Theory – Round Reports

Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD

wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which
positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech.
Violation: screenshot in the doc – they have none
Standards:
1] Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but
independents are left in the dark so round reports are key to prep – they give you an
idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your
strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it’s an
impact multiplier
2] Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which
positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs
affs – helps compensate for kids who can’t afford coaches to prep out affs.

Prefer competing interps to reasonability: 1] reasonability is a race to the bottom

where we never set better norms 2] question of norm setting, you should have to
justify why your norm is good for debate, not just that it’s not that bad for debate 3]
debating norms with competing interps is better because then we get constant
discussion so we can always get to a better norm.

DTD, not the argument: 1] deters future abuse 2] spent time running the shell that I
can’t get back, DTA doesn’t rectify this 3] DTA is severance, bad because you get to
defend your arguments conditionally but I’m held to mine.

No RVIs: 1] chilling effect – chills bad theory debaters from checking abuse in
round because they’re afraid to lose 2] illogical – it’s their burden to be fair, they
shouldn’t win for being fair 3] topic education – if the RVI is won the debate is over,
never get back to substance.

Fairness is a voter: 1] it’s a gateway issue – no one wants to join an activity where
cheating is rewarded, fairness comes first in creating interest 2] fairness is an
internal link to education – unfair rounds can’t be educational 3] reversibility –
can’t reverse unfairness in a screwy decision, but you can gain knowledge from
reviewing the round, doing redos, etc.

Neg theory comes first: 1] Aff abuse justifies neg abuse. The aff sets the initial
parameters for the debate, which means that if the aff is abusive than the only way I
can properly respond is through an abusive strategy or else I can never have a
competitive strat. This means that any neg abuse is purely caused by the initial aff
abuse. If I can prove any abuse coming off of my shells it will always come prior to
their theory.
Reject 1AR theory: 1 they get an extra speech to cover 1AR theory giving them a
huge advantage 2 necessitates judge intervention as to whether my args were true
since I don’t have a second speech to defend them.

Evaluate theory at the end of the 2NR – 2AR extrapolation can completely moot the
2N strategy – uniquely unfair because I don’t have CX to clarify what you can go
for and I don’t have a 3NR to answer new 2AR extrapolation.
 T – Nebel
Interpretation: the affirmative debater must not specify a democracy in which
voting ought to be compulsory.
Violation: they don’t.
Generic plurals necessitate proving the statement for all instances, and indefinite
singulars like “a democracy” can be generic.
Nebel 20 (Jake Nebel is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California. Jake works mainly in moral
philosophy but has also published work in the philosophy of language in The Philosophical Review. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from New
York University, an AB in Philosophy from Princeton University, and a BPhil in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall
Scholar), 2020, “2020 September/October LD Brief”

Generic generalizations are sentences like “Birds fly,” “A whale is a mammal,” “Dogs bark,” “A beaver builds dams,” and “The woolly mammoth is extinct.” What these sentences have in common—other than the fact that they are about animals
—is that they are not about any particular [instance] birds, whales, dogs, beavers, or woolly mammoths, but that also they don’t include any information about how many birds, whales, dogs, beavers, or woolly mammoths they are about. The first feature—that they aren’t about any particular
entities—is what makes these sentences generalizations. Contrast these kinds of sentences with “Dodo flies,” “Shamu is a mammal,” “Fido barks,” “Billy builds dams,” and “Manny is extinct,” which are all about particular entities. The second feature—that they don’t include information
about how many entities of the relevant kind they are about—is what makes these generalizations generic. Contrast the generic generalizations I mentioned with “Most birds fly,” “All whales are mammals,” “Some dogs bark,” “Five beavers builds dams,” and “Every woolly mammoth is
extinct,” which all contain a quantifier expression that tells us how many of the relevant 57 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate things are claimed to have the property in question. Generics do not contain this kind of information. It is particularly important to distinguish generics from
two kinds of quantified generalizations. One kind of quantified generalization is an existential statement, which says that there is are (hence existential) some things of a certain kind that have some property. For example, “Some dogs don’t bark” is an existential statement with respect to
dogs: it says that there exist some dogs that don’t bark. An existential statement only requires there to be one (or, in the plural case, arguably two) or more witnessing instances in order to be true. The fact that Fido and Gretchen don’t bark entails that some dogs don’t bark, even if every other

