Jump to content
Con Johnnor

One off Foucault shell???

Recommended Posts

So I'm getting a little ballsy. I'm sure that there are a dozen or so threads on this already, and I'd appeciate it if someone could link me to a few.

 

Anyways, are there any suggestions on specific things to keep in mind when constructing a One off shell? Which impacts do you think will be the most appropriate? Specific links? And what kind of alternative would be best for Foucault? Alt solvency? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason to just run one off in the 1? Why not run a few off then kick them all in the block?

 

because running one off gives you a huge perceptual advantage. it can also be very strategic since many teams won't have 8 minutes of answers, allowing you to get out more of the cards you would have read in the 2nc, without allowing them many additional answers. also, if you beat someone on 1 off, especially if it's sometihng that could be run with other stuff (not like norm, but agamben or foucault for example) then you will get amazing speaks.

 

basically, running one off makes you look like a pimp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because running one off gives you a huge perceptual advantage. it can also be very strategic since many teams won't have 8 minutes of answers, allowing you to get out more of the cards you would have read in the 2nc, without allowing them many additional answers. also, if you beat someone on 1 off, especially if it's sometihng that could be run with other stuff (not like norm, but agamben or foucault for example) then you will get amazing speaks.

 

basically, running one off makes you look like a pimp.

 

The look of utter terror on their faces with ONE OFF is totally worth it.

30% of teams will already mentally give up.

 

Probably not 30% but you are basicly a thug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doing one off is a stupid idea in the first place but then having that one off be foucault is beyond stupid, if you are planning to have one off it should be something like CLS or at least something that has independant turns inside it so even if you lose the K you can kick it in the 2nr and go for the turns.also you better be able to spread the hell out of them if you are going for that one off and have like 6 links, and a crazy good alt with solvency in it, also if thats all ur goin to have in the 1nc then you might as well read at perm to preemt so you can just extend in the 2nc and then just skrew them up in other areas, it is still a stupid idea not to at least read a T that you could always fall back, at least have it as a time suck i beg you, the one off idea is stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer if this didn't turn into a discussion of "One off: Amazing or you must be retarted?". Theres a pretty hot debate on that in the Intro to Foucault thread. Let's assume I'm going to run it, no questions. People should keep up the suggestions. So lets look back to the top post, and continue from there. Thanks.

 

By the way, when I'm putting preempts in a 1nc, T as a time suck works both ways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doing one off is a stupid idea in the first place but then having that one off be foucault is beyond stupid, if you are planning to have one off it should be something like CLS or at least something that has independant turns inside it so even if you lose the K you can kick it in the 2nr and go for the turns.also you better be able to spread the hell out of them if you are going for that one off and have like 6 links, and a crazy good alt with solvency in it, also if thats all ur goin to have in the 1nc then you might as well read at perm to preemt so you can just extend in the 2nc and then just skrew them up in other areas, it is still a stupid idea not to at least read a T that you could always fall back, at least have it as a time suck i beg you, the one off idea is stupid

 

tell that to all the great teams that have won major rounds with that strategy in the past few years. and cls is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a good idea if you do it right. and to whomever said there are no independent turns on foucault, there most certainluy are, and you can run them separately if you want. do one off and then read the turns on solvency. either way, the fear of god and of the panopticon will be seen in the Aff's eyes if you do this right. here is my suggestion

 

Links: at least 3 different ones that cannot be grouped

Implications (impacts) : 4 or 5 at least (different biopower--> Genocide and biopower --> holocaust are NOT diferent impacts)

Alternative: have a clear cut text, almost like a plantext this will avoid unnecessary theory debates later in the round

ALT solvency: at least 3 different cards

 

read a block of cards that turns the case

 

Pre empts

 

perm specific

perm pragamatism

AT some general indicts maybe

maybe some general we can resist only by working in the system

 

i would also have a minute long underview explaining how the round will work and how the kritik functions... the aff woin't have much to say

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This strat depends slightly on spreading speed...

Start with tons of links (specific is always better)

Plenty of Implication/Impacts: Case turns and Solvency destruction are very very good, they are often ignored by idiots

Super ultimate alternative of death. Include alternative solvency

Preempt perms and kritiks bad.

 

WIth Foucault you should have everything you need for a 1 off strategy of death. Prepare a lot of Rorty Blocks.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate one-off kritik neg teams. A few years ago I hit a team that ran nine minutes of Barthes in the 1NC. It was rough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate one-off kritik neg teams. A few years ago I hit a team that ran nine minutes of Barthes in the 1NC. It was rough.

