Jump to content
DebateScholar

The Over-looked style of policy debate

Recommended Posts

Alright, so I have an extremely big question to know if anyone is willing to take the time to answer in depth and exactly as I ask. Not trying to be rude or anything, but please don't post shit like, "oh, that's so stupid", or "you will never win with this argument." Anybody with a specific expertise on this would be greatly appreciated if you answer.

 

Question 1: How do you structure a performance aff? When I say this, I mean like, can I give my own analysis in my 1AC? Do I claim advantages?

 

Question 2: Could you post a link up to Towson CL's Black Aesthetic aff they ran at CEDA? I want to know how theirs was structured. Don't try to look for other threads, because I can almost guarantee you that it is not up there.

 

Anyways, all help is greatly appreciated, so anybody willing to answer or anybody with a good knowledge, please help. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, so I have an extremely big question to know if anyone is willing to take the time to answer in depth and exactly as I ask. Not trying to be rude or anything, but please don't post shit like, "oh, that's so stupid", or "you will never win with this argument." Anybody with a specific expertise on this would be greatly appreciated if you answer.

 

Question 1: How do you structure a performance aff? When I say this, I mean like, can I give my own analysis in my 1AC? Do I claim advantages?

 

The "structure" of a performance aff is not set in stone and generally depends on what you want to do. In the past, teams that read nontraditional affs have often used alternative mediums to convey at least part of their message, including music, poetry, first person and third person narratives, among others. I've run performance affs that have included poetry, satire/irony, more serious narratives about social conditions, as well as rap.

 

When reading a performance aff, I would try to shy away from viewing the debate in traditional "advantage" terms. Although performance affs are a very broad category that could range from serious discussions about race/gender to light hearted and funny mockeries of debate, almost all of these affs are about alternative visions of the debate space and/or community. Generally, the way I find it easiest to contextualize performance debates is to see who had the best form of intellectual production in the round, rather than as some kind of movement that seeks to change society as a whole (debate is all about education, after all).

 

If you have more specific questions, let me know.

 

Question 2: Could you post a link up to Towson CL's Black Aesthetic aff they ran at CEDA? I want to know how theirs was structured. Don't try to look for other threads, because I can almost guarantee you that it is not up there.

 

Anyways, all help is greatly appreciated, so anybody willing to answer or anybody with a good knowledge, please help. Thanks.

 

Here's Towson's 1AC cites from the year they won CEDA (the black aesthetic affs) on archivedcaselist.

 

1ac w/ cites

 

Played music

 

Shelton K. wrote an article on Black participation that expressed many concerns from black debaters about the predominately white community. He concluded

Hill 97’

“Debate like the”…”of African Americans.”

 

We see the western ideology that is rampant in this activity as white aesthetic that takes the white body and existence as the ideal debater and one who is normative Pegg McIntosh’s article unpacking the invisible knapsack of privilege “whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will alow them to be more like us.

 

The somatic norming of the white body in this activity makes the white debate performance ideal and average

Mills 97

“Finally, the norming”…”and dark races.”

 

Tim wise a former debater describes how whiteness props up in this activity

Wise 05

“I say that”…”the Nazi’s would win.”

 

Some main practices that become structural norms to prop up the whit aesthetic

1. The sole reliance on traditional authors

2. Silence on the issue of white supremacy

3. Use of objective disconnected narrative

 

These claims of fairness, objectivity, and predictability are ways to marginalize the oppressed and silence our voices

Delgado 92

 

We have cleverly built power’s view of the appropriate standard of conduct into the very term fair. Thus, the stronger party is able to have his/her way and see her/himself as principled at the same time.

“Imagine for example”…””performance of debate.”

 

Larry Neal sheds light on this

“Hoyt Fuller in his essay,”…”their colonizing gaze.”

 

Bell hooks writes

“That bls is a phrase.”…”despite racist domination.”

Debate would become a space where we orient ourselves towards methods of liberation and justice

-Resolutions would not be solely focused on how the USFG should do a certain action but how we as academics have agency to change the conditions of our society

 

-People of color would not feel the psychic trauma of the white gaze when they present a revolutionary policy to liberate the oppressed

 

-So called objective standards would not be the only criteria to adjucate rounds because they are rooted in a narrative of the stronger party

 

-The education produced here will relate to how one lives and behaves and relates to formulating strategies to liberate the oppressed and dismantle white supremacy

 

These would be some introductory visions of debate instead of propping up imperialist agenda and role playing the oppressor that will be exported to larger society

Willaim Spanos

“I am very much”…”world must occur.”

