy debate for that matter: we therefore ask you to reject the affirmatives speech act as an act of linguistic nonviolence, rejecting the duality of ordered militarism and desensitization their performance necessarily embodies.

2NC / 1NR

Overview
Extend that spreading produces a form of policy debate that is both insular and exclusionary. Disabled persons who lack the ability to flow or follow spreading are epistemologically barred from meaningful participation by spreading as a practice. Such cases may seem marginal in large part because these people never get their foot in the door the barrier to participation is set higher than they are able to access. As a result, these people are both functionally barred from the activity AND left below the social radar, despite the fact that they are no less deserving of the education and benefits conferred by policy debate. Second, extend the class element of spreading it exacerbates resource inequalities and promotes success in the hands of the few. Why do you think the same schools win the TOC and NFLs every year? The class element also precludes the ability to practice spreading in the sense that (1) our time is already exhausted on work and school and (2) intergenerational households are crowded such that we lack a place to practice spreading without disrupting the remainder of the house. The National Federation of High School Associations evidence is damning insofar as it is an empirical case study that proves the exclusion argument level of participation is negatively correlated with speed of debate. This is an independent voting issue. Third, extend the linguistic nonviolence argument spreading sanitizes and desensitizes debaters to the humanity underlying their arguments, discouraging focus on the human lives behind their arguments and instead incentivizing them to focus on the hypertechnical elements of debate. The result is a spectator mentality which Gordon Mitchell says is embodied in debater celebrations of suffering, which are all too common. Our Shanahan evidence says the repeated acceptance of these norms begins to shape our very worldview, fostering militaristic subjectivities, which is why debate arguments begin to resemble wars. Shanahan points out that how we behave in debate translates into how we behave in the real world, and cements militarism as a foundational assumption of our thinking. Cohn echoes this point when arguing that the language through which content is expressed is not neutral, but actively shapes both the subject of speech and the speaker themselves, meaning that the act of spreading produces a violent ontology. Our kritik performatively solves for the militaristic norms of spreading by opening up a space in which those norms are not dominant and normalized, but contested and problematized. Dr. Dana Polson, in her ethnographic study of the debate community, explains this process:
<http://gradworks.umi.com/3516242.pdf> pp175-176:

Janice Cooper, college debater, agreed, finding traditional norms of debate restrictive to being able to speak fully and freely: Theres a difference between a rule and a norm. ... Bu t like the norm is speed reading, and spreading, and having to affirm the national
government. Those are norms that we dont abide by because we feel as though you should be able to, like that should be a space where you should come in and be able to like speak your piece. And you shouldnt have to conform to certain types of restrictions. (Janice Cooper, interview, p. 2). Here, Janice affirms, in a sense, her self-creation of a space in which she can speak freely. The interesting thing here is that no one has invited Janice to speak her mind in debate; the norms

performance debate is so difficult, in part, because it breaks some of many silences we construct around issues of power. Sometimes speaking your piece means not just saying whats on ones mind, but breaking silences constructed to protect the powerful from recognition. Bailey (1998) points out that silence about privilege is itself a function of privilege and it has a chilling effect on political discourse (p. 16).Whiteness, for example, is un-marked, normed, and therefore invisible and silent. Continuing to keep quiet about whiteness continues the privilege. The practice of speaking out, then, is not the joining of an in-progress conversation, or the addition of an alternative voice in some way. Instead, there is an overwhelming silence that has to be broached in order to do the practice. Even in schools where students of such marginalized social
militate against that. However, Janice and other performance debaters thus create their own spaces through speech. The practice of location are the majority, the misrecognition and the avoidance hold, and these things are rarely discussed. How are these metaphorical, conceptual silences seen in debate practice? How are they perpetuated?

And, the role of the ballot is to produce the most inclusive, educational debate space. The way we frame and decide our educational debates over ideology will determine the strength of that ideologys hold over us.
Althusser in 1970. Louis Althusser, Marxist philosopher; Professor of Philosophy, Ecole Normale Superieure, 1970, Ideology and Ideological State
Apparatuses, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm, web paging

