Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Racism is a sweet impact story to defend but Im havin trouble finding a DA that can get me access to it, any ideas? maybe something like when US and Japan go to war we start squinting and stuff, like racism gets jacked up cause of wartime rhetoric maybe? feel free to PM me or post here with any ideas/cards! thnx in advance, and Im still lookin for an online debate partner :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A DA like this is going to be hard to prove this year. I would probably have the DA be a critical disad of discourse (Or just go flat out K), that would say: plan is racist in X way --> Racism outweighs everything.

 

So it would be kind of like the coercion da last year, its uniqueness is plan has not happened.

 

Your proposed scenario would be tough to prove, unless you have a card saying that war --> racism then you could easily tie that in to any war impact.

 

Also if you need a partner I am always up for another round (ALthough I am currently debating in round 3, so you would have to wait until I posted my 2NR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be a morality kritik if anything, making it a disad won't win you any rounds. Its non unique -- racism now. And there really is no good impact either. Aside from that, the link has to be discourse that describes africa, so kind of like the representations K. But making it a disad means you have to operate under util framework, making it like a morality K is much more strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should be a morality kritik if anything' date=' making it a disad won't win you any rounds. Its non unique -- racism now. And there really is no good impact either. Aside from that, the link has to be discourse that describes africa, so kind of like the representations K. But making it a disad means you have to operate under util framework, making it like a morality K is much more strategic.[/quote']

I disagree. Last year coercion was a DA, it was a non-U one and the impact was coercion bad. The uniqueness in this case is that plan has not happened. Although, I agree that making it a DA will be tough to win because yes we have racism now. So just going with a plain old reps of Africa K is probable the most effective. In that case it has an alt that acts as the U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Last year coercion was a DA, it was a non-U one and the impact was coercion bad. The uniqueness in this case is that plan has not happened. Although, I agree that making it a DA will be tough to win because yes we have racism now. So just going with a plain old reps of Africa K is probable the most effective. In that case it has an alt that acts as the U.

alt doesnt provide uniqueness for somthing thats non unique--its just saying reject each instance.

 

lol I dont think the coercion disad was good, didn't see anyone running it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going for U of no racism now, more like this:

U: relations between u.s. and X are good

L: plan destroys relations with a country that

IL: lower relations means stereotypes -> racism

I: we are racist towards X (and thats bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't going for U of no racism now, more like this:

U: relations between u.s. and X are good

L: plan destroys relations with a country that

IL: lower relations means stereotypes -> racism

I: we are racist towards X (and thats bad)

That IL is going to be pretty non U because we have racial stereotypes already. If anything I would just use racism as an impact module to a disad with war as an impact, I am sure there is a war --> racism card somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't going for U of no racism now, more like this:

U: relations between u.s. and X are good

L: plan destroys relations with a country that

IL: lower relations means stereotypes -> racism

I: we are racist towards X (and thats bad)

 

Strategically, you're going to want a different internal link and impact.

 

U: Relations between U.S. and X are good/on brink

L: Plan destroys relations with country X

I: Relations key to Y

 

That way you'll have a bigger and (strangely for policy debate) more realistic impact.

 

As in,

U: Relations between U.S. and China over Africa are strained

L: China perceives unilateral U.S. aid as competing for influence in Africa, which decimates our cooperation

I: U.S.-China cooperation key to stopping Darfur Genocide/Public Health/Whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you'd probably find a lot of people that thought the coercian DA was actually pretty sweet.

 

as far as a racism DA goes, you don't need to win U for the impact itself. unless the impact is racism --> nuclear war then it doesn't matter. just attach one of the many famous racism d-rule cards then your good to go. just go for morality arguments as to why we shouldn't allow racism to occur and not allow instances of it to occur like the plan. that can be the impact to the DA. not great, but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism truly is a critical impact... you rarely see it as an impact for a disad, and usually if it does the impact doesn't get the weight it deserves in the round. You can access racism through some sort of colonialism/imperialism K. It truly is a mainstream impact scenario in this years resolution.

