Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tinkenator

Education Bad

Recommended Posts

The other day in class my partner and I got into discussion about cutting a kritikal aff about how education leads to abuse and abused people have no value to life, and therefore it would be the ultimate social service to get rid of the education system altogether. If someone made topicality or theory arguments and put education as the voter, we'd say that that is good, because education is bad, etc.

 

How feasible is this, and where would I even start to look if I wanted to cut this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other day in class my partner and I got into discussion about cutting a kritikal aff about how education leads to abuse and abused people have no value to life, and therefore it would be the ultimate social service to get rid of the education system altogether. If someone made topicality or theory arguments and put education as the voter, we'd say that that is good, because education is bad, etc.

 

How feasible is this, and where would I even start to look if I wanted to cut this case?

 

if education is bad..why do you debate..why do you cut cards? why do you prep out neg strats? to win perhaps? even so..you are still learning when you cut your affirmative or when you research neg strats. also what if neg go for another impact to topicality such as fairness?

 

The link between education and no value to life is rather silly. if your only impact is value to life the perfect neg strat is adv c/p + net ben of some sort. also this aff will lead to a massive amount of impact turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other day in class my partner and I got into discussion about cutting a kritikal aff about how education leads to abuse and abused people have no value to life, and therefore it would be the ultimate social service to get rid of the education system altogether. If someone made topicality or theory arguments and put education as the voter, we'd say that that is good, because education is bad, etc.

 

How feasible is this, and where would I even start to look if I wanted to cut this case?

 

if you want to impact turn T there are better cases you could run than an education bad affirmative.. try doing something that let's you weigh the discourse of your case against T, and impact turn education also.

 

More offense=more wins

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't 100% relevant to your original idea, but Paulo Freire writes critically about education. You might find something you like in his writing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea.

 

I would suggest three sources for your searches:

1) Deschooling Society by Ivan Illiach

2) Pablo Friere who critiqued the current banking model of education (suggested above):

Model of education in which teachers "deposit" information and skills into students. The emphasis is on memorization of basic facts rather than on understanding and critical thinking.

3) Those who favor critical pedagogy. Although those people probably won't conclude for eliminating the schooling system

 

I would want to have a compelling idea of what will arise after the schooling system is eliminated. (ie will it be lifelong learning)

 

What does the plan text look like...do you ban state funding of formal education in grades k through 12?

 

Now you have to get deep on framework o/w topicality style arguments which re-frame the resolution and the purpose of competitive debate engagements.

 

In terms of topicality...it seems like you're looking at:

a) extra-topicality (you deal with more than those living in poverty)

B) you are functionally a decrease in existing social services (assuming education is a social service)

c) probably some hidden FX topicality violation (on the extra-topicality argument)

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major question I have is what do they mean by banning education. Is is fiat based or critical? If they read this author named Paulo Friere, then they've got his literature all wrong. He says that the Banking model of education (i.e. teachers teaching kids in a class room) is wrong because kids aren't going out into the world and learning things for themselves. If they're plan is fiat based, then, say that they can't fiat that all those kids will go out into the world and discover things for themselves. Most of them will probably play video games. As for going against a critical aff, I'm not quiet sure, just listen to Nathan.

 

Also, if it is FIAT based, then say the USFG has no control over private schools and kids will still go to school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paulo Friere doesn't hate education

 

true, but most performance teams would probably argue he hates the process, nature, and style of education that traditional policy debate fosters.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through more of the literature, I've decided to take this in a new direction. Instead of banning education, the aff looks like it will be more of a massive reform of education to focus on vocational methods and the Socratic method to more efficiently provide education to students.

 

Do any of you have thoughts on the Socratic method? I've actually managed to find a treasure trove of evidence on how much better it is than the current methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other day in class my partner and I got into discussion about cutting a kritikal aff about how education leads to abuse and abused people have no value to life, and therefore it would be the ultimate social service to get rid of the education system altogether. If someone made topicality or theory arguments and put education as the voter, we'd say that that is good, because education is bad, etc.

 

How feasible is this, and where would I even start to look if I wanted to cut this case?

 

Just run fight club. Impact turn the education we gain from a debate system epistemologically rooted in commodification and productivity.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
true, but most performance teams would probably argue he hates the process, nature, and style of education that traditional policy debate fosters.