the ideological State apparatus which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant ideological State apparatus, is the educational ideological apparatus. This thesis may seem paradoxical, given that for everyone, i.e.
That is why I believe that I am justified in advancing the following Thesis, however precarious it is. I believe that in the ideological representation that the bourgeoisie has tried to give itself and the classes it exploits, it really seems that the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations is not the Schools, but the political ideological State apparatus, i.e. the regime of parliamentary democracy combining universal suffrage and party struggle. However, history, even recent history, shows that the bourgeoisie has been and still is able to accommodate itself to political ideological State apparatuses other than parliamentary democracy: the First and Second Empires, Constitutional Monarchy (Louis XVIII and Charles X), Parliamentary Monarchy (Louis -Philippe), Presidential Democracy (de Gaulle), to mention only France. In England this is even clearer. The Revolution was particularly 'successful' there from the bourgeois point of view, since unlike France, where the bourgeoisie, partly because of the stupidity of the petty aristocracy, had to agree to being carried to power by peasant and plebeian journes revolutionnaires', something for which it had to pay a high price, the English bourgeoisie was able to 'compromise' with the aristocracy and 'share' State power and the use of the State apparatus with it for a long time (peace among all men of good will in the ruling classes!). In Germany it is even more striking, since it was behind a political ideological State apparatus in which the imperial Junkers (epitomized by Bismarck), their army and their police provided it with a shield and leading personnel, that the imperialist bourgeoisie made its shattering entry into history, before 'traversing' the Weimar Republic and entrusting itself to Nazism. Hence I believe I have good reasons for thinking that behind the scenes

its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the bourgeoisie has installed as its number -one, i.e. as its dominant ideis the educational apparatus, which has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant ideological State apparatus, the Church. One might even add: the School -Family couple has replaced the Church -Family couple. Why is the educational apparatus in fact the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations, and how does it function? For the moment it must suffice to say: 1. All ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation. 2.
of ological State apparatus, Each of them contributes towards this single result in the way proper to it. The political apparatus by subjecting individuals to the political State ideology, the 'indirect' (parliamentary) or 'direct' (plebiscitary or fascist) 'democratic' ideology. The communications apparatus by cramming every 'citizen' with daily doses of nationalism, chauvinism, liberalism, moralism, etc., by means of the press, the radio and television. The same goes for the cultural apparatus (the role of sport in chauvinism is of the first importance), etc. The religious apparatus by recalling in sermons and the other great ceremonies of Birth, Marriage and Death, that man is only ashes, unless he loves his neighbour to the extent of turning the other cheek to whoever strikes first. The family apparatus ... but there is no need to go on. 3.

This concert is dominated by a single

score, occasionally disturbed by contradictions (those of the remnants of former ruling classes, those of the proletarians and their organizations): the score of the Ideology of
the current ruling class which integrates into its music the great themes of the Humanism of the Great Forefathers, who produced the Greek Miracle even before Christianity, and afterwards the Glory of Rome, the Eternal City, and the themes of Interest, particular and general, etc. nationalism, moralism and economism. 4. Nevertheless, in this concert, one

ideological State apparatus certainly has the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to its music: it is so silent! This is the School. It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the years in which the child is most 'vulnerable', squeezed between the family State apparatus and the educational State apparatus, it drums into them, whether it uses new or old methods, a certain amount of 'know-how' wrapped in the ruling ideology (French, arithmetic, natural history, the sciences, literature) or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state (ethics, civic instruction, philosophy) . Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children is ejected 'into
production': these are the workers or small peasants. Another portion of scholastically adapted youth carries on: and, for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside and fills the posts of small and middle technicians, white -collar workers, small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi -employment, or to provide, as well as the `intellectuals of the collective labourer, the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers, policemen, politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists (priests of all sorts, most of whom are convinced laymen').

Each mass ejected en route is practically provided with the ideology which suits the role it has to fulfill in class society: the
role of the exploited (with a `highly -developed' `professional; 'ethical, 'civic, 'national' and a -political consciousness); the role of the agent of exploitation (ability to give the workers orders and speak to them: 'human relations'), of the agent of repression (ability to give orders and enforce obedience 'without discussion,' or ability to manipulate the demagogy of a political leader's rhetoric), or of the professional ideologist (ability to treat consciousnesses with the respect, i.e. with the contempt, blackmail, and demagogy they deserve, adapted to the accents of Morality, of Virtue, of 'Transcendence, of the Nation, of France's World Role, etc.). Of course, many of these contrasting Virtues (modesty, resignation, submissiveness on the one hand, cynicism, contempt, arrogance, confidence, self -importance, even smooth talk and cunning on the other) are also taught in the Family, in the Church, in the Army, in Good Books, in films and even in the football stadium. But no other ideological State apparatus has the obligatory (and not