 

White students have more ability to exert court whiteness into our furture political systems

McKinney 05’

“Thus, white students”…”will be eradicated.”

 

Questioning the legitimacy of the debate community

Giroux 06’

“Reclaiming higher education”…”the intellectual community.”

 

This activity has been on that has grown from the roots of white supremacy. The methods of the debate reflect whit ways of viewing and knowing the world. This method is presented in a privileged illusory fait fantasy world that is uncritical of racism and white supremacy

 

Charles Mills 97’

“thus in effect”…”Fridays and Sambos.”

 

This makes white supremacy and the white aesthetic an invisible unnamed system that has made the modern world what it is today

Charles Mills 97’

“White Supremacy is the unnamed”…”political, are highlighted.”

 

We must make a framework to address theses claims at their root As Charles Mills said.

 

“what is needed”…”rights and duties.”

 

Our FW- Dayvon and I believe Debate should be about the liberation of the oppressed and changing conditions of this white supremacist institution

Our FW is who best engages consistent practice and advocacy that advances the liberation of the oppressed

 

The white aesthetic creates objects to use as pawns in their overall game of exclusion

Dayvon and I are constantly forced to become objects of the particular type of education and ground produced in this activity that isn’t conductive of our identity. WE ARE THE TRANSGRESSORS WHO NEED TO BE DESTROYED AND PUNISHED BY THE BALLOT.

 

Larry Neal 68

“The western (white) aesthetic”…”system of ideals.”

 

Thus Dayvon and I advocate that the debate community should embrace a Revolutionary aesthetic to destroy the dominate white western aesthetic

 

As black makes we don’t embrace a universal aesthetic because our social location must be infused in our discursive acts to lead credents to the issue we speak of- our methodology of a revolutionary aesthetic is a way for people to self determine their own way to view identity and how to topple oppression that faces them.

 

Claiming individual innocence is a white defense mechanism- honoring the claim ensures the perpetuation of racism

DiAngelo 06

“At the same time”…”most superficial ways.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lane Tech does this

 

1. Play I just wanna be by Common

 

2. debate becomes a constant repitition and stops conciousness Freire 70 "pedagogy of the oppressed pg 1997

 

3. that causes domination

 

4. that leads to nazism

 

5. genocide=extinction

 

6. Reject every loss of liberty Petro 74

 

7. Plan: The USFG should allow Common to alter reality

 

8. Solvency- some other common song (dont know the name)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even talib quali says "rappers shouldn't be leaders"

 

I think the answers is "hege good judge"

 

the west is the best (i wish I knew where that evidence was)

 

possible rights malthus. (although there is some tension between the former and the later)

 

Common = exploitation of women (have you read his lyrics)

 

And I think Delgado has evidence on the opposite side of this question:

 

These claims of fairness, objectivity, and predictability are ways to marginalize the oppressed and silence our voices

Delgado 92

 

At least that on the question of informal justice vs. formal justice--informal justice can lead to exploitation.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought you were making a valid argument but none of it was in bold so I am dubious as to the veracity of your post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off master of puppets is fucking retarted.

 

I hit them at the glenbrooks

 

They dont play common they play dead prez

 

 

Plan text - have dead prez shoot up the USFG and train persons in poverty in the dojo

 

they still read friere

 

not petro thats stupid

 

I think they have a whiteness advantage ( indicates can people in poverty can relate to their own ontology but rich suburbans can.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even talib quali says "rappers shouldn't be leaders"

 

I think the answers is "hege good judge"

 

the west is the best (i wish I knew where that evidence was)

 

possible rights malthus. (although there is some tension between the former and the later)

 

Common = exploitation of women (have you read his lyrics)

 

And I think Delgado has evidence on the opposite side of this question:

 

 

 

At least that on the question of informal justice vs. formal justice--informal justice can lead to exploitation.

 

i dont know if you are kidding.

 

but dont do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont know if you are kidding.

 

but dont do this.

 

whoa, a GBS debater telling someone NOT to impact turn a K aff? This is madness :P

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa, a GBS debater telling someone NOT to impact turn a K aff? This is madness :P

 

Yeah...against performance you seem to have 5 options:

 

1) Impact turn

2) Out left them

3) PIC out of some part of their criticism or advocacy

4) Agent Counterplan (disad or K net benefit)

5) Theory. You cheated. Framework. Topicality-style arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lane Tech does this

 

1. Play I just wanna be by Common

 

2. debate becomes a constant repitition and stops conciousness Freire 70 "pedagogy of the oppressed pg 1997

 

3. that causes domination

 

4. that leads to nazism

 

5. genocide=extinction

 

6. Reject every loss of liberty Petro 74

 

7. Plan: The USFG should allow Common to alter reality

 

8. Solvency- some other common song (dont know the name)

 

 

hahahaha.... petro? I hope not. That's so laughably out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imeen ru4relz?