 

Alot of critical teams that run friere talk about the black aesthetic and friere would reject this moore than the status quo. Friere got in a huge argument at a lecture in Chicago, when people were talking about how education is racial, Friere want to focus on the similarities of people. He presents the idea of what he calls "unity in diversity" because he feels the only way the opressed can get out of being oppressed is to fight with other members of the opressed, because he thinks liberation is a human struggle. He also believes that "the real evil is not the expository lesson- in the explanation given by the teacher. this is not what i have criticized as a kind of banking. i have criticized......... that type of educator-educand relationship in which he/she regards himself or herself as the educands sole teacher....." to make the educand be considered as a pure recipient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alot of critical teams that run friere talk about the black aesthetic and friere would reject this moore than the status quo. Friere got in a huge argument at a lecture in Chicago, when people were talking about how education is racial, Friere want to focus on the similarities of people. He presents the idea of what he calls "unity in diversity" because he feels the only way the opressed can get out of being oppressed is to fight with other members of the opressed, because he thinks liberation is a human struggle. He also believes that "the real evil is not the expository lesson- in the explanation given by the teacher. this is not what i have criticized as a kind of banking. i have criticized......... that type of educator-educand relationship in which he/she regards himself or herself as the educands sole teacher....." to make the educand be considered as a pure recipient.

 

most debate arguments are bastardizations of their authors original argument. i'm not talking about what freire would believe in reality, but how debaters argue in a round.

black aesthetic doesn't contradict what i said...i dont know are you trying to make a point or just explaining something?

 

if you continue reading (from the passage above):

This is the crilicism I have made, and still make. The question now is: will every "expository classroom." as ihcy arc called, be this? I think not. I deny it. There are expository classrooms in which this is indeed attcmped: pure transferrals of the teacher's accumulated knowledge to the students. These are vertical classrooms, in which the teacher, in a spirit of authoritarianism, attempts the impossible, from the viewpoint of theory of knowledge: to transfer knowledge.

There is another kind oi classroom, in which, while appearing not to effect the transfer of content, also cancels or hinders the cducand's ability to do critical thinking. Thai is, there are classrooms that sound much more like children's songs than like genuine challenges. They house the expositions that "tame" cdueands. or 'lull them to sleep"—where, on the one side, the students are lulled to sleep by the teacher's pretentious, high-sounding words, and on the other, the teacher likewise doing a parcel of self-babying. But there is a third position, which 1 regard as profoundly valid: that in which the teacher makes a little presentation of the subject and then the group of students joins with the teacher in an analysis precisely of that presentation. In this fashion, in the little introductory exposition, the teacher challenges the students, who there*upon question themselves and question the teacher, and thereby share in plumbing the depths of, developing, the initial exposition. This kind of work may in no wise be regarded as negative, as traditional schooling in the pejorative sense.

 

 

 

...this seems like a pretty good link to traditional policy debate.

 

many performance teams (i've had brenda montes as a lab leader at michigan) criticize the faith and memorization of policy debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"black aesthetic doesn't contradict what i said...i dont know are you trying to make a point or just explaining something? "

 

Yea i know tha you havent contradicted yourself, i was just showing debates misuse of Freire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he does believe we can still have traditional policy debate as long as we continually question it, although he wouldn't want that. (from the end of that chapter, after he goes on his questioning rant)

Edited by Mr. T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zhou:

 

What is the faith and memorization of policy debate?

 

And...not as important....how do you stand outside that (or rather..how can this aff be the alternative)?

 

Just curious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zhou:

 

What is the faith and memorization of policy debate?

 

And...not as important....how do you stand outside that (or rather..how can this aff be the alternative)?

 

Just curious...

 

it's our reliance on evidence. whoever has the most evidence wins. whoever has the evidence from the most qualified sources wins. there are certain structures for how to debate -- policy debate rewards teams who can field mass squads, with large amounts of coaches to do intensive and specific research. the very way we speak in debate -- not just speed -- but the actual format favors a very white culture which minorities cannot connect with.

 

 

as for how can this aff be alternative -- i'm not a performance debater. i've hit performance teams and heard them, mostly they claim their advocacy as a project within debate to make it more inclusive. this involves an alternative mode of presentation that does not rely heavily (but still does) on evidence, and performance. usually also de-emphasizes line-by-line (but does not mean not responding to arguments).

 

also involves framing the ballot as a way of affirming their project.

 

its not a questioning of standing "outside" policy debate, but reforming it.

 

 

btw, its zhao, not zhou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the actual format favors a very white culture which minorities cannot connect with.

Proof? I hear this claim all the time, but never see any warrants behind it.

 

And don't say that flowing is Eurocentric...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proof? I hear this claim all the time, but never see any warrants behind it.

 

And don't say that flowing is Eurocentric...

 

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html

 

 

http://opencaselist08.wikispaces.com/Towson+08

 

towson's 1ac when they won ceda (btw, mills refers to the racial contract if you're interested in reading more) from a different thread

 

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.”