it is by an apprenticeship in a variety of know-how wrapped up in the massive inculcation of the ideology of the ruling class that the relations of production in a capitalist Social formation, i.e. the relations of exploited to exploiters and exploiters to exploited are largely reproduced. The mechanisms which produce this vital result for the capitalist regime are naturally covered up and concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the School, universally reigning because it is one of the essential forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology: an ideology which represents the School as a neutral environment purged of ideology
least, free) audience of the totality of the children in the capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven. But (because it is . . lay), where teachers respectful of the 'conscience' and 'freedom' of the children who are entrusted to them (in complete confidence) by their 'parents' (who are free, too, i.e. the owners of their children) open up for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their own example, by knowledge, literature and their 'liberating' virtues. I ask the pardon of those teachers

who, in dreadful conditions, attempt to turn the few weapons they can find in the history and learning are a kind of hero. But they are rare and how many (the majority) do not even begin to suspect the 'work' the system (which is bigger than they are and crushes them) forces them to do, or worse,
they `teach' against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped. They put all their heart and ingenuity into performing it with the most advanced awareness (the famous new methods!). So little do they suspect it that their own devotion contributes to the maintenance and nourishment of this ideological representation of the School, which makes the School today as 'natural', indispensable -useful and even beneficial for our contemporaries as the Church was 'natural, indispensable and generous for our ancestors a few centuries ag o. In fact, the Church has been replaced today in its role as the dominant Ideological State Apparatus by the School. It is coupled with the Family just as the Church was once coupled with the Family. We can now claim that the unprecedentedly deep crisis which is now shaking the education system of so many States across the globe, often in conjunction with a crisis (already proclaimed in the

Communist Manifesto) shaking the family system, takes on a political meaning, given that the School (and the School -Family couple) constitutes the dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Apparatus playing a determinant part in the reproduction of the relations of production of a mode of production threatened in its existence by the world class struggle.

Now on to the line-by-line.

Education

F/L
Group the education debate: Debaters often point to increased education as the primary benefit of spreading. Even if this were true, access to that education would be limited to an insular minority, who likely already have the resources to access education while simultaneously disadvantaging those who most need education, which turns back their arguments about competitive fairness. And, spreading produces a bankrupt form of pedagogy, because it precludes the dialogical coproduction of knowledge.
Sjoberg and Tickner in 2012. [Laura, Ph.D in IR from USC, author of 9 books, editor of the International Journal of Feminist Politics and Professor
of IR and J. Ann, founder of feminist international relations, IR Professor @ AU, frmr president of ISA, professor Emerita @ USC.] Introduction. Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present, and Future. p11-12

Feminist research generally, and this book specifically, draws a distinction between communicating to an audience (where the researcher as the authorial voice gathers correct information and informs the audience of that information) and communicating with an audience where knowledge is discovered in conversation with diverse others . Floya Anthias (2002, 282) has characterized the moment of communicating with as a dialogical moment, where effective dialogue requires an already formulated mutual respect, a common communication language, and a common starting point in terms of power. It also assumes good will of all the partners in the dialogue (Anthias 2002, 282). Mutual respect, common language, good will, and common starting points in terms of power can, of course, never be perfectly achieved. And even finding this rare and excellent combination of qualities between researchers (or practitioners in the policy world) does not guarantee success. Instead, conversations are difficult, and it is hard to avoid coming into the dialogue convinced that ones own 18argument is correct and those of others are flawed. Feminist conversations, then, are idealtypes, to be aspired to if never perfectly achieved. Recognizing these limitations, dialogue and diversity are seen as strengths in feminist theorizing (Ackerly, Stern, and True 2006, 5). Engaging in dialogues that aspire to approximate the communicative ideal-type described above is not only an exercise in theoretical methodology, it is itself theorizing. Marysia Zalewski (1996) tells us that theory can be understood as explanation, critique, or practice; feminist conversations are an exercise in theorizing feminist politics through practice.

Therefore even if they produce more education, its BAD education the quality of the education suffers in the drive to mass produce it. Prefer education that is accessible and quality over insular and bankrupt education. And, their form of education also reproduces social hierarchies of power independent voting issue.
Doctors Sjoberg and Tickner 2012. [Laura, Ph.D in IR from USC, author of 9 books, editor of the International Journal of Feminist Politics and
Professor of IR and J. Ann, founder of feminist international relations, IR Professor @ AU, frmr president of ISA, professor Emerita @ USC.] Introduction. Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present, and Future. p11

The organization of this book as conversations, interlinked and layered at different levels, is not just stylistic but substantive. Lucinda Peach (1994, 153) once noted that the emphasis on collaboration in feminist theorizing means that feminist articles, books, and other research products might look different from other scholarship, given the tendency of feminists and feminisms to work in dialogue and conversation. This tendency is not incidental; it is fundamental feminisms concerns for the relationship between positionality and knowledge and for understanding relationships of domination and subordination in politics suggest that dialogue is one of the most appropriate ways to approach theorizing, analyzing, and practicing global politics

(IF K AFF) The kritik turns their education claims - any education they create is infected with
militarism

Chris Cuomo in 1996: War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Chris J. Cuomo, Hypatia, Vol. 11, No. 4,
Women and Violence (Autumn, 1996), pp. 30-45; Published by: Hypatia, Inc.