dog in the universe barks. By contrast, generics require more than one or two witnessing instances to be true . For example, “Dogs don’t bark” is a generic, and it’s false even though some dogs (the
barkless basenji) don’t bark. Similarly for the generic “Ravens are white,” which is false even though the existential “Some ravens are white” is true. This is important because it means that a single instance of the resolution—i.e., a single democracy that ought to have compulsory voting—is
only sufficient to affirm if the resolution is an existential statement, not if it’s a generic. We’ve just seen how generics differ from existential statements. But they also differ from universal statements. A universal statement is one that contains “all” or “every.” For example, “Every dog barks”
is a universal statement—and it’s a false one because some dogs don’t bark. Universal statements don’t tolerate exceptions. By contrast, generics do tolerate exceptions. “Dogs bark” is true even though there are exceptions. “Ravens are black” is true even though there are exceptions.
Unfortunately, negative debaters often mistakenly conflate generics with universal statements: the negative will often word its interpretation to require the affirmative to defend every instance of the resolution. That’s not supported by the generic interpretation, as we’ve just seen. This is
important because, in response to a universal interpretation of the resolution, the affirmative typically responds that such an interpretation would allow the negative to PIC out of the smallest exceptions to the resolution.1 But if “a democracy” in the resolution is generic, then it doesn’t
necessarily negate the resolution to point to a single democracy that shouldn’t have compulsory voting. Exactly how generics tolerate exceptions, and which kinds of exceptions they tolerate, is a difficult question in the philosophy of language. But that’s the question the negative would need
to answer in order to show that some exception disproves the resolution. I recommend Sarah-Jane Leslie’s “Generics: Cognition and Acquisition” (Philosophical Review, 1 “PIC” means plan-inclusive counterplan. 58 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate 2008) on this issue. We’ve seen
how generics differ from universal and existential statements, and why those differences are important. Now let’s turn to the resolution. 5.2 Bare Plurals and Indefinite Singulars The most common way of expressing a generic in English is through a bare plural. A bare plural is a plural noun
phrase, like “dogs” and “cats,” that lacks an overt determiner. (A determiner is a word that tells us which or how many: determiners include quantifier words like “all,” “some,” and “most,” demonstratives like “this” and “those,” possessives like “mine” and “its,” and so on.) LD resolutions
often contain bare plurals, and that is the most common clue to their genericity. Because so many LD resolutions contain generic bare plurals, debaters often mistakenly conflate bare plurals with generics. They speak as if all generics are bare plurals, and this causes confusion. I have had
something like the following conversation about the compulsory voting resolution with a few debaters: Debater: Is “a democracy” a bare plural? Me: Hmm, what do you think? Debater: Well, no? Because it’s singular. Me: Right! Debater: [Sigh of relief.] OK great, so it would be topical for
my affirmative to say that voting ought to be compulsory in the U.S./UK/some other place? Me: No, I don’t think so. Debater: But you just said it’s not a bare plural! Confusion ensues. It is important understand that, although bare plurals are most often used to express generics, and generics
are most often expressed via bare plurals, not all bare plurals are generic and not all generics are bare plurals. We have already seen some examples of generics that are not bare plurals: “A whale is a mammal,” “A beaver builds dams,” and “The woolly mammoth is extinct.” The first two

examples use indefinite singulars—[are] singular nouns preceded by “a”

the indefinite article 59 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate —and the third is a definite singular since

