Jump to content
timmay

DADT Neg

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this was already a thread, but what do you think would be a good neg strat against DADT? It looks like it'll be the most popular aff, and I was curious as to what everyone thinks would be the best/most popular strat against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were several stratedgies that were used against DADT during camp (GDI...they weren't great but were popular)

States and Tix/fed

Ref and Tix

XO with tix/prez pwrs

case turns to the Kritikal versions (ie the biopower adv)

Movements DA's

and then you have your always available K's

Orientalism

Statism

Queer Theory (hmm not sure about that one tho)

Neitzche

militarism/non-violence

that was just at camp tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DADT = Don't Ask Don't Tell.

 

Essentially, it's a policy of the U.S. Military that says, "Anyone can join the military, but if we find out you are of a homosexual orientation, we'll discharge you."

 

It will probably be a popular Aff next year, with Affs claiming Readiness, Terrorism, Heteronormativity, Hegemony, and other advantages. For more, search it in this forum after you read up on it here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DADT stands for Don't ask Don't tell Don't Pursue Don't harass, it is really actually DADTDPDH. It was created in 1993 to stop the discrimination against gays in the military. Previously there was a ban on gay, but now there is DADT where the armed forces don't ask about your sexuality, the members of the armed forces don't tell their sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could it then be argued that overturning the SCOTUS case or repealing the legislation would bring conditions back to when gays were banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could it then be argued that overturning the SCOTUS case or repealing the legislation would bring conditions back to when gays were banned?

I would think that the aff would specify that gays would be allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yah ur right ive got a ton of neg evidence on this and a dadt case if any one wants to trade

 

First of all, is it camp evidence? Secondly, what does the evidence say exactly? That if the aff doesn't specify itll just lead to the old ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TURN: INCREASING THE ADMISSION OF GAYS IN THE MILITARY ONLY AFFIRMS THE INHERENTLY DEHUMANIZING NATURE OF AN INSTITUTION WHOSE JOB IT IS TO VIOLENTLY DOMINATE OTHERS – WHILE YOU ARE VOTING FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, IT IS THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON THE FRONTLINE OF ATROCITY. VOTE NEGATIVE TO AFFIRM JUSTICE AND EQUALITY AS THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO RESIST AN OCCUPATION THAT REQUIRES YOU TO SHOOT PEOPLE IN THE FACE.

 

Angela Davis in 2005 [“Sexual Coercion, Prisons, and Feminist Responses,” Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture, Pg. 64-65]

 

The representations of women soldiers were quite dramatic and most people found them utterly shocking. But we might also say that they provided powerful evidence of what the most interesting feminist analyses have tried to explain: that there is a difference between the body gendered as female and the set of discourses and ideologies that inform the sex/gender system. These images were a kind of visualization of this sex/gender conjunction. We are not accustomed to visually apprehending the difference between female bodies and male supremacist ideologies. Therefore seeing images of a woman engaged in behavior that we associate with male dominance is startling. But it should not be, especially if we take seriously what we know about the social construction of gender. Especially within institutions that rely on ideologies of male dominance, women can be easily mobilized to commit the same acts of violence expected of men—as black people, by virtue of being black, are not therefore immune from the charge of promoting racism.

 

The images to which you’re referring to evoke a memory of a comment made by Colin Powell during the first Gulf war. He said that the military was the most democratic institution in our society and created a framework in which people could escape the constraints of race and, we can add today, gender as well. This notion of the military as a leveling institution, one that constitutes each member as equal, is frightening and dangerous, because you must eventually arrive at the conclusion that this equality is about equal opportunity to kill, to torture, to engage in sexual coercion. At the time I found it very bizarre that Powell would point to the most hierarchal institution, with its rigid chain of command, as the epitome of democracy. Today, I would say that such a conception of democracy reveals the problems and limitations of civil rights strategies and discourses.

 

This is true not only with respect to race and gender, but with respect to sexuality as well. Why is the effort to challenge sexism and homophobia in the military largely defined by the question of admission to existing hierarchies and not also a powerful critique of the institution itself? Equality might be considered to be the equal right to refuse and resist.

 

This is how I would rephrase your original question: How might we consider the visual representation of female bodies collaborating in acts of sexual torture—forcing Arab men to engage in public masturbation, for example—as calling for a feminist analysis that challenges prevailing assumptions that the only possible relationship between women and violence requires women to be the victims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that card is the worst warranted card i have ever seen. That would hold exactly 0 weight in a round. not to mention it doens't turn the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that card is the worst warranted card i have ever seen. That would hold exactly 0 weight in a round. not to mention it doens't turn the case.

 

Speaking of warrants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hee hee that's sarcasm.

 

seriously though, just skimming through the card, it seems to say that equality should be the equal right to refuse and resist. from that statement, i don't see how the status quo or the world post-plan is any different as long as no conscription occurs, so how does it turn case? as long as there's a voluntary military force, we all have equal right to refuse and resist joining the military--the only rights that aren't equal are the opposite of what that card says.

 

maybe i'm reading that wrong, though. if so, enlighten me please. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hee hee that's sarcasm.

 

seriously though, just skimming through the card, it seems to say that equality should be the equal right to refuse and resist. from that statement, i don't see how the status quo or the world post-plan is any different as long as no conscription occurs, so how does it turn case? as long as there's a voluntary military force, we all have equal right to refuse and resist joining the military--the only rights that aren't equal are the opposite of what that card says.

 

maybe i'm reading that wrong, though. if so, enlighten me please. thanks.