Ethical approaches that do not attend to the ways in which warfare and military practices are woven into the very fabric of life in twenty-first century technological states lead to crisis-based politics and analyses. For any feminism that aims to resist oppression and create alternative social and political options, crisis-based ethics and politics are problematic because they distract attention from the need for sustained resistance to the enmeshed, omnipresent systems of domination and oppression that so often function as givens in most people's lives. Neglecting the omnipresence of militarism allows the false belief that the absence of declared armed conflicts is peace, the polar opposite of war. It is particularly easy for those whose lives are shaped by the safety of privilege, and who do not regularly encounter the realities of militarism, to maintain this false belief.

(IF POLICY AFF) Learning about policy-making mechanisms might be good, but not all
policymaking is made equal. A negative ballot is a step away from policymaking that is undergirded by militarism.
Chris Cuomo in 1996: War Is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence, Chris J. Cuomo, Hypatia, Vol. 11, No. 4,
Women and Violence (Autumn, 1996), pp. 30-45; Published by: Hypatia, Inc.

Moving away from crisis-driven politics and ontologies concerning war and military violence also enables consideration of relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena, and therefore can shape more nuanced theoretical and practical forms of resistance. For example, investigating the ways in which war is part of a presence allows consideration of the relationships among the events of war and the following: how militarism is a foundational trope in the social and political imagination; how the pervasive presence and symbolism of soldiers/warriors/patriots shape meanings of gender; the ways in which threats of state-sponsored violence are a sometimes invisible/sometimes old agent of racism, nationalism, and corporate interests; the fact that vast umbers of communities, cities, and nations are currently in the midst of excruciatingly violent circumstances. It also provides a lens for considering the relationships among the various kinds of violence that get labeled "war." Given current American obsessions with nationalism, guns, and militias, and growing hunger for the death penalty, prisons, and a more powerful police state, one cannot underestimate the need for philosophical and political attention to connections among phenomena like the "war on drugs," the "war on crime," and other state-funded militaristic campaigns.

Oversimplification XT
Spreading encourages argument oversimplification which further damages the pedagogical power of policy debate:
Chessman in 2012 (Christian, former policy debater from University of Florida and current student of law, respected member of online policy debate
community & coach of underprivileged debaters <http://www.cross-x.com/topic/53901-non-competitive-discussion-for-problems-in-the-debatecommunity/page-3?hl=%2Bspreading+%2Bsanitizes+%2Bthe+%2Bsubjects#entry866175>)

Additionally - because of the high speed, we rely on simplistic heuristics to help manage the arguments. this is a "reps k"; this is a "race team"; hell, even "this is a kritik". We throw around words like "structural violence"; "genocide"; "discourse"; "hegemony; "resistance"; "oppression" with little regard to their meaning. For example; "structural violence" could refer to anything from "violence that has been institutionalized" (like institutional racism) to "violence that is the result of an overall structuring social principle" (marxists would say this is class) to "violence that shows up in every day life but is non-physical" (the mis-tag people give to the Cuomo cards). Cuomo would RADICALLY disagree with the marxist meaning of "structural violence", but because of the need for heuristics they get lumped in together. The genesis of that need for heuristics is information overload, caused by spreading. The problem with these heuristics is they simplify arguments which are not simple, but differ in meaningful ways: these heuristics encourage anti-educational, simplistic responses. Even "this is a cap K" is simplistic; and the 2AC to a cap K should vary WILDLY depending on the type of cap K. We end up recycling the same arguments year after year on both sides of the debate-aisle and don't really learn the nuances and depth that the literature provides.