Edited by jz01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A/T EDUCATION

Schopenhauer in 1904 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

The human intellect is said to be so constituted that _general ideas_

arise by abstraction from _particular observations_, and therefore

come after them in point of time. If this is what actually occurs, as

happens in the case of a man who has to depend solely upon his own

experience for what he learns--who has no teacher and no book,--such

a man knows quite well which of his particular observations belong to

and are represented by each of his general ideas. He has a perfect

acquaintance with both sides of his experience, and accordingly, he

treats everything that comes in his way from a right standpoint. This

might be called the _natural_ method of education.

Contrarily, the _artificial_ method is to hear what other people say,

to learn and to read, and so to get your head crammed full of general

ideas before you have any sort of extended acquaintance with the world

as it is, and as you may see it for yourself. You will be told that

the particular observations which go to make these general ideas will

come to you later on in the course of experience; but until that time

arrives, you apply your general ideas wrongly, you judge men and

things from a wrong standpoint, you see them in a wrong light, and

treat them in a wrong way. So it is that education perverts the mind.

 

A/T EDUCATION AND LINK TO FRAMEWORK

Schopenhauer in 1904 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

It follows that an attempt should be made to find out the strictly

natural course of knowledge, so that education may proceed

methodically by keeping to it; and that children may become acquainted

with the ways of the world, without getting wrong ideas into their

heads, which very often cannot be got out again. If this plan were

adopted, special care would have to be taken to prevent children

from using words without clearly understanding their meaning and

application. The fatal tendency to be satisfied with words instead of

trying to understand things--to learn phrases by heart, so that

they may prove a refuge in time of need, exists, as a rule, even in

children; and the tendency lasts on into manhood, making the knowledge

of many learned persons to consist in mere verbiage.

 

 

 

ANY SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE ONLY INVITES CHARLATANS WHO DESTROY IT

Schopenhauer in 1904 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

The Cathedral in Mayence is so shut in by the houses that are built

round about it, that there is no one spot from which you can see it

as a whole. This is symbolic of everything great or beautiful in the

world. It ought to exist for its own sake alone, but before very long

it is misused to serve alien ends. People come from all directions

wanting to find in it support and maintenance for themselves; they

stand in the way and spoil its effect. To be sure, there is nothing

surprising in this, for in a world of need and imperfection everything

is seized upon which can be used to satisfy want. Nothing is exempt

from this service, no, not even those very things which arise only

when need and want are for a moment lost sight of--the beautiful and

the true, sought for their own sakes.

This is especially illustrated and corroborated in the case of

institutions--whether great or small, wealthy or poor, founded, no

matter in what century or in what land, to maintain and advance human

knowledge, and generally to afford help to those intellectual efforts

which ennoble the race. Wherever these institutions may be, it is not

long before people sneak up to them under the pretence of wishing to

further those special ends, while they are really led on by the desire

to secure the emoluments which have been left for their furtherance,

and thus to satisfy certain coarse and brutal instincts of their own.

Thus it is that we come to have so many charlatans in every branch

of knowledge. The charlatan takes very different shapes according

to circumstances; but at bottom he is a man who cares nothing about

knowledge for its own sake, and only strives to gain the semblance

of it that he may use it for his own personal ends, which are always

selfish and material.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what about debate is inherently white/racist.

 

The main proof for why debate is white/racist that you gave seems to be

 

1) some african americans think so

 

2) some former debaters think so

 

3) debate prefers certain methods

 

4) white people made debate

 

Am I misreading this?

 

I really don't understand why any of those mean that debate is white/racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what about debate is inherently white/racist.

 

The main proof for why debate is white/racist that you gave seems to be

 

1) some african americans think so

 

2) some former debaters think so

 

3) debate prefers certain methods

 

4) white people made debate

 

Am I misreading this?

 

I really don't understand why any of those mean that debate is white/racist.

 

yeah, you're pretty much exaggerating and understating the evidence.

 

but tell me, what constitutes proof in your eyes?

 

also, i dont think i ever said debate was racist (if i did, i mispoke). i said its exclusionary. there is a difference.

Edited by jz01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is fight club?

 

the number 1 rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club

 

the number 2 rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other day in class my partner and I got into discussion about cutting a kritikal aff about how education leads to abuse and abused people have no value to life, and therefore it would be the ultimate social service to get rid of the education system altogether. If someone made topicality or theory arguments and put education as the voter, we'd say that that is good, because education is bad, etc.

 

How feasible is this, and where would I even start to look if I wanted to cut this case?

thats cute but ineffective and not topical.

Your creating a New Social Service and your not Increasing.

You lose on T.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...