it is preceded by the definite article “the.” Generics can also be expressed with bare singulars (“Syrup is viscous”) and even verbs (as we’ll see later on). The resolution’s “a democracy” is an indefinite singular , and so it very well might
be —and, as we’ll soon see, is— generic . But it is also important to keep in mind that, just as not all generics are bare plurals, not all bare plurals are generic. “Dogs are barking” is true as long as some dogs are barking. Bare plurals can be used in particular ways to express
existential statements. The key question for any given debate resolution that contains a bare plural is whether that occurrence of the bare plural is generic or existential. The same is true of indefinite singulars. As debaters will be quick to point out, some uses of the indefinite singular really do
mean “some” or “one or more”: “A cat is on the mat” is clearly not a generic generalization about cats; it’s true as long as some cat is on the mat. The question is whether the indefinite singular “a democracy” is existential or generic in the resolution. Now, my own view is that, if we
understand the difference between existential and generic statements, and if we approach the question impartially, without any investment in one side of the debate, we can almost always just tell which reading is correct just by thinking about it. It is clear that “In a democracy, voting ought to
be compulsory” doesn’t mean “There is one or more democracy in which voting ought to be compulsory.” I don’t think a fancy argument should be required to show this any more than a fancy argument should be required to show that “A duck doesn’t lay eggs” is a generic—a false one
because ducks do lay eggs, even though some ducks (namely males) don’t. And if a debater contests this by insisting that “a democracy” is existential, the judge should be willing to resolve competing claims by, well, judging—that is, by using her judgment. Contesting a claim by insisting on
its negation or demanding justification doesn’t put any obligation on the judge to be neutral about it. (Otherwise the negative could make every debate irresolvable by just insisting on the negation of every statement in the affirmative speeches.) Even if the insistence is backed by some sort of
argument, we can reasonably reject an argument if we know its conclusion to be false, even if we are not in a position to know exactly where the argument goes wrong. Particularly in matters of logic and language, speakers have more direct knowledge of particular cases (e.g., that some
specific inference is invalid or some specific sentence is infelicitious) than of the underlying explanations. But that is just my view, and not every judge agrees with me, so it will be helpful to consider some arguments for the conclusion that we already know to be true: that, even 60 5
Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate if the United States is a democracy and ought to have compulsory voting, that doesn’t suffice to show that, in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory—in other words, that “a democracy” in the resolution is generic, not existential. 5.3 Why
Generic? In this section, I will give some reasons why “a democracy” in the resolution is generic rather than existential. 5.3.1 Contradiction Test First, consider another existential use of the indefinite: “A cat is on the mat.” One way to tell that this use is existential is that the sentence “A cat
is on the mat, and a cat is not on the mat” is consistent (or, at least, has a consistent reading), as in noncontradictory.2 It means the same thing as “Some cat is on the mat, and some cat is not on the mat,” which could be true if one cat is on the mat and one cat is not. So suppose that “a
democracy” in the resolution is existential. Then the sentence “In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory, and in a democracy, voting ought not be compulsory” should be consistent. But it’s not consistent—it’s contradictory. This shows that the resolution doesn’t mean “In some
democracy, voting ought to be compulsory,” because “In some democracy, voting ought to be compulsory, and in some democracy, voting ought not be compulsory” is consistent but “In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory, and in a democracy, voting ought not be compulsory” is
not. So “a democracy” in the resolution cannot be existential after all. 5.3.2 Upward-Entailment Test Second, existential uses of the indefinite, such as “A cat is on the mat,” are upwardentailing. 3 This means that if you replace the noun with a more general one, such as “An animal is on the
mat,” the sentence will still be true. So let’s do that with “a democracy.” Does the resolution entail “In a society, voting ought to be compulsory”? Intuitively not, because you could think that voting ought to be compulsory in democracies but 2 See Carlson, Greg N. “A Unified Analysis of
the English Bare Plural.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, no. 3 (1977): 413–457. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00353456. 3 See Leslie, Sarah-Jane. “Generics.” In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge,
2012. 61 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate not in other sorts of societies. This suggests that “a democracy” in the resolution is not existential. 5.3.3 Counterfactual Implications Third, generic uses of the indefinite singular have counterfactual implications.4 For example, the generic “In
a democracy, there ought to be regular elections” supports the counterfactual, “If North Korea were a democracy, it would be true that there ought to be regular elections in North Korea.” If “a democracy” in the first sentence were existential, this would be mysterious: the claim that some
democracy ought to have regular elections doesn’t have any implications for what ought to be the case if some arbitrary non-democratic society were, contrary to fact, democratic. This feature derives from a deep feature of indefinite singular generics: they state non-accidential
generalizations. “A whale is a mammal” suggests that if Fido were a whale, he’d be a mammal. It doesn’t just so happen to be true that a whale is a mammal; it’s a feature of what it is to be a whale. Now consider the resolution. “In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory” supports the
counterfactual, “If North Korea were a democracy, it would be true that voting ought to be compulsory in North Korea.” This cannot be explained on the hypothesis that “a democracy” in the resolution is existential. 5.3.4 Existential Commitments Fourth, the resolution does not have
existential commitments with respect to democracies.5 Suppose that the resolution means “There is some democracy in which voting ought to be compulsory.” Suppose, hypothetically, that there really are no democracies, on the grounds that an extremely direct level of participation and
equality is required for a society to truly be democratic. This would disprove the resolution on that existential reading. If there are no democracies, then there is no democracy in which voting ought to be compulsory. But, as everyone would agree, the resolution “In a democracy, voting ought
to be compulsory” could be true even if there aren’t actually any democracies. Even if the resolution said, “In a perfect democracy,” or “In a democracy in which no one votes voluntarily,” or “In a society of talking unicorns,” the resolution could be true, even though there are no perfect
democracies, democracies in which no one votes, or 4 See Greenberg, Yael. Manifestations of Genericity. New York: Routledge, 2003, p. 261. 5A great example, “A 110-year-old Malaysian king chooses his descents alone,” is given by Greenberg, Yael. Manifestations of Genericity. New
York: Routledge, 2003, p. 177. 62 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate societies of unicorns (let alone talking unicorns). This shows that the resolution can’t be existential with respect to “a democracy.” It must be generic. 5.3.5 Adverbs of Quantification Fifth, a generic generalization
can typically be modified with an adverb of quantification such as always, usually, or sometimes, without drastically changing the meaning of the sentence.6 For example, “A cow eats grass” can be transformed into “A cow always/ typically/generally/usually eats grass” without drastically
changing the meaning of the sentence; this shows it to be generic. By contrast, if we transform “A cow is eating my grass” into “A cow is always/typically/generally/usually eating my grass,” we get a bizarrely different proposition. This shows that “A cow is eating my grass” is existential to
with respect to “a cow.” But notice that if we add adverbs of quantification into the resolution, as in “In a democracy, voting always/typically/generally/usually ought to be compulsory,” there is only minimal change of meaning compared to the actual resolution. This shows “a democracy” to
be generic. 5.4 Conclusion I have offered a few reasons to believe that “a democracy” in the resolution is generic. You might be tempted to just quote the arguments above without further research. While this may win you a few debate rounds, it won’t do much to help you develop a deep
understanding of these issues, of the kind that is necessary to win high-level debates on these issues. You need that deeper understanding to point out problems with your opponent’s arguments. I have included references for all of the arguments above as starting points for your own research,
with the hopes that even if you use the arguments above, you explain them in your own words and by citing the primary literature. What you might lose in topic-specificity by doing that, you gain in understanding and expertise. All of the above arguments are about what the resolution means.
I have focused on that question because I think it is the one that debaters need to answer in order to have a fair and educational debate on the topic. The first thing to do, when approaching a resolution, is to figure out what the resolution means—not what you want it to mean. I 6Leslie, Sarah-
Jane. “Generics.” In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge, 2012. 63 5 Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate have defended this approach to topicality in various articles on the Victory Briefs blog, VBriefly.com.7
Others have defended it in scholarly journals on debate.8 I won’t say more about it here. Finally, even though this analysis has focused entirely on “a democracy,” there is another generic expression in the resolution: “voting.” “Voting” is gerund, and gerunds are often used generically, as in
“Lying is wrong” and “Lying ought to be discouraged.”9 These sentences are not about some particular act of lying, but about the general kind of action. As with “a democracy,” I think it is pretty clear that “voting” in the resolution doesn’t mean “one or more act of voting.” But if someone
is not convinced of this, you can adapt many of the arguments above.
Nebel 20 gives multiple warrants why “a democracy” is indeed generic: (expand the
small text if you need)
[1] The Contradiction Test: existential nouns allow for contradictions like “a cat is
on the mat, and a cat is not on the mat”, but saying “in a democracy, voting ought to
be compulsory, and in a democracy, voting ought not be compulsory” is nonsensical
so it must be generic.
[2] The Upward-Entailment Test: existential nouns are upward-entailing, for
example “a cat is on the mat” implies “an animal is on the mat”, but “in a
democracy, voting ought to be compulsory” doesn’t imply “in a society, voting ought
to be compulsory”, so it must be generic.