 

Sounds rough, we only get 8 minutes to talk. they must have been damn good to talk for nine..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty is that you can win a solvency or case turn on the link/impact level which gives you offense if you can't go for the alt and many time you can criticize their solvency mechanism or discursive acts through this strategy which makes you a K of their solvency as well as their framework.

 

Sounds rough, we only get 8 minutes to talk. they must have been damn good to talk for nine..

 

Or maybe, they were just out of high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with being a 1-off kritik team, is taht people will know that exactly what you are. People will stop reading all 20 gadzillion impact scenarios, and start reading framework shit at the bottom of their aff, thus mitigating some of this one off crazyness. I would also read a t violation at the top, because they'll probably be desperate to answer all your k shit, and are likely to fuck up t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds rough, we only get 8 minutes to talk. they must have been damn good to talk for nine..

 

dude, one guy set his timer in the 1nr for 5 HOURS instead of minutes, and after 7 i checked his timer to see wtf was up. The judge let us give a 6 minute 1ar and 6 minute 2ar. If the same happened with a 9 min 1nc id wanna do the same thing again.

 

on Fouccalt, I'd agree that your links should be specific and ungroupable, but I recommend having answers to stuff like "kritiks bad/Fiat good" in your alternative. Throw some reasons why your framework for debate is best, to preempt the 2ac and get ahead on that debate, since if the 2ac goes for impact turns or something, winning the fiat is bad will keep you ahead. Additionally, choose an alternative that you are comfortable with, because its pretty much what you'll be advocating a hell of a lot. If you think you might want to be going for the K as a case turn as a fallback, just make it like "rejection' and have alt solvency for that, since you can then be a jerk and claim your alternative is just the status quo in the 2nr. it works, however annoying it is for the 2ar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, one guy set his timer in the 1nr for 5 HOURS instead of minutes, and after 7 i checked his timer to see wtf was up. The judge let us give a 6 minute 1ar and 6 minute 2ar. If the same happened with a 9 min 1nc id wanna do the same thing again.

 

college speeches are a minute longer than speeches in high school.

 

 

john, specialize the k when you run it. use the extra time to build link walls to the 1ac instead of reading filler from your files. frame the education debate you know will happen on fiat, and diversify your link levels and impact frameworks to allow flexibility in the block. you can run perm pre-empts, but don't make commitments you don't have to yet.

 

i usually ran foucault with discourse links as a reps k, and didn't use alternatives. other times, i used genealogy with governmentality links. figure out what you want to argue instead of collaging the "best" alternatives with the "best" impacts, etc. "1-off: foucault" illuminates little to nothing regarding the specific debate that will happen.

 

as a note to caution, don't approach the k as a disad. if you're the kelly debater i've judged one too many times, you'll want to refigure your voter analysis. "biopower" in the abstract isn't an internal link that establishes an indiscriminately causal relationship to genocide, and these impacts aren't self-substantiating (we can't speak of "death" outside of invoked discourses, etc.). giving an impact calculus on the probability and magnitude of biopower as a reason to vote only problematizes your own epistemology and confuses the fiat bad flow.

 

focus, instead, on turning case, problematizing harms, and cutting off the aff's access to any offense. then frame the round in such a way as to claim the ballot, either through alternative solvency or some form of negation theory.

 

clean your rhetoric:

 

So I'm getting a little ballsy

 

good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The look of utter terror on their faces with ONE OFF is totally worth it.

30% of teams will already mentally give up.

 

Probably not 30% but you are basicly a thug

I've been going one off this entire year, Nietzsche since around november, and I've never had this happen. Ever. Don't think you're a badass just because you run a really long shell. In my experience, going one off can be a blessing or a curse depending on whether or not you can handle the argument as a 2N. Either it's beautiful or it gets messy as hell. As for the psychological value: just remember that the 2A knows, from the very begining, that there will be no time crunch in the 2AC, that the only choices she or he will have to make is what to go for in the 1AR.

 

 

As for the shell: operating under the assumption that 80% of 2AC answers will be either stupid or non-responsive, I'd construct the shell in a manner that makes it condusive to being understood. This isn't a fucking politics disad, this is critical theory. If the judge UNDERSTANDS YOU from the 1NC, you are far more likely to win the round and will have a much easier time in the block. I'd go for two thirds cards, one third tags/analysis and I'd have the 1N slow down and be expressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I'm becoming more confident*

 

Is that politically correct with everyone?