 

Even talib quali says "rappers shouldn't be leaders"

 

And why not? Rap is a form of beautiful art that involves breaking common communication practices and ends up allowing a person to expressing themselves (honestly, its like you're saying 'poets shouldn't be leaders'). This is silly.

 

 

I think the answers is "hege good judge"

 

clearly allowing a team win a performance debate will cripple our military.

 

the west is the best (i wish I knew where that evidence was)

 

this would be an awesome response....if they were critiquing realism on-face. You're internal link to west is best, which you don't even have on for 'hegemony good juuuuudge', is edumakation. However, performance teams will always have evidence on this question. i promise you.

 

possible rights malthus. (although there is some tension between the former and the later)

 

no

At least that on the question of informal justice vs. formal justice--informal justice can lead to exploitation.

 

No - Delgado is pretttttyy clear that...uh....fairness is a white standard and we use it to silence the revolt and other such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the answers is "hege good judge"

clearly allowing a team win a performance debate will cripple our military

 

They either link by rejecting eurocentric hegemony or they don't solve. Also, from what I remember of the round at CEDAs, the black-centric cards they read link. The move for the margins away from the center is another link.

 

1) You can make this argument using realism good cards

2) You can make this argument using Ferguson--I think the

3) You can make this argument using soft power good cards (depending on impact scenario).

 

the west is the best (i wish I knew where that evidence was)

this would be an awesome response....if they were critiquing realism on-face. You're internal link to west is best, which you don't even have on for 'hegemony good juuuuudge', is edumakation. However, performance teams will always have evidence on this question. i promise you.

 

Its not a question of education--its a question of which type of education. In other words--a question of education about the west OR alternatives to the west. That proves the link. And the impact debate is pretty straightforward and partially handled above.

 

Thats bad conciousness awareness.

 

Also, a consistent application of your alt would have it implemented in government. Saying we advocate this--but the USFG shouldn't really do this--we were just kidding--is simply silly (if not a lack of authenticity to down right lying based on your plan text).

 

At least that on the question of informal justice vs. formal justice--informal justice can lead to exploitation.

No - Delgado is pretttttyy clear that...uh....fairness is a white standard and we use it to silence the revolt and other such things.

 

He said both things--to my knowledge. Overall I don't think Delgado is calling for an abandonment of the law--he's a law school teacher. Also, the CRT writers often take a stance that resembles Krishna...in the sense that we shouldn't abandon the system universally. They properly recognize the gains during the civil rights era. Admittedly this isn't true for all such critical race scholarship. Just as an FYI...its not uncommon for Delgado to be cited on both sides of a race theory debate. (I'm sorry I don't have evidence on this question).

 

I should have added framework--although they will definitely leverage this as offense. Foucault and Shivley will come in handy.

 

Probably some criticism of critical pedagogy and Pablo Friere is in order as well. (I know he's sexist--or perhaps he doesn't examine multidimensionality or intersectionality--although explaining why the perm doesn't solve seems pretty difficult)

 

In terms of Pics--I think you could PIC out of rights or reparations or perhaps affirmative action. (obviously you need cross ex to set these up--but an alternative to rights seems inevitable w/ their alt.) I think you could use reparations of affirmative action as a metaphor for what their movement is.

 

So whats your suggestion? These were the five I outlined:

 

1) Impact turn

2) Out left them

3) PIC out of some part of their criticism or advocacy

4) Agent Counterplan (disad or K net benefit)

5) Theory. You cheated. Framework. Topicality-style arguments.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Our league is way different from yours, but we're running what we thought was a k aff. At least, it was originally. After some heavy editing, we're not sure what to classify it as.

Our case is discursive mostly, we argue that the government should (basically) stop with all the climate policies because climate change is natural and beneficial (I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but just take it as it is). We don't really have a plan - we have some lay judges so we include a sample text specifying what the government could do, but we explain that our real advocacy is that the judge vote for whoever convinces them of their side better; our side is warming not anthro/beneficial, whereas squo is warming anthro/bad. Would that be a more performance-ish aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question: Our league is way different from yours, but we're running what we thought was a k aff. At least, it was originally. After some heavy editing, we're not sure what to classify it as.