 

You could make an alternate causality argument claiming the cause is racism, and the affirmative failing to approach and engage racism at the root just perpetuates the impacts in the long run. That is a more... I don't know the term, but less "critical" if you're apart of a circuit where criticisms are shunned upon. Alt caulls arguments used to be very popular apparently, however, in the modern world they are often seen as defensive however I believe it can be a very compelling argument. In the cross-x of the 1AC ask them what is more important -- the long term, or the short term. They might try and claim the short term, but if they do they are just trying to spike out of your arguments, simply ask them if they honestly plan on solving for the entire AIDS, malaria, clean water, famine problem etc. right away or if it truly takes time. Aslong as they concede the consequentionalist framework and with the above analysis (of course being expanded upon) truly could be a round winning argument, especially if you offer a method of engaging and fixing the alt caus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...what?

if you are a racist in the round, IE say blatantly racist shit, you should lose because of it.

 

To clarify: if racism is an impact you read in the evaluation of what the consequences of the plan might be (i.e. war leads to racism) then what i said before doesnt apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't think of a single disadvantage that has racism as an impact. perhaps you mean criticism.

 

the problem is the impossibility of a believable uniqueness story. sure, you can get authors like dinesh d'zousa that say racism in america is going away, but you'll never get unique access to the good 'racism bad' impact cards.

 

it's a criticism. go read the k forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's in-round racism, then you would probably kritik it. In any case, the alternative would be the only thing that would make this "DA" unique, because otherwise you're letting them non-unique it by saying that racism is high and the impacts havn't happened, and even if they have we still live with them. Othwise it's a doulbe-bind because if racism is low now then that's pretty impressive because we know a lot of racist folk out there so uniquness clearly overwhelms the link. So claiming racism as an impact is kind of strange.

 

Let's say, for example, you run a DA that says X is low, plan makes X high, X leads to racist, and racism is bad. Even on this DA, the other team would simply non-unique the impact. You could make it clever if they don't answer anything else and later say X leads to nuclear war or something else that's really bad. That could work, but if you plan to keep racism as an impact, always have an alternative. Most racism cards talk about racism as the biggest impact in the context of its rejection (as in that the rejection of racism should be our number one priority). I don't think a racism disad would work without some sort of criticism attached to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a large part of the forum that racism is an impact that is easier to articulate if you're running it as an impact with a criticism (as racism can be a root cause for pretty much anything).

 

However, I think the person that started this thread is asking how to encorporate racism as an impact to a disad, which I still think is doable. Some suggestions:

 

1 - Laugh at the "racism high now - you're N/U haha" arguments - if your impact is, say, Mendieta (--> biopower/all war), when they say impact empirically denied, you say holocaust, iraq, war on terror, etc. Just because it hasn't led to extinction yet doesn't mean there's no impact - it just means you get your brink - there's a difference between your impact having happened already (as though racism is a one-time event, huh?) and your impact being possible.

 

Also, just because the impact level may be a little N/U doesn't mean you still don't access uniqueness at the link level (e.g. US-japan relations). As long as you're winning your IL that decreased relations --> racism, you still have a reason for why the squo is less racist than the world post-plan.

 

2 - Be sure to tie in why racism is the root cause to every aff harm. This is important - even if the aff reads some util cards and shows why their case accesses extinction, if you're winning why racism is the root, you only have to win a chance that the squo is less racist than teh world post plan (it probably won't be that less racist - but hey, it will be a little bit).

 

3 - Infinitely more strategic with a CP that solves case and avoids the link. For instance - agent CP's. Solve 100% of case/have a racism impact that turns case a NB. Cake, right?

 

If it's in-round racism, then you would probably kritik it. In any case, the alternative would be the only thing that would make this "DA" unique, because otherwise you're letting them non-unique it by saying that racism is high and the impacts havn't happened, and even if they have we still live with them.