 

Next step: Lets discuss framework!

 

What kinds of framework arguments do you all think should be put in the 1nc? I traditionally use a 6 point fiat=bs block (can't compare policy impacts to that of the K) of my own writing. I feel that's terribly inadequate though. Ideas? Cards maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, one guy set his timer in the 1nr for 5 HOURS instead of minutes, and after 7 i checked his timer to see wtf was up. The judge let us give a 6 minute 1ar and 6 minute 2ar. If the same happened with a 9 min 1nc id wanna do the same thing again.

 

yea i did the same shit. i looked down and saw that i was running like 20 seconds over so i cut it off. (it was in the 2ac)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soooo, who is apt at arguing framework?

if u are running it discursive u can get some stuff from mitchell, kulynch, and interestingly enough freire. They all talk about the power of discourse and the educational qualities of a critical approach to education instead of fiat, also you need to make blocks to their fairness arguments, their fiat key to all ground including neg ground, and also there are some educational disadvantages created by joyner which are bull shit in my opinion since he isn't even talking about policy debate anyway...but essentially you need to make blocks to all their fairness arguments, that is where the majority of debate round, perceptually, goes to the fiat side. On education, you have to weigh how you education is better than theirs, the warrants why a pre-fiat framework is more educational. So educational offense and fairness defense/offense if u can pull it off should win you framework...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking more like framework in the sense of the best way to tell the judge to evalaute the round, specific to the Foucault criticism of biopolitics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*I'm becoming more confident*

 

Is that politically correct with everyone?

 

Next step: Lets discuss framework!

 

What kinds of framework arguments do you all think should be put in the 1nc? I traditionally use a 6 point fiat=bs block (can't compare policy impacts to that of the K) of my own writing. I feel that's terribly inadequate though. Ideas? Cards maybe?

 

I personally feel Mitchell is your best advocate. The reason is because a lot of the fiat good comes from an author named Coverstone. Mitchell's writings are actually a response to Coverstone's and give specific analysis on why education/discourse must come first for academics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't advocate a framework

I think that a better argument than "fiat bad" is "fiat is arbitrary, capricious, and/or irrelevant." The line in the sand that debaters draw with "fiat" is not one that is necessary for debate. Instead, it is a symbolic distinction that allows for arguments to compete on the merit of frameworks instead of the merit of the arguments themselves. If you really want to startle a policy team with criticism, don't make a fiat argument at all--engage them on their level and beat them there, or cut them down to a paltry size by forcing a debate over ideas rather than impacts. Criticism and debate over policy CAN coexist and intermingle, although everybody seems determined not to let it happen.

 

Unfortunately, the pre-fiat vs. post-fiat distinction is so heavily entrenched in the minds of many "critical" judges that these arguments can be difficult to make. Nonetheless, the distinction is malformed, and the only way forward is to make the better argument even if it isn't the commonly accepted one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

responding to this thread is a double-edged sword... most of the arguments you're asking people to suggest here should follow naturally from the specific criticisms you're making. thus, this risks either imposing a strat on you that only i'm comfortable with, or confusing a strat you already intend for yourself, and i think it would be more beneficial for you to develop criticisms from your own reading. i'll note then, that my suggestions are only one way to frame a debate, albeit one i'm sympathetic toward judging and debating. i'll also note that this is abstract and, at best, marginally pertinent to what you want to run, because i still have no idea what the hell you mean by "a foucault k."

 

What kinds of framework arguments do you all think should be put in the 1nc? I traditionally use a 6 point fiat=bs block (can't compare policy impacts to that of the K) of my own writing. I feel that's terribly inadequate though. Ideas? Cards maybe?

 

it isn't a good idea to break the K down in block format in the 1nc. the aff has the advantage of telling a story in the 1ac. likewise, the 1nc should tell a counter-story. while the aff's story starts with the status quo, "how things are happening now," your story starts with how the aff frames and represents "how things are happening now."

 

the locus of discussion is the presentation and exchange of ideas in the debate, and what they construct, rather than the things and processes "outside" that we only neutrally reference. this is a key aspect of discourse, and integral to foucault's theories. thus you can frame "fiat" as part of the K instead of a happenstance of the bureaucracy of evaluation. if the 1ac stands up and pretends to be some agent or advocate of the federal government that manipulates an objective environment with a policy, that's part of the politics of the aff advocacy and part of the parameters of what you criticize.

