Jump to content
Jesusfuck

UMKC CRITICAL AFF

Recommended Posts

Alright, this aff doesn't even have a plan involved, except to rethink the plan. What would one say if topicality was read against us? Because we very very bluntly are non-topical, and instead challenge the wording of the Resolution.

 

So... Help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two standard arguments:

 

1. Consideration of your criticism supercedes consideration of topicality; the substance of your argument is so important that it deserves to be evaluated before procedural questions. This is especially so if you criticize the resolution, because it is not possible to reasonably adjudicate the topic before deciding upon the validity of your criticism.

 

2. Topicality exists to check abusive cases. Because your case clearly discusses a topic-related issue and presents material which a reasonable negative team would know about, you do not enjoy an unfair advantage.

 

EDIT: It is also possible that this case is a bit of a stretch for you to run. If you're not comfortable with the arguments, run something a little more mainstream. There's nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, this aff doesn't even have a plan involved, except to rethink the plan. What would one say if topicality was read against us? Because we very very bluntly are non-topical, and instead challenge the wording of the Resolution.

 

So... Help?

 

I cut the aff if you have any question how to beat it back or how to run it and win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cut the aff if you have any question how to beat it back or how to run it and win

I'm toying with this idea as well. What authors did you cut to get the more "debate specific" evidence? I've looked at mental colonisation authors and entertained Butler or Shapiro but I'm not sure beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would encourage you to run this affirmative, but i haven't seen it. can you post it?... as for topicality, three words: kritik the fucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to run an aff like this, run something like mental colonization or Becoming the Other (Deluze). This SSA K is really weak and you're going to have a hard time winning that this is more important than a fair debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two standard arguments:

 

1. Consideration of your criticism supercedes consideration of topicality; the substance of your argument is so important that it deserves to be evaluated before procedural questions. This is especially so if you criticize the resolution, because it is not possible to reasonably adjudicate the topic before deciding upon the validity of your criticism.

 

2. Topicality exists to check abusive cases. Because your case clearly discusses a topic-related issue and presents material which a reasonable negative team would know about, you do not enjoy an unfair advantage.

 

EDIT: It is also possible that this case is a bit of a stretch for you to run. If you're not comfortable with the arguments, run something a little more mainstream. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

I agree with all these people that if you aren't prepared to kritik topicality, you shouldn't be running this aff. Depending on where you are from, this may also be problematic. On the assumption that you do want to run this aff, you have a LOT of "offense" in the 1AC that functions against topicality.

 

1. Your Shahadah/Asante Afrocentrism-esk authors that argue how this resolution affirms this form of white privelege

 

2. The term 'Sub-saharan africa' it self is elitist and arbitrary

 

3. Education through praxis.

 

The first two reasons are reasons why the topic itself is "Bad" and the third is a critical pedagogy argument that critiques that ideas of "education" in debate ie. something you'll see on the T/Framework debate.

 

I think these three arguments themselves are enough to win a good K of T but if you wish to supplement these arguments, there are some Hooks and Freire evidence that can strengthen your education arguments,

 

I'm not sure if Deleuze will jive well with what this argument is but then again I'm no deleuze scholar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
Two standard arguments:

 

1. Consideration of your criticism supercedes consideration of topicality; the substance of your argument is so important that it deserves to be evaluated before procedural questions. This is especially so if you criticize the resolution, because it is not possible to reasonably adjudicate the topic before deciding upon the validity of your criticism.

 

2. Topicality exists to check abusive cases. Because your case clearly discusses a topic-related issue and presents material which a reasonable negative team would know about, you do not enjoy an unfair advantage.

 

EDIT: It is also possible that this case is a bit of a stretch for you to run. If you're not comfortable with the arguments, run something a little more mainstream. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

 

um no, you're wrong

prima facie burdens must be met before we consider the substance/merits of affirmatives

plus, fairness is the internal link to education, limits, ground, and every other T standard out there

once you concede that you kritik the resolution, then you're basically taking a neg argument and running it on the aff, which is abusive in a multitude of ways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um no, you're wrong

prima facie burdens must be met before we consider the substance/merits of affirmatives

plus, fairness is the internal link to education, limits, ground, and every other T standard out there

once you concede that you kritik the resolution, then you're basically taking a neg argument and running it on the aff, which is abusive in a multitude of ways

 

You're right, a convincing argument against performance/kritikal teams is that fairness is the internal link to education...for ground...maybe. A lot of neg teams can spin quite effective abuse stories but all of these claims, while good arguments can be debated out. A K team would respond to your claim that prima facie burdens come first as the same kind of justification that allows us to sit idly by and enjoy white privelege which means the 1AC is 8 minutes of offense against that argument. On fairness, if the aff wins that policy debate is unfair right now they control the "uniqueness" (Thats not a hard debate to win) which means there is only a risk that their form of argumentation will lead to fairer debate. This also begs the question of fair for and to whom? This particular aff will probably argue that this system is only fair for the "white man" and thats the fairness you desire. But as I prefaced, this is a debate that can go both sides and I'm merely stating these arguments to show the initial posting the type of arguments he may make to defend this type of advocacy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all assume that education as a generic thing, as undifferentiated good. In this world learning the speed at which trains moves is the same as learning that people are dying of aids which is the same as learning how to change the world which is the same as learning how to build a house, et cetera.