 

This doesn't seem that responsive - see above. Even with this arg, the neg still has link-level uniqueness, which is all they need if they're winning a root cause argument.

 

Othwise it's a doulbe-bind because if racism is low now then that's pretty impressive because we know a lot of racist folk out there so uniquness clearly overwhelms the link. So claiming racism as an impact is kind of strange.

 

Obviously if racism is an impact to a disad, there isn't going to be "racism low/high now" cards... this isn't politics. I also don't see where U overwhelming the link is responsive to a root cause question, or even a "racism comes first" question.

 

Let's say, for example, you run a DA that says X is low, plan makes X high, X leads to racist, and racism is bad. Even on this DA, the other team would simply non-unique the impact. You could make it clever if they don't answer anything else and later say X leads to nuclear war or something else that's really bad. That could work, but if you plan to keep racism as an impact, always have an alternative.

 

If I'm running a disad with a racism impact, and the 2AC's only answer is "racism high now - N/U juuuudge", I'm squirming in my chair out of complete and utter joy. In most cases, the 2AC is probably conceding a terminal extinction impact, and a module that can turn case very easily.

 

Although I do agree that an alt is necessary, even if in the form of a CP. There are probably ways in which a crafty 2AC can spin why plan decreases racism, or they can simply read util good and say why their case accesses extinction faster than racism - even if racism is the root cause, we can still stop things like Indo-Pak nuke war and have a chance of solving racism later, e.g. disad doesn't solve the case.

 

Most racism cards talk about racism as the biggest impact in the context of its rejection (as in that the rejection of racism should be our number one priority). I don't think a racism disad would work without some sort of criticism attached to it.

 

Not really true. A lot of the warrants for racism first is either deontological in nature or utilitarian (e.g. the Mendieta article is very good for why all war is ontologically justified with racism). A lot of authors conclude that not being racist is probably better than spending all day 'rejecting' it, whatever that nebulous concept even means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are a racist in the round, IE say blatantly racist shit, you should lose because of it.

 

... you mean if the other team makes an argument against it, right? like they run a K of your rhetoric, (and win it)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of reasons why racist and sexist language is good. This isn't evidence from the KKK, there are a good, clearheaded authors I've researched who refuse to dogmatically assume "you racist you lose" and demonstrate the negative effects of this position. The evidence is surprisingly good defending "hate speech." There is an in-depth debate over this in the literature so it doesn't make sense to automatically pull the trigger.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of reasons why racist and sexist language is good. This isn't evidence from the KKK, there are a good, clearheaded authors I've researched who refuse to dogmatically assume "you racist you lose" and demonstrate the negative effects of this position. The evidence is surprisingly good defending "hate speech." There is an in-depth debate over this in the literature so it doesn't make sense to automatically pull the trigger.

 

You need help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of reasons why racist and sexist language is good. This isn't evidence from the KKK, there are a good, clearheaded authors I've researched who refuse to dogmatically assume "you racist you lose" and demonstrate the negative effects of this position. The evidence is surprisingly good defending "hate speech." There is an in-depth debate over this in the literature so it doesn't make sense to automatically pull the trigger.

 

A majority of the non-crazy lit doesn't say racist/sexist speech good - it says censorship bad. The rest of the lit I hope you're referring to is saying why certain speech isn't racist or sexist - no why racism/sexism is good.

 

That being said, none of it really applies to a disad with a racism impact, which is what I think the starter of the thread wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of reasons why racist and sexist language is good. This isn't evidence from the KKK, there are a good, clearheaded authors I've researched who refuse to dogmatically assume "you racist you lose" and demonstrate the negative effects of this position. The evidence is surprisingly good defending "hate speech." There is an in-depth debate over this in the literature so it doesn't make sense to automatically pull the trigger.

that seems to be more of a defense of free speech then it is an adovcate for saying hateful things. its not so much racist things good, its limitations of speech bad. forgive me if im wrong.

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...