 

i used an excerpt from pgs. 181-183 of Society Must Be Defended, in which Foucault goes on a rant about the normalization of knowledges into hierarchalized axioms, and their organization into de facto disciplines to homogenize a knowledge and give it a selective value that's ultimately centralized in state apparatuses.

 

i agree with bork: fiat is arbitrary, capricious, and/or irrelevant. but, in this case, its use is integral to the links, and the reason a foucauldian K wouldn't have clout in congress is precisely the reason foucault criticizes it in the passage i cited above. kulynich also works for this, and her analysis of discursive deliberation as political participation very much assumes the political spaces foucault opens up.

 

framing this at the outset gives you a clean transition to map your thesis: the aff accesses an organization of knowledge and deploys it in the 1ac, that bank of knowledge operates in larger discourses that inform it, and these are historically contingent on modalities of power that inform them. the 1ac is thus a specious exercise of power.

 

then you can build your specific links. remember, power doesn't just reside in the sovereign's authority to manage life, it also resides in the historical narratives the aff deploys to legitimate it, the subjectivities those construct, the "problems" the aff frames, and ultimately, the perspective it takes to the world. much of this will be based on the ev in the 1ac and the cx questions after it. i liked to organize levels of links as "observations" to develop a flow and steal the aff's thunder.

 

the rest of your job is to frame the implications of this, what it means for the aff's "solvency" and what it means for the bodies that are organized in its framework. then you figure out how you want to claim the ballot.

 

your job in the block is to specialize your story. your o/v will wrap the k around things the 2ac has said and choices she's made. you'll thus be extending the ev that matters the most in that debate and explaining its significance. because you've spent the entire 1nc getting cards out, your line-by-line will generally consist of cross-applications and analysis.

 

the strongest offense you'll face are the frameworks aff's use for the policy and the perms they spin with it. however, you can deal with them like any other argument. i used a basic rubric to win line-by-lines:

1. the arg isn't true ("the policy option and framing preclude ethical considerations")

2. your link is on another level ("even if they assume ethics, our link is at the level where they invoke juridical norms to sanctify them")

3. their arg is another link ("their ethics legitimate sovereign exclusions")

4. find contradictions, force concessions ("the consequential framing of their impacts precludes ethical considerations")

5. other links subsume, outweigh ("their politics of security framing subsumes any marginal ethical discourse the aff furthers")

 

remember to split the block efficiently. an easy way for me to do this was to leave theory for the 1nr. sometimes, you'll need the 1n to fill in your gaps and get out carded offense for perms you haven't assumed, etc. (an accepted downside of k debates is that flows get messy). for the most part, you can use the 1nr as a strategic time advantage to swamp the fiat flow if you're challenging it. aside from winning education, there are a lot of arguments to be made regarding ground distribution, negation theory, reasons education o/w fairness, reasons education subsumes fairness, etc.

 

nonetheless, it's up to you to decide whether you want to attack the aff's ability to implement policies or not, and, again, it's really an issue of what your criticism is. telling you to develop a specific criticism isn't just an effort to get you to think more deliberately and critically about literature; it's a basic issue of strategy. i once had a round on the environment topic where i was being swamped by a neg k that based its links on state green-washing for resource management. the 2n exploded the k and the 1n focused on the fiat bad flow. i told the 1ar to concede that fiat shouldn't/can't be evaluated and only extend our ethical discourse. in the 2ar, i collapsed on the advantages of our ethics (levinas) and how they subsumed biopolitical impulses, showed why the neg's links weren't there, and defended a little aff theory. an irate judge gave us a low point win. resolve the levels of your k and how it implicates fiat now. there's no reason i should win / you should lose these kinds of debates.

 

i think this is more than enough...

 

a note on judge adaptation: the real battle k debaters face is reaching the judge. some of the best debaters i've seen lose big debates because a judge didn't understand them, and thought the aff was a "practical way" to solve a "practical problem." with matt roberts out of the cdl judging pool, it's becoming increasingly difficult to have a lot of our judges champion the k. the issue, of course, isn't deciding whether or not to run the k, but deciding how to run it. while some judges encounter foucault in their first undergrad year, others are oblivious. have a sense for how much lingo you can fall back on and how technical you can get. it's nearly impossible to grasp a new theoretical orientation if you're only hearing it be spread and approached in a disfiguring line-by-line, and most judges don't want to read stacks of cards for an hour after the debate to put the pieces together. know when your overview is more important than your line-by-line, and be as perceptive to your judge as you are to your opponent.

 

good luck. show me some good debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...