 

critical teams will argue that your arguments about education are really ways of insisting upon managerial/bureaucratic education, or whatever. You get the drift, insisting that fairness is the internal link to education implies that only the quantity of education matters. I think that a critical team worth its salt should be able to generate offense on the flow from this standard alone.

 

Now, you might be thinking yeah, but we'll argue that the education is essential to the critical advantages of the aff, and that all education will disappear with fairness. But this will be hard to sell for a couple of reasons (1) non-unique teams have been doing wacky shit and winning for a while, and yet here we are. (you can argue that there has been a decline of debate that correlates, but a good team will respond that it correlates with a string of debate practices, most of which the neg will probably be guilty of as well) (2) germaness is enough, fairness is not at all zero-sum, you will have to win that there is no fairness to operate with this aff, which will be hard to prove.

 

However, you will have the advantage that most judges are not very willing to vote on kritiks of t, don't believe that affs can garner offense on t, and aren't even really interested in T not voter debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with all of the pro-Aff analysis here is that it still functions within the confines of the game itself (i.e., ballot-seeking). So long as Aff is still asking for the ballot, they cannot convincingly argue that rules of the ballot-seeking game are less important than their critical stance. The judge's first priority must be to ensure that each side has a fair opportunity to compete for the ballot, which means equity concerns trump everything else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, terrance, kritiks of topicality should demonstrate that topicality does little to ensure a more equitable game. reducing the importance of (or eliminating) a certain convention needn't entail rejecting competition. on the contrary, it lets the forum operate in a more educational, respectful manner (so it's argued). if a debater truly felt that what they had to say trumped every other possible issue of decorum, then they'd demand to speak for the entire round with no opponent rebuttal -- has anyone ever demanded that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with all of the pro-Aff analysis here is that it still functions within the confines of the game itself (i.e., ballot-seeking). So long as Aff is still asking for the ballot, they cannot convincingly argue that rules of the ballot-seeking game are less important than their critical stance. The judge's first priority must be to ensure that each side has a fair opportunity to compete for the ballot, which means equity concerns trump everything else...

but thats not what the aff should be arguing.

the argument isnt that the rule is less important the aff. there are no "rules" for the ballot, on the ballot it doesnt say aff's must be topical, or inherent, or solve harms, it doesnt say disads must be intristic, or counterplans must compete, or cant include plan action, or cant fiat multi actors. the argument isnt that the kritik ow rules, its that the "rule" the neg try to impose on the aff is bad. there is zero reason fairness trumps good education (the type the k provides) if an "unfair" practices really made everyone quit then how does debate still exist with consult counterplans and floating piks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, terrance, kritiks of topicality should demonstrate that topicality does little to ensure a more equitable game. reducing the importance of (or eliminating) a certain convention needn't entail rejecting competition. on the contrary, it lets the forum operate in a more educational, respectful manner (so it's argued). if a debater truly felt that what they had to say trumped every other possible issue of decorum, then they'd demand to speak for the entire round with no opponent rebuttal -- has anyone ever demanded that?
Typically lousy analysis on the issue, Kev. For openers, even if we grant that the critical stance allows "the forum to operate in a more educational, respectful manner," neither education nor respect are equity considerations. Furthermore, it was not my claim that the critical stance rejects competition; just the contrary, in fact. The critical stance is offered as a rationale for winning the competition (assuming Aff is asking for the ballot). That it seeks to do so by vitiating the only rule (you can call it a convention if you prefer) that protects Neg's ability to fairly compete for the ballot is the problem. It is not licit to try to win a game by means of destroying your opponent's opportunity to fairly compete...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typically lousy analysis on the issue, Kev. For openers, even if we grant that the critical stance allows "the forum to operate in a more educational, respectful manner," neither education nor respect are equity considerations. Furthermore, it was not my claim that the critical stance rejects competition; just the contrary, in fact. The critical stance is offered as a rationale for winning the competition (assuming Aff is asking for the ballot). That it seeks to do so by vitiating the only rule (you can call it a convention if you prefer) that protects Neg's ability to fairly compete for the ballot is the problem. It is not licit to try to win a game by means of destroying your opponent's opportunity to fairly compete...