Arg. Irresponsibility
Spreading creates a culture of argument irresponsibility that harms education.
Chessman in 2012 (Christian, former policy debater from University of Florida and current student of law, respected member of online policy debate
community & coach of underprivileged debaters <http://www.cross-x.com/topic/53901-non-competitive-discussion-for-problems-in-the-debatecommunity/page-3?hl=%2Bspreading+%2Bsanitizes+%2Bthe+%2Bsubjects#entry866175>)

if teams had to make their arguments at a slower speed, fewer ridiculous arguments would slip by. A big reason nonsense gets by in debate is because we literally cannot hear what the opponent is saying to determine whether or not its nonsense. Spreading mystifies confusing arguments and gives them an excuse for being run that we just never question; instead of saying "I couldnt understand what they said because what they said was nonsense", we say "I couldnt understand what they said because they were talking so fast". How else do we explain the continued prevalence of "timecube", "flat earth", "death good", "rape good" and other similar arguments in an otherwise academic community?

Fairness

Ablenormativity
Note: The first Rocco card is on fire. If you dont get to read all of this section, make sure you read the first Rocco card and at least the Breckenridge card in the impact section. Note how the first Rocco card also acts as an answer to the permuation thats the bolded section.

Extend our 1NC arguments about exclusivity first, ableism. The affirmatives practice of spreading is active participation in an exclusive and unnecessary form of debate that only raises the bar for participation in the activity and creates an environment of ablenormativity an image of the Ideal debater and what that looks like and it never has any disability. In the race for the fastest yet clearest WPM, the affirmative promotes an image of policy debate that systematically excludes people of disability. This happens on two levels. 1. First, people who have manual or motor impairments would find it incredibly difficult to flow at the rapid rates necessary to even keep up with spreaded speeches, and shadow flowing a crucial skill in varsity debate is definitely out of the question. 2. Secondly, persons with auditory disabilities can find it hard to listen to or process the rapid speech, slurred syllables, and confusing pitch & tone of spreading and the fact that many policy debaters go into whisper-mode when spreading cards doesnt help either; that can be hard for even ablebodied people to understand.

The most important part of this is that they use their able-bodied privilege to reinforce social barriers that oust the disabled body from policy debate any hostility to our criticism proves that they unfairly use their power to reinforce an ablenormative debatespace.
Dr. Rocco in 2002. Tonette S. Rocco, Associate Professor at Florida International University & PhD in Adult Education, Human Resource
Development, Research Methods; Florida International University . The Invisible People: Disability, Diversity, and Issues of Power in Adult Education, 2002. Web, < https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/414/Rocco%20T%20.pdf?sequence=1>

Power is the control, use, and protection of economic, political, and social resources and the conscious or unconscious use of these resources against others. Privilege is an unearned asset or benefit received by virtue of being born with a particular characteristic or into a particular class. (Rocco & West, 1998, p. 173). Power in adult education is seen in terms of identity politics, marginalization, and access to economic, political, and educational resources. As Johnson-Bailey and Cervero (2000) point out while adult educators acknowledge that power resides in the dominant white majority we rarely admit that this concentration of power is deliberate and intentional. It is so ingrained that there is a lack of realization that it exists. But able-bodied Americans will rise to protect their privilege whenever they feel it is threatened. People with disabilities feel this backlash when a request for an adaptation to the environment (so that access might be gained to education, work, civic, and leisure activities) is treated as if the adaptation provides an unfair advantage. The hostility continues until that adaptation moves into the mainstream as a new convenience for all. As a society we fail to see accessibility where disability is concerned as necessary to full integration. Or that we create spaces that others cannot enter physically or metaphorically because we see disability as an intensely individual personal problem; denying that disabled people share experiences of discrimination in common like (acknowledged) minority groups (Oliver, 1996). We do not imagine having delayed access to materials, entering buildings from poorly marked entrances, often at the rear, or denying entrance into public buildings for some disabled adults, restricting participation in the social, civic, and political life of the community as segregation and discrimination and we should. Adult educators, investigate issues of power and privilege in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation without being members of these groups (Brooks & Edwards, 1997; Johnson-Bailey, & Cervero, 1998; Rocco & West, 1998; Tisdell & Taylor, 1995). When discussing multicultural issues, we rarely concede that disabled people are a minority group with shared experiences of discrimination and few opportunities for education and employment (Ross-Gordon, 1991). The study of disability and institutional and structural barriers to educational access should not be seen in isolation from the work already being done on power and privilege in

adult education. Instead, disability should be integrated into the stream of research on power and privilege. The study of disability and institutional and structural barriers to education and employment should be connected to the work on power and privilege in adult education.