Standards:
[1] Semantics: by specifying a subset of democracies, the aff no longer defends the
generic interpretation of the resolution.
[2] Limits: Specifying any subset of democracies allows for a functionally infinite
number of affs, there are too many to research so the neg can’t prepare direct turns.
[3] Ground: Specifying a subset of democracies means the aff is too small to link
into disads, cuts off access to an entire subset of offense I can gain.
[4] Arg Quality: Small affs are written and run for a single round to be as
unpredictable as possible. Whole res affs are more predictable so incentivize
creative, nuanced argumentation.
[5] TVA: read a whole-res aff and run your offense as an advantage, allows topic
research but grants me core disads.

Voters:
Semantics first:
1] Resolvability: Pragmatics debates depend on tons of weighing that’s difficult to
resolve but semantics debates just question what the resolution means.
2] Jurisdiction: the ballot says to vote on the resolution and so if the aff doesn’t
defend the resolution, the judge can’t vote on it.
3] Semantics key to pragmatics: Semantics defines what we debate around and what
topic lit we research, meaning it’s key to fairness and education.

Education is a voter – it’s the reason why schools fund debate.

Drop the debater– DTA is incoherent as there’s no argument to drop.

 CP
CP Text: The State of Israel should:
1] Recognize Palestinian independence and sign a permanent ceasefire with the
Palestinian government;
2] Eliminate its nuclear arsenal.

That solves the aff – the CP prevents a future outbreak of war and even if it does
happen, prevent it from going nuclear.