Our case is discursive mostly, we argue that the government should (basically) stop with all the climate policies because climate change is natural and beneficial (I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but just take it as it is). We don't really have a plan - we have some lay judges so we include a sample text specifying what the government could do, but we explain that our real advocacy is that the judge vote for whoever convinces them of their side better; our side is warming not anthro/beneficial, whereas squo is warming anthro/bad. Would that be a more performance-ish aff?

 

I suppose it depends on how you classify a performance aff, but the answer to this is probably no. Generally, I tend to see "performance" affs as separate from plan-less kritikal affs in that they use different mediums to communicate a message--not merely breaking norms for the sake of breaking them but having tangible stylistic differences that accompany it (perhaps the aff or parts of it are poetry, a rap, a movie, whatever).

 

Also, I don't mean to bash but--how is that aff strategic, and what actual offense can you garner on T with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our case is discursive mostly, we argue that the government should (basically) stop with all the climate policies because climate change is natural and beneficial

 

You can run all of the Ks from last year (incentives for renewable energy)

for instance:

1) securitization (depending on how you articulate your impact)

2) eco-scapegoating (Bobertz)

3) eco-modernization (Luke)

4) eco-managerialism (some people use Luke, but I think those that accuse environmentalists of being totalitarian, controling)

 

Some of these could make you a target for:

1) realism good (#1)

2) capitalism good (#3)

3) rights bad (#4)

 

You could run one or more of the above as add-on advantages. In some ways the securitization argument might make sense because it dovetails with biopower/foucault, which is a natural argument)

 

You could also run them individually as counter-critique if the neg runs a critique against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose it depends on how you classify a performance aff, but the answer to this is probably no. Generally, I tend to see "performance" affs as separate from plan-less kritikal affs in that they use different mediums to communicate a message--not merely breaking norms for the sake of breaking them but having tangible stylistic differences that accompany it (perhaps the aff or parts of it are poetry, a rap, a movie, whatever).

Would it be a good sentence-summary to say: They're more focused on performance rather than the message they attempt to convey? Or: It's how we say it, not what we say?

 

Also, I don't mean to bash but--how is that aff strategic, and what actual offense can you garner on T with it...
Well under our res and with our sample plan text it fits pretty perfectly. We defend the resolution as a truth to be articulated upon. No one's even run T because it's what everyone thinks is the most topical kind of plan.

 

You can run all of the Ks from last year (incentives for renewable energy)

for instance:

1) securitization (depending on how you articulate your impact)

2) eco-scapegoating (Bobertz)

3) eco-modernization (Luke)

4) eco-managerialism (some people use Luke, but I think those that accuse environmentalists of being totalitarian, controling)

 

Some of these could make you a target for:

1) realism good (#1)

2) capitalism good (#3)

3) rights bad (#4)

 

You could run one or more of the above as add-on advantages. In some ways the securitization argument might make sense because it dovetails with biopower/foucault, which is a natural argument)

 

You could also run them individually as counter-critique if the neg runs a critique against you.

We would save them as counter-critiques because critiquing on the aff like that doesn't go over well at all. Even normal neg critiques are iffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be a good sentence-summary to say: They're more focused on performance rather than the message they attempt to convey? Or: It's how we say it, not what we say?

 

I'd don't think performance affs usually privilege form over content, but would argue that form is necessarily interconnected with content. For example, screwing around but not having an argument doesn't constitute a performance aff. But conversely, some would argue that spreading for 9 minutes about exclusions inherent in debate wouldn't constitute a performance aff (because their form still participates in exclusionary epistemologies, even if their content may be liberatory). So, for me, a "good sentence-summary" would be to argue that for a performance aff, non-traditional content is necessary but not sufficient; it must be accompanied by a form that exemplifies the content.

 

Well under our res and with our sample plan text it fits pretty perfectly. We defend the resolution as a truth to be articulated upon. No one's even run T because it's what everyone thinks is the most topical kind of plan.

 

Wait, the resolution is social services right? Why would arguments about global warming being good/inevitable that's not attached to a policy about poor people be about the "truth" of the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, for me, a "good sentence-summary" would be to argue that for a performance aff, non-traditional content is necessary but not sufficient; it must be accompanied by a form that exemplifies the content.

 

I agree with what you have said before, but what do you mean by "exemplifies the content", are you talking about the actual (example) playing of a song, rapping, or other aspect, or are you talking about the actual evidence? Can you explain this further for me please, because this is really interesting.

 

Thanks

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...