There are several implications. 1. First, it turns their theory arguments about education because they contribute to the exclusion of disabled people from the rich education that policy debate can offer. This is especially crucial to policy debate because kritikal debating can be particularly liberating for teenagers of disabilities widespread ableism among teens, and the low chances that theyll be taught about Critical Disability Studies in high school classrooms, provide the exigency to our criticism. 2. Secondly, it turns back their education claims concerning policymaking. They reinforce a normative image of what the policy-debating body is by centering policy education on the normative able body, they label the disruptive disabled as Other.
Dr. Breckenridge in 2001, New School for Social Research History, Associate Professor and Vogler University of Chicago, Professor of
Philosophy. Carol A. Breckenridge and Candace Vogler, Fall 2001, Public Culture, Volume 13, Number 3, Duke University Press The Critical Limits of Embodiment: Disability's Criticism, Pg. 350 Project Muse accessed 7-2-12 BC

Disability studies teaches that an assumed able body is crucial to the smooth operation of traditional theories of democracy, [and] citizenship, subjectivity, beauty, and capital. By assuming that the normative human is an able-bodied adult, for example, liberal theory can conflate political or economic interests with desires, political representation with having a voice in policy-making, social organization with voluntary association , and so on. Liberal theory naturalizes the political by making it personal. And the person at the center of the traditional liberal theory is not simply an individual locus of subjectivity (however psychologically fragmented, incoherent, or troubled). He is an able-bodied locus of subjectivity, one whose unskilled labor may be substituted freely for the labor of other such individuals, one who can imagine himself largely self-sufficient because almost everything conspires to help him take his enabling body for granted (even when he is scrambling for the means of subsistence). However, the mere possibility of a severely cognitively disabled adult citizen disrupts the liberal equations of representation and voice, desire and interest. Advocacy for the severely cognitively disabled is not a matter of voicing their demands. More generally, the intricate practical dialectics of dependence and independence in the lives of many disabled people unsettle ideals of social organization as freely chosen expressions of mutual desire.

3. Third, the affirmatives resolve against the inclusion of people with disabilities in debate is crucial to the sustenance of an environment that systematicically excludes people with disabled bodies. Their contribute to the invisibility of the disabled body is ontologically violent and disallows the policy debate community from their unique voice.
Dr. Tonette Rocco in 2002. Tonette S. Rocco, Associate Professor at Florida International University & PhD in Adult Education, Human
Resource Development, Research Methods; Florida International University . The Invisible People: Disability, Diversity, and Issues of Power in Adult Education, 2002. Web, < https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/414/Rocco%20T%20.pdf?sequence=1>

Critical disability theory maintains that discrimination against people with disabilities is so ordinary that it is invisible. Disability should be recognized with true minority group status, instead of viewed as an individual anomaly. To take this a step farther it is the created environment that is disabling [and] not the physical, cognitive, or mental variation that an individual experiences (Hahn, 1988). Public attitudes as well as physical space make up the environment. Critical disability theory examines the institutional structures that stand in the way of the serious struggle for the right to paid, integrated employment and full participation in the mainstream of life (Oliver, 1996, p. 24). Disabled people have redefined disability as the social barriers, restrictions and/or oppressions faced and professional interventions are seen as adding to the problems (Oliver, 1996, p. 10). Thus, invisibility means ones experiences are not even considered an inconvenience they are simply not considered at all by society, by service providers, and others. Critical disability theory questions the reduction of disability to finite categories to be counted, and defined using such critical divisions as normal vs. pathological or the competent citizen vs. the ward of the state (Linton, 1998). Asch (2001) proposes a human variation approach suggesting that instead of maintaining the dichotomy--disabled or not disabled--we should determine how to

modify the environments so that they are not disabling. People with disabilities have a unique voice emerging from unique individual and group experiences. While disability scholars have fought hard to get disability included in the race-class-gender triad (Davis, 2001, p. 535), inclusion in this triad happens only in the disability studies literature not in the adult education literature. In order to theorize disability as a public issue it must become as visible as the race-class-gender triad.

4. [IF POLICY AFF] And, ablenormativity kills their permutation: they try to footnote the disabled experience at the end of their plan text and thats the kind of token gesture that we criticize --- questions of the disabled Other must precede their advocacy or its doomed to fail.
Dr. Campbell in 2009 (Dr. Fiona Kumari Campbell, Griffith University, Law School Faculty, Disability Advocacy & Ableism: Towards a ReDiscovery of the Disability Imagination, November 2009, http://www.academia.edu/196555/Disability_Advocacy_and_Ableism_Towards_a_re-discovery_of_the_disability_Imagination)

it was important for disabled people to understand the nature of social change so that we will not be fooled by any token one off gestures or initiatives handed out by government and disability agencies (1984, 91). I still hold to that idea and add that we always need to test new ideas by asking what is this proposal or idea saying about disability, does it assume that disability is terrible, or that diversity and difference are terrible or is the idea on about celebrating and bringing out difference? From the perspective of political activism, the necessity to have a theory of disability before deciding strategies of political action was well understood as early as 1975 by the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation UPAIS in the UK whose minutes of a debate between 2 advocacy groups produced a document called The Fundamental Principles of Disability. They decided that disability should not be understood medically as a broken down body, mind or heart, rather society and the way that it [society] is organised had [has] something to do with us becoming disabled .
In a keynote speech I made at a DPI conference in Adelaide 1984 I said