 

It's not that people don't have the equal right to refuse and resist (well, that's not entirely true when we consider classist and racist recruitment tactics or people already in the army who want to get out), rather orienting tactics of equality around admission to institutions whose purpose is violent domination (read: shooting people in the face, dropping bombs on them, torturing and sexually coercing them, or, y'know ...the opposite of equality and justice) seems pretty counter-productive.

 

There's also a critique of essentialism that's in the card but not the tag that I think makes it an extra compelling argument. Just cause you're gay doesn't mean you can't participate in and propogate homophobia. Because the military is an institution that operates on the precepts of homophobic masculine dominance ("woah woah woah, we can't have those guys penetrating our defenses, we need to power project! Make sure they know we're bigger so they'll be taking the pounding instead of us, America aint no fucking punk!"), the "add a pinch of gay, stir vigorously" strategy for equality not only fails at the outset because it enlists more people to engage in what are essentially homophobic acts of violence, it exposes the heterosexist assumptions of the aff. Why/how is it that gay people can only have a relation to violence where they are the victims? Why would adding more gay people to the military make it more friendly? ("well, ummm, they're good at making stuff fabulous?"). What are the consequences to these beliefs?

 

I'd think this turns case - especially when they're reading impacts to homophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of warrants...

i don't need warrants, i'm Timm Fucking Silvernail...nuff said.

 

seriously though the card is my warrant. did you read it, or did you just post it to sound smart and cool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't need warrants, i'm Timm Fucking Silvernail...nuff said.

 

seriously though the card is my warrant. did you read it, or did you just post it to sound smart and cool?

 

No, I didn't read it. What does it say? No. Wait. First things first - do I look smart and cool?

 

No, now I'm just confused.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you being so defensive about a shitty card?(i don't expect a response)

 

lets put this thread back on topic please, go to miscellaneous if you want shenanigans but they ahve no place in the nat. service forum.

 

and don't even talk about how i contributed, i know this but i'm also ending it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not that people don't have the equal right to refuse and resist (well, that's not entirely true when we consider classist and racist recruitment tactics or people already in the army who want to get out), rather orienting tactics of equality around admission to institutions whose purpose is violent domination (read: shooting people in the face, dropping bombs on them, torturing and sexually coercing them, or, y'know ...the opposite of equality and justice) seems pretty counter-productive.

 

There's also a critique of essentialism that's in the card but not the tag that I think makes it an extra compelling argument. Just cause you're gay doesn't mean you can't participate in and propogate homophobia. Because the military is an institution that operates on the precepts of homophobic masculine dominance ("woah woah woah, we can't have those guys penetrating our defenses, we need to power project! Make sure they know we're bigger so they'll be taking the pounding instead of us, America aint no fucking punk!"), the "add a pinch of gay, stir vigorously" strategy for equality not only fails at the outset because it enlists more people to engage in what are essentially homophobic acts of violence, it exposes the heterosexist assumptions of the aff. Why/how is it that gay people can only have a relation to violence where they are the victims? Why would adding more gay people to the military make it more friendly? ("well, ummm, they're good at making stuff fabulous?"). What are the consequences to these beliefs?

 

I'd think this turns case - especially when they're reading impacts to homophobia.

i don't have the energy to pick this apart. Some of what you said made sense and was good, however most did not. Also the card still has no warrants, it will only get you so far; go ahead and have your damn essentialism argument but its not going to be very strong. Also who said DADT made the military more friendly, and thats besides the point you're just being homopobic is the rea issue. These issues you bring up are just an elaborate smoke screen to disguise your unwillingness to allo gays to be open about the orientation in the military.

 

*when i say, you i don't literaly mean you're homophobic, its just how the argument goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been to a camp yet so i haven't learned much about this case. I had a couple questions about it though. First off, postplan, would the recruiting offices be asking orientation, and if so, how is that now breaking their privacy? Second, would they still be discharged if they were outwardly gay? Third, would cards about homophobic soldiers work. Saying that some soldiers would be freaked out because then they actually knew people's sexual orientation? Fourth, would there be any movements in facilities? For instance, would gay people be separated into different barracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are all very good questions. Questions, i think, that can be made, with a litle work, into a very solid neg strategy against this affirmative. I wish i could be more help but my knowledge on this aff is, like yours, limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T: Increase (armed service size is legislativly determined and plan doesn't increase it, plan just increases pool of people that can be in the service and keeps people in the service from getting kicked out)

CMR

Queer Theory

Feminist Jurisprudence

Effects T Blows so don't run it.

Agent CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot: Every remotely topical Armed Forces affirmatives double-bind RMA: Either they bite RMA by increasing, or if they don't bite they don't solve.

 

Also, DADT often claims heg, so you can cut out the heg impacts from RMA (believe me, it still works!) and claim Offshore Balancing CP with Christopher Layne in 1997/2000/2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck! i'm going to sound stupid but what is RMA? i have a terrible time with acronyms, it took me forever to remember what PMC stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fuck! i'm going to sound stupid but what is RMA? i have a terrible time with acronyms, it took me forever to remember what PMC stands for.

 

A simple Google search allowed me to see that its either the

 

Risk Management Association

 

Rubber Manafacturers Association

 

Revolution in Military Affairs

 

Return Merchandise Authorization

 

Randolph-Macon Academy

 

Rocky Mountain APPA

 

Rubin Museum of Art

 

or the Recording Musicians Association...

 

cmon Tim...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...