Jump to content
SP 101

What would you run aganist this aff (FGM)

Recommended Posts

i'm not saying that you can't read one to only strengthen the argument, but its not required at all... you can run a very strong FX T violation, if your a good t debater like my partner, without that very interp. however if in the 1NR just to prove your point even more sure go for it... it would be a great 1NR block

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all right, when a culture is inherently patriarchal and subordinating, how is it beautiful? forcing women to be cut in order to control their supposed sexual deviancy is good?

 

And when they look at us what do you think they see? A society built on greed, hypocrisy, and don't even get me started on the Judeo-Christian bull****. Who are we to tell them that they are "wrong" and we are "right?" We have bigger guns? What if the tides were turned? What if they were forcing the idea that FGM was right on us, and they could because its in their moral system and they had more power? Would you like that? I'm gonna laugh when you die and the crocodile god or whatever tells you that you were completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not saying that you can't read one to only strengthen the argument, but its not required at all... you can run a very strong FX T violation, if your a good t debater like my partner, without that very interp. however if in the 1NR just to prove your point even more sure go for it... it would be a great 1NR block

 

You still need an interpretation, and the vague violation of "they take more than one step to be topical" isn't going to overcome that- you still need to define what is topical and what is not topical

I don't care how good of a T debater you are or how well you can articulate why being effectually topical is bad; if you don't interpret the topic, you will lose to a competent team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been working on this aff for a while, and the only big holes I can find on case is that Tostan works because its small, if you start trying to go big with it you run into big problems because the organizational methods of Tostan are not set up to be big. The way the company is run now is based on people who get to go to the performances will go out and talk to other people about it, creating a snowball effect.

 

The other thing is that Tostan is already raking in a lot of money. They just won an award in late '07 that gave them 1.5million, which goes a long way towards matching the US funding of 2.2million/year. What you're really going to push here is that if you start giving them as much money as they want (unconditional funding as per the plan text) they could turn into a less efficient organization and ruin the reason that Tostan is so amazing right now.

 

As for going off case, don't go for an actor counterplan, especially China/Japan because their feminism advantage's internal link specs western feminism and there's ev that says currently western feminists and african feminists are divided on the issue, and without the unification then the feminism advantage still goes off. So, brush up on your consult CP theory and go for one of those, or go for an EU/NATO CP so you can still win the western feminism argument.

 

As for the public health T, they can still win it because there's a lot of literature about how it leads to health risks, and the Tostan site talks about how they help out everyone with the education. There's a decent amount of literature about MGM, so if they really want to they could go that route, but I wouldn't expect it. The maternal and child health arguments are also pretty good, although they struggle for the grown males in society.

 

The Tostan program will probably end up winning it for them, though, because the program as a whole does a lot of work on human rights as a whole, and democratic values, etc. etc, but if they start to do that, force them to defend everything Tostan does, because that's the only way you'll get to them, because Tostan, from what I've read, is pretty widely accepted as the best NGO in the world right now, and you've gotta be on top of your game to say that they're bad.

 

I don't really think that you're going to win FX T, though. It seems pretty easy to win the fact that even if they are effectual to an extent, the fact that its empirically proven justifies a few extra steps, IMO. What is really going to eat you is that there is so much literature about Tostan because they're winning so many awards, and what with countries starting to have proclamations about rejecting FGM as a whole, its been everywhere in the news, not to mention they'll happily defend every step of their plan and give you the links to all of it--its all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are really critical, there is an essay in transcultural bodies called "Gender Crusades" that none of the camps cut that is awesome. It is a giant kritik of trying to end FGC, saying the only reason anyone wants to end the practice is because the clitoris was used in feminists movements to counteract the penis, and they act as the same empowering organ in our unconscious. We are so patriarchal, that we can't stand the loss of the clitoris. Since they are grounded in patriarchy, it turns case first of all, and "far from unseating the binary archetype, they seem to sustain it by implicitly valorizing the male, subsuming the female, andadvancing a model of gender that stakes presocial anatomy as its cultural ground". There's even good impacts in the text, and you could definately go 8 minutes k (and maybe a DA just in case judge is like "I treated it like solvency" or something dumb)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of that, there's also cultural arguments. It may be a HUGE HR nightmare, but FGM is rooted in the culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On top of that, there's also cultural arguments. It may be a HUGE HR nightmare, but FGM is rooted in the culture.

 

The problem with that is that Hancock wrote this article that talks about how even if they continue cutting, it's okay because they'll be doing it in a post-education mindset, so you still solve the feminism advantage, which gives you genocide, human rights, and nuclear war to play with.

 

Not to mention Tostan has already showed it works :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that is that Hancock wrote this article that talks about how even if they continue cutting, it's okay because they'll be doing it in a post-education mindset, so you still solve the feminism advantage, which gives you genocide, human rights, and nuclear war to play with.

 

 

Turn that. If they don't stop cutting then they bite every part of their harms, so thats a wash, and if they do stop cutting I'll grant the genocide, HR violations and nuclear war and outweigh it with the destruction of culture.