Classism

Perm

Generic F/L
Group the perm debate 1. No perms our kritik doesnt have or need an alternative, so theres literally nothing to perm. Our reading of the 1NC and 2NC is a counterperformance that disrupts the performance of the 1AC, and is what the judge votes for.
2. We dont need an alt all we have to do is prove the affirmative advocacy undesirable, which

the kritik does, and then prove why voting against it solves thats the Polson and Althusser evidence from the overview.
3. Voting on the permutation cant solve our offense their speech act contributes to the

community norm of spreading in policy debate. Giving them the ballot while recognizing the problems of spreading does nothing to help because it just insulates the practice of spreading within the activity. We need to strip policy debates identity of this characteristic all of our offense are reasons why its a particularly terrible thing for our activity itself as well as increasing participation. ONLY a negative ballot can solve tell people about this in the tab room radical opposition is the only solvent mechanism and the perm merely co-opts our advocacy with no intention to spread it to other rounds.

Perf. Perm
1. They still link: a. Debate is performative their speech act is inextricably tied to the way it was performed. This is obvious enough: the aff couldnt put as many words in the 1AC if they hadnt spread for example, but it means that all of spreadings impacts still matter against the 1AC and even their attempts to save face in this particular instance: b. And, given the above, the 1AC method of spreading fosters unacceptable argumentative irresponsibility:
Chessman in 2012 (Christian, former policy debater from University of Florida and current student of law, respected member
of online policy debate community & coach of underprivileged debaters <http://www.cross-x.com/topic/53901-non-competitivediscussion-for-problems-in-the-debate-community/page-3?hl=%2Bspreading+%2Bsanitizes+%2Bthe+%2Bsubjects#entry866175>)

if teams had to make their arguments at a slower speed, fewer ridiculous arguments would slip by. A big reason nonsense gets by in debate is because we literally cannot hear what the opponent is saying to determine whether or not its nonsense. Spreading mystifies confusing arguments and gives them an excuse for being run that we just never question; instead of saying "I couldnt understand what they said because what they said was nonsense", we say "I couldnt understand what they said because they were talking so fast". How else do we explain the continued prevalence of "timecube", "flat earth", "death good", "rape good" and other similar arguments in an otherwise academic community?

c. The damage is done we still cant engage the 1AC speech act because of how fast it was, so extending any arguments from it means youre reaping fruit from the poison tree of spreading. Even if they start reading a whole new 1AC after the block, that only proves our arguments on education and would still necessitate that we were so right that we convinced the aff how right we were thats definitely worth the ballot.

A2

250+ WPM
1. And - disregard their evidence that says humans can comprehend words at 250+ words per minute - its specific to written word, not auditory speech. A study by the German National Institute of Psychology found that the medium matters immensely, and while humans might be able to comprehend written word at higher rates, the rate fell drastically when the same content was verbalized.

arbitrary brightline
1) Were not asking too much of you: inclusive speed is about 4-5 words per second, adjustable to the request of the other team Sjoberg and Tickner say that all participants must be able to interact and invest in the dialogic process of knowledge production to avoid the reproduction of epistemic heirarchies. 2) An empirical study published in the Journal of Cognitive Engineering examined attempted to determine the speed at which audiobooks should proceed, measuring the rate at which human beings on average tend to comfortably hear and vocalize words. They found that humans tended to process auditory speech at about 150 words per minute, with an upper range of 160 words per minute.
Williams, J. R. (1998). Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Journal of Cognitive Engineering, 14471451

breadth > depth

1. Misses the boat our Sjoberg and Tickner evidence indicate their education is bad education whether or not its broad or deep. 2. Inaccessible if we cant access the education, it doesnt matter how much breadth you cover because we cant engage it. 3. Depth is superior its better to read 100 pages of one book than the first page of 100 books.

