Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
teleportmassive

Neg Strat For Eos Racism

Recommended Posts

Extra T on the mindset of solving racism, maybe discourse isn't topical, hit them on solvency of EOS then have a CP that solves warming, specing that you approach it in the racial mindset they talk about. Maybe read politics with something that can impact to racism (maybe war, or econ collapse), proving they only make problem worse? Be sure to hit them on their last card about it not being an issue of solvency, because that card implies that as long as you talk about something you should win the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote an elaborate post that got deleted -.- . Kappler is really good, Counter-Ks [of race] work. Ardent/Science K works well. Word PICs are a yes. Any CP that solves warming (except private) with any NB (especially one that turns racism) will win considering there is virtually no solid solvency advocate. Hit them hard on solvency and internals. If you have DAs that turn racism, then you can use that to answer their FW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys... thanks for giving us what we need blocks to :)

 

i can tell you what we have lost on on the aff:

cap k (multiple times)

social justice trade off da (solves race through discourse)

fem k

biopower k

da ow (extinction 1st, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, any K that has a link using identity politics. Intersectionality, Cap, etc., they all work especially well. Cap works well because (as I'm sure the previous user experienced) the answers are usually awful or incredibly power tagged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This affirmative doesn't make a lot of sense. The connection between distrust of science and racism is going to be tenuous at best. More problematic though, is the fact that implementing policies to solve global warming obviously does nothing to change racist mindsets. The plan doesn't stop racism, it doesn't even mitigate it. It counters one instances of politics that has only a slight connection to race. Their affirmative is relevant to race, but only insofar as it helps minorities, it does nothing against racism itself.

 

I think you can get away with essentially ignoring all the arguments about how climate denial is racist. Point out the obvious issue that you don't need to defend all of the views of climate denialists, and that your authors specifically aren't utilizing racist claims. I would also read a card from Butler at the beginning of precarious life which talks about how when we label the views of certain political positions and then refuse to listen to those positions we engage in something that is bad, somewhere in between bigotry and dehumanization because we fail to consider that perhaps those views are correct. You're not arguing that racists should be tolerated, you're arguing that your connection to racism is nonexistent and their attempt to portray climate related issues as racist is extremely problematic. It's similar to a K of ad homs, really, and if you looked at ad hom related issues (perhaps specific to climate science? and perhaps Feyerabrand will be relevant?) you could probably expand Butler's argument a lot and make it an extremely viable strategy.

 

The affirmative comes pretty close to saying "we win because we challenge racist mindsets". There's no articulated connection between the plan text and stopping global warming, they gain almost all of their advantages through discourse. I didn't see any cards in that outline that talked about why EOS will solve warming, in my opinion it's pretty doubtful. This is basically a quintessential case where framework will work well. At the point where their advocacy is "racism is bad and X is racist", you have almost no good ground except framework. Point that out to the judge, and read framework. Make them defend the consequences of their plan, read some DAs, etc. It's much easier to indict racists than to help minorities, but only one of those actually does anything useful.

 

We should have actual solutions to warming prepared, we shouldn't just throw ad homs at climate denialists and hope that they'll stop and that warming will go away. Many of the proposed solutions to warming won't work, if they care about actually doing something which will help minorities then they should engage the solvency debate much more than they currently are doing. Otherwise the new policy might even be worse for minorities or racism (plan: blockade Chinese energy supplies, something similar, you get the idea).

 

I also don't think they address racism very well even through their discourse. They're essentially preaching to the choir by doing this through the debate format. If they really want to change those mindsets they should be getting out into the community and talking to conservatives or moderates and explaining the connections they've found between racism and warming. This type of activism/different forum model would serve as a good counter interpretation on framework that would solve their offense (probably more efficiently) while allowing for you to use the generic framework arguments of fairness and education as net benefits against what they're doing. It's arguably even mutually exclusive because of time tradeoffs (debate takes lots of time).

 

Read util good claims, in case they try to say that USFG has stronger obligations to minorities.

 

And agent or other generic CPs can work well against these types of affirmatives, provided that you can answer the ethics arguments, which IMHO are usually pretty bad.

 

No offense to that team. I'm not trying to trash what they're doing, and I'm generally a big supporter of project affirmatives.

At the same time, I think arguing against project affirmatives is important too. I kind of disagree with this one, but I don't mean to be rude or anything.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Science is racist

2) Satelittes increase racist perceptions

3) The EPA would coopt. Their racist too. David Bullard Eco-racism. [not a great answer, but perhaps there is something there]--these cards are a dime a dozen. Although--they could frame this as inevitable--and win try or die versus.

4) Investing in space tradesoff with poverty. You might be able to frame this as a focus tradeoff more than just a

5) Photography = bad awareness/Satelitte Data = bad awareness = abstraction.

6) Technology as a way of knowing = racist

7) The law as a way of knowing = racist

8) Double-bind--they must defend the instrumental affirmation or at least their statement to have an advocacy. Not defending your statement is not an advocacy--thats hollow and a lie. (think of an example--this is a pretty straight forward idea). Start this in cross ex...do you defend the state or not. Your statement says you do.

9) Bobertz. (I don't think this links, but you might be able to spin a link--I doubt it)

10) Storytelling K--really interesting K. I forget if it links. (this is a K of environmental crisis thats pretty nuanced--the argument is all in one article)

11) Systems theory--they are talking about linear relationships. (complexity theory)

12) Perhaps normativity or Ks of ethics--this has a bit of tension with the rest of the strategy. Realize norm can be a K of ethics, of law, and of bureaucracies.

 

Counterplan to use any other method that doesn't link to your K of their aff.

 

One question....whats the evidence that awareness of racism leads to change or that awareness of warming leads to change?

 

9 through 11 are on Lexis-Nexis Law Review.

 

Watch out....they are going to say denialism itself is racist--thats going to be hard to get around unless you:

1) answer it on face

2) prove how they contribute to denialism (pretty hard to do)

3) co-opt it (aka counterplan or create an alt. to solve it)

 

You should be able to spin a link to Nayer based on the advocacy of technology & the crisis images of the environmental crisis.

 

Curious how they leverage these two pieces of evidence--both seem like they could be cleverly leveraged versus the K. Bardnt seems to provide nuance to explain how they get rid of existing institutional racism.....but they do that....only by adding on more institutional racism.

 

Contention 1 – The Inconvenient Truth

The Racial Contract is the un-named political system that governs status-quo politics. We pass policies to satisfy a “social contract†that is inherently racist. The omission of any mention of this system is not accidental but a coordinated condition of the system.

Mills Associate Prof of Philosophy @ U Illinois, Chicago 1997

Charles-; The Racial Contract

 

Nationally, within these racial polities, ….. and intracontinental racial exploitation.

Racism can be expressed with a violent Fist or a Velvet glove. Contemporary Racism has slipped on the velvet glove, invoking a devastating power of illusion by focusing merely on individual bigotry leaving untouched society’s racist systems and institutions.

BARDNTDirector of Crossroads, a non profit Organization 1991

Joseph-ordained minister; “Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge

to White America; p.31-33

Racism can be expressed with an iron ….. degree that we are able to see this power at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, a Foucalt K that is focused on a science link (kinda what nathan debate was getting at) would prolly be pretty effective, and you could access a lot of turns case arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ooooh, a Foucalt K that is focused on a science link (kinda what nathan debate was getting at) would prolly be pretty effective, and you could access a lot of turns case arguments.

 

Frontier K makes these arguments and I believe has some racism-type arguments. Even if you just get to otherization. Or perhaps you could combine the two arguments.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...