 

What if the aff wins that debate should be seen as something more important than monopoly of chess? And therefore, conventions that make it more like a game of chess rather than, say, training for social activism or even an actual public sphere itself (or whatever). In that world why can't they win the T debate?

 

Right, do they have to convince you personally as a judge it is true, or do they simply have to out debate the other team on the level of voters/standards/etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Typically lousy analysis on the issue, Kev."

 

ditto.

 

"For openers, even if we grant that the critical stance allows "the forum to operate in a more educational, respectful manner," neither education nor respect are equity considerations."

 

who said they were? my claim is *once* the equity considerations are taken care of (as per my first sentence: "yes, terrance, kritiks of topicality should demonstrate that topicality does little to ensure a more equitable game."), then the question becomes *not* how to reject the rules of the game, but instead how to make better rules, namely more educational, respectful ones.

 

your problem remains: "[the kritik of topicality] seeks to [win] by vitiating the only rule (you can call it a convention if you prefer) that protects Neg's ability to fairly compete for the ballot". and here we simply disagree; we have discussed all this before, and if you like having your ass handed to you, we can go over the line-by-line again.

 

for now my only point was you can't skip over this disputed premise by treating it as self-evident and then assume that the kritik of topicality trips over its own feet, as implied in: "So long as Aff is still asking for the ballot, they cannot convincingly argue that rules of the ballot-seeking game are less important than their critical stance."

 

they're not. they're arguing that topicality is a bad rule. to be sure, one reason topicality might be a bad rule is its exclusion of critical stances. but i've still yet to hear anyone argue, 'what i want to say is more important than any rules whatsoever'. thus your argument seems based on a red herring. if any team truly believed that, then why would they even cede the floor to the opposing team for equal speech times? why would they play the game at all?

 

last caveat: if people really kritik topicality like that, then we agree they're being (to put it gingerly) unconvincing. 'what we have to say is so important that we can break any rule we want and still win' is hardly an argument that's central to or necessary/advisable for this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well T doesnt seem to be the problem because.

 

1.) it's 8 min of discorse of how the reslution is this center for all education so the aff solves back all the ground and exclusion occur

 

2.) it point out why ontoligical question should be evauatedif not then we can get away with defending something that is racist.

 

3.) it can show why ontological question have real world solvency

 

 

 

the author we used was just shadah ewiske (i think that's how you spell it)

umm the shapio you will have a better link but it prolly will be hard to prove that that the notion of border are racist and how would you solve it

unless you brain wash that's some reason why we didnt add it but if your smart and could think of a way go for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with all these people that if you aren't prepared to kritik topicality, you shouldn't be running this aff. Depending on where you are from, this may also be problematic. On the assumption that you do want to run this aff, you have a LOT of "offense" in the 1AC that functions against topicality.

 

1. Your Shahadah/Asante Afrocentrism-esk authors that argue how this resolution affirms this form of white privelege

 

2. The term 'Sub-saharan africa' it self is elitist and arbitrary

 

3. Education through praxis.

 

The first two reasons are reasons why the topic itself is "Bad" and the third is a critical pedagogy argument that critiques that ideas of "education" in debate ie. something you'll see on the T/Framework debate.

 

I think these three arguments themselves are enough to win a good K of T but if you wish to supplement these arguments, there are some Hooks and Freire evidence that can strengthen your education arguments,

 

I'm not sure if Deleuze will jive well with what this argument is but then again I'm no deleuze scholar.

 

 

umm I believe dng would jive with this because dng are all for question the way we veiw the world around us and this is a huge question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if the aff wins that debate should be seen as something more important than monopoly of chess?
By arguing that therefore it is okay for them to destroy the opponent's opportunity to compete for the ballot? How would this be accomplished, exactly?
And therefore, conventions that make it more like a game of chess rather than, say, training for social activism or even an actual public sphere itself (or whatever). In that world why can't they win the T debate?
Topicality doesn't make debate like chess. But even if it did, your analogy falls apart. Your teams were not invited to a social activism tournament, they were invited to a debate tournament. At the point where your social activism prevents the opponent from having a fair opportunity to debate you, you deserve to lose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your problem remains: "[the kritik of topicality] seeks to [win] by vitiating the only rule (you can call it a convention if you prefer) that protects Neg's ability to fairly compete for the ballot". and here we simply disagree; we have discussed all this before, and if you like having your ass handed to you, we can go over the line-by-line again.
So go, already... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running topicality or framework against these types of teams is not strategic because they are very prepared to debate you on T and framework agrument. I never lost a round on T or framework while running alternative agruments. And its not because im really good at beating those types of arguments its just that we have a 30 answer block to T which we practice all the time with 1ar and 2ar drills. On the flip side the team that made this argument about SSA was in my lab and i debated them twice at the tournament and lost both times because we tried to out T them one round and framework them the next. Your best bet is to debate it at its level by running a K or out left them.

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...