 

Besides, human rights are a cultural thing anyway. Its only in the west, and only for about the past 400 years that we've come to the conclusion that each individual is intrinsically valuable and should be given rights, so its worse than a destruction of culture, its destroying a culture, and then replacing it with our own, which makes it moral imperialism. The minute you can definitively prove that what they are doing is 'immoral' you can change it, until then you are simply trying to make everyone follow a certain moral/cultural code which ends up destroying individuality and is a greater human rights violation than FGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some1 didn't already post this theres plenty of japan cp solvency cards for FGM... The pref. nb for japan cp is japan re-arm or if you don't have that ptx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to bad FX T doesn't deal with the number of steps you take...

 

what if they define FGM as public health assistance

 

doesn't that just F up your fx t claims without an intrep?

 

edit- i think FX t deals with steps, but hey its just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how other people are writing the case, but the way I have the case written if I completely lose solvency, then my case still functions through the feminism advantage. The other advantage is generic dehumanization through FGM, and that doesn't get turned if we don't end cutting, I just don't solve for it.

 

Literally what you have to do is go on the solvency flow and win that if we pass this peacemeal legislation then we'll think it's unsolvable and just let it keep going forever, but I debate in Louisiana, and there's no one here on the circuit that is going to be able to win all of that.

 

Not to mention Tostan isn't destroying culture, because its just doing education. And at a certain point, destroying certain cultures is the best for evolution of society. Slavery was a cultural institution. Was slavery good? I think not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how other people are writing the case, but the way I have the case written if I completely lose solvency, then my case still functions through the feminism advantage.

 

 

don't quote me on this....

 

i think thats called extra-t

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't quote me on this....

 

i think thats called extra-t

 

i agree. unless the feminism functions as pha...ie, his case has two internals to solving for an increase in pha. that requires a bit of lifting on the interpretation and standards debate, but it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

counterplan: blahlah conditionally but with a lot of forceful pressure to blahblah

 

text comp good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost lost to an argument about essentiality at semi-finals at Louisiana state this weekend. I think it may be that I was completely unprepared for it, but they had some good evidense about how it's going to lead to a decrease in global feminism because we subjugate specific women's experiences or some-such rediculousness. One of the guys on the team was completely horrible and mishandled it completely so his partner, who was pretty good, thought it went dropped in the block and didn't extend it until the last ten seconds of the 2nr. If it got played up I think I was going to lose the round.

 

Might want to check into that if you're looking to beat the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ What he said. I recommend the China CP, because it's that awesome. Use WFI's as a start and add extra solvency links.

 

really... china cp is awesome for FGM, what kind of solvency is there? also, how does china solve better than tosten?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really... china cp is awesome for FGM, what kind of solvency is there? also, how does china solve better than tosten?

 

Teams on the neg don't need to win that their counterplan solves better than the aff, just that it solves as well, given they probably have a risk of a net benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T: PHA

WHO CP

Politics

WHO Credibility

PEPFAR

Heg Bad DA

Culture K

Patriarchy Adv Impact Turns

Tostan Solvency Turns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to bad FX T doesn't deal with the number of steps you take...

 

From wikipedia I get "Effects topicality alleges that the Affirmative team is not topical in its direct mandate or intent but only arguably arrives at alleviating Harms typically associated with the topic through a variety of internal links." This seems to me pretty much like the definition of FX T I've always heard. Somebody is effectually topical of their immediate plan action doesn't fall under the resolution (e.g. they send money to educate, which is not itself pha; it only results in improved public health). Thus, if their plan requires steps to acheive its topicality (i.e. it accesses T through its advantages) it is effectually topical. What do you think "effects" means, anyways?

 

And of course you need an interp to win FX T! If I ran a plan saying the USFG should convert to a dictatorship which increases heg and thus increases public health in SSA, I'm obviously FX, but if you run it without an interp, I can just argue that "assistance" means "to bring about; effect," and since I eventually brought it about, I'd win. I could even make a ridiculous interp like "PHA means becoming a dictatorship." I'd lose if you had some sort of interp, but without it you're screwed.

 

In cases like FGM, many of the steps are at least somewhat arguably topical, so without a neg interp the FX argument means nothing. It is the neg's burden to prove non-T, not the aff's.

 

 

Also, in my opinion, FX is almost always a terrible argument. The standards for it are only at all reasonable in really blatantly FX cases, and the standards against it are pretty solid. Also, there's absolutely no way you can provide a bright line with such an argument considering it's so hard to determine what counts as "direct" and what is "indirect" (i.e., how many steps the plan requires before it's T).

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Personally, against FGM I would run a lot of solvency (read their cards, the solvency is usually really, really weak), add some carded turns, read a T on PHA (and perhaps one on subsets if I could prove they didn't go to all of SSA), read a corruption or trade-off DA, run a US-specific DA (probably tix), and run an agent CP.

 

If they have too many critical advantages and they might win they come before T and outweigh DAs and NBs (which is tough to do), maybe I'd run a K instead of the CP, but I don't like Ks much. Hopefully the solvency attacks/turns would win these.

 

EDIT:

I like the neg rep, debatesquad06. "Wait till you know something, then post." That really answers my arguments.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...