hard = good
1. No link - our argument isnt debate should be easier, its that debates participation barrier should not be determined by ones class or disability level. Circuit style speed debate is a capital-intensive process that isnt neutral their conception of hard debate is weighed with ideological baggage. 2. Turn harder debate for one team is easier debate for another spreading makes it easy for well-resourced teams to outcompete us simply by outspreading us evening the playing field is a pre-requisite to rigorous debate. 3. Turn their form of debate isnt rigorous or educational cross apply our Sjoberg and Tickner evidence about dialogic knowledge production. 4. Militarism outweighs the production of violent subjectivities outweighs any nebulous benefits that spreading might have.

judge can hear

1. Thats not the point our argument is that the debate community should not bar persons with

disabilities and those of lower socio-economic class than us from meaningful participationin the debate space by reinforcing the communal norm of speed-reading, you are actively creating an image of policy debate that includes ridiculous talking speeds, and thats exclusive. Even if everybody in this room can understand upwards of 400 WPM, we should still actively strive to create real change in the way we interact with policy debate, and the way policy debate presents itself to other students.
2. Resisting the norm solves, thats the Vermont case study we cited in the 1NC enforcing speed

limits drastically increased debate participation throughout the state.

3. And, extend the Cohen card that talked about how form influences content not only does

spreading literally prep you for speed debate but it prepares you for the debating entailed in speed debate minimax disad reasoning, absurd offense/defense paradigms that shift debate to impact-focused absurdities, and the Mitchell argument about how it forces us to act as mere spectators in the world, hoping for tragedies for our personal gain in debate.

just ask!

form no matter
1. False extend Cohn the language we use to articulate content shapes the way we filter the content. Mitchell is specific to debate on this question and demonstrates how the sanitization produced by spreading leads to celebrations of suffering. Prefer our debate specific evidence to their generic evidence. 2. Exclusion matters - the affirmative participates in constructing a participation barrier based on class and disability thats an independent reason to drop them. The National Federation of High School Associations evidence impacts this argument saying participation is directly connected to speed.

Mitchell 02
1. We arent saying switch-side debate as a whole is bad, and were not saying policy education is bad. The discussion of two sides of an issue in a safe space can be good, but when its coupled with spreading, a race to nuclear war and extinction impacts, and the minimax offense/defense paradigm, it desensitizes participants. These dynamics are what Mitchell in 98 described as barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. Spreading and min-max disads arent crucial to a safe space for switchside debate, which means their argument is fundamentally unresponsive.

spread not key

1. Even if other elements can feed into desensitization and militarism, why make the perfect the enemy of the good? Theres no magic bullet to solve militarism in debate, but if we cant fully unload the gun, why not take some of the bullets out? 2. The dynamics supporting militarism are also mutually-reinforcing problems spreading encourages argument irresponsibility like mini-max disads and strict offense/defense paradigms; by taking spreading out of the equation, were able to curtail the other kinds of argumentative irresponsability mentioned in the Chessman evidence.

timeskew inev
1) Turn time skew is a question of gradients, not thresholds. Even if its inevitable, its severity is not. 2) This is purely defensive not a reason to reject our argument 3) Doesnt answer our militarism arguments extend Shanahan violent subjectivity formation is an independent voting issue.

you use jargon

1. Even if we still use jargon and word economies, thats not the object of Cohns criticism the insular and arcane language she talks about is one which privileges efficiency of form over connection with content. Shanahan pointed out how spreading causes us to treat arguments like soldeirs and drops like a kill. We always tell debaters to go for what the other team dropped the problem isnt using cards or specialized language, its the way those cards and language are used.

UDL takeout
1. Even if UDLs prove our classism arguments wrong, we still have the aff to the wall on linguistic violence and ablenormativity epistemic hierarchies and systemic exclusion outweighs their nominal increase of problematic education. 2. Even if some poor people can participate in policy, why increase the number of people who have to sacrifice either work, education, or policy debate for the others theres no reason that spreading isnt in some way violently exclusive and that is enough to warrant its disavowal. 3. Were saying that spreading puts the participation bar too high even if some people can still jump it, the number is still net fewer than the number of people who would otherwise participate thats the Vermont study in the 1NC and outweighs their limited access to education.

2NR

Overview

Education
1. Extend the first Sjoberg and Tickner argument on education three implications: a. They replicate conversational power asymmetries (like I cant spread as fast as you), b. They disrupt common communication languages ( like I cannot hear spreading, and also because NOBODY can process spreading), and c. They prevent good faith exchange (dialogue can not occur at 400 WPM). d. Thus, even if they produce any education, it is pedagogically powerless because it precludes dialogical interactions between intellectual equals any other model of education reifies epistemic hierarchies that turn their education claims.

2. Extend the second Sjoberg and Ticker argument on education xxxx

Fairness

Ablenormativity