Jump to content
AnthroAff

K Aff Ideas

Recommended Posts

I was thinking an engagement with latin america where you state straight up problems they have (sex trafficking, drug cartels, poverty). Then defend from your own perspective to increase engagement with them through the debate space. That was my idea.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking an engagement with latin america where you state straight up problems they have (sex trafficking, drug cartels, poverty). Then defend from your own perspective to increase engagement with them through the debate space. That was my idea.

 

1) Dialog or debate

2) Narratives/storytelling

3) Anthropology/Ethnography

 

I think one external impact to this is radical democracy.  Minorities historically get locked out of the halls of power.  The aff is one way to engage the assumptions & ideology of oppressive institutions.

 

The radical democracy argument can be used to answer Ks theoretically.  Perhaps one where it "solves" for the alt.  Or makes the aff the prerequisite for most of the alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea; does anyone have specific literature to suggest for something like that? Especially the radical democracy and pedagogical type stuff, about personally challenging powerful structures or "bad things" like specific problems, or like neoliberalism/capitalism etc.? I feel like I'm not being clear but I'm not sure how else to articulate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For radical democracy and critical pedagogy I would suggest Henry Giroux and in then Paulo Freire.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for the radical democraxy idea, is there any way that we could still be defending a topical plan, instead of "affirming the resolution" through a narrative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want to read a topical plan then just read a topical aff... I'm not sure what the point of radical democracy would really be without a non-governmental approach. From what I read of Giroux's new book (you should check it out, the first chapter was released online) as well as just my general understanding of kritikal affirmatives, you'd be better off with a micropolitical approach. I could definitely be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think K affs regarding things like drug trafficking walk a fine in terms of the discourse they use and the policies they represent. For instance, the one about latin american drug dealers in local communities is incredibly racist (not sure if it was meant as a joke or not). And even though the drug lords have an almost authoritative control over the people, I think there are a lot of underlying assumptions to the debate that make a kritikal drug trade aff something to be careful or not.

 

I have my own ideas for K affs on the topic (some of which I'd rather not share ;D ). But I think a lot of the topical K affs will deal with Otherization (I can see the Cuba aff bearing similarities to the kritikal Bering Straits aff from this year), Neoliberalism, Structural Violence, and probably a Bataillean general economy aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an aff to open the border would be pretty good. The plan text would just be effects topical at worst. Then you can probably read about 6 minutes of why borders are bad. The T debate probably wouldn't be an issue if you know how to read a K aff. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I think an aff to open the border would be pretty good. The plan text would just be effects topical at worst. Then you can probably read about 6 minutes of why borders are bad. The T debate probably wouldn't be an issue if you know how to read a K aff.

Pretty extra-topical, but that may be the point. You could claim to undermine borders toward a particular country....and that might work. Cuba comes to mind.

 

I kind of think dialog, however would be a mechanism to get there (see the radical democracy argument/discussion above).

 

Under this you get to claim 2 methods to solvency. Sure they could exclude one, but saying "discussions bad" is pretty difficult ground to be on. If they exclude the other part.....the open border or at least more open border....they would potentially even shut down some of the discussion. I think there is synergistic solvency from leveraging BOTH mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want to read a topical plan then just read a topical aff... I'm not sure what the point of radical democracy would really be without a non-governmental approach. From what I read of Giroux's new book (you should check it out, the first chapter was released online) as well as just my general understanding of kritikal affirmatives, you'd be better off with a micropolitical approach. I could definitely be wrong though.

What's the link I have read two other Giroux books his work his amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty extra-topical, but that may be the point. You could claim to undermine borders toward a particular country....and that might work. Cuba comes to mind.

I kind of think dialog, however would be a mechanism to get there (see the radical democracy argument/discussion above).

Under this you get to claim 2 methods to solvency. Sure they could exclude one, but saying "discussions bad" is pretty difficult ground to be on. If they exclude the other part.....the open border or at least more open border....they would potentially even shut down some of the discussion. I think there is synergistic solvency from leveraging BOTH mechanisms.

 

 

Limits bad, fiat's not real, bye bye F/W and T. But I was more thinking of the Mexican border. That way you can actually engage the T debate and at least be reasonably tied to the topic. I think that this could even be read as a policy aff. Advantages that come to mind are economy (jobs) and oil/ natural gas for sure. I think that you have a good case for relations advantages as well since the border is the epitome of illegal immigration and any resemblance of a strained relationship stems mainly from there. Idk, you can do a lot with it but I think it would be better as a K aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a culture K that just says intrusion forces cultures to blend, and this blend diminishes sexism, racism etc.? Just make blocks for someone saying that a culture will dominate the others and force them to "join or be destroyed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's kind of funny noticing the difference between this thread and the thread about the take over Venezuela aff even though though the two are interestingly similar.

 

I feel like this aff is a huge link into empire, gift and neoliberalism Ks, and at most an Agamben K. Opening up our borders really just seems like opening up their borders.

 

FW and T will require more nuanced answers then 'limits bad and fiat not real', especially when you are actually a fiated plan. Although if this was an entirely non-topical aff focused on criticizing borders my answer would be something like "they attempt to construct the borders of debate by excluding frameworks 'alien' to their own"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good aff would be to provide healthcare to one of the countries. It defends topical action but has great ground for kritikal advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good aff would be to provide healthcare to one of the countries. It defends topical action but has great ground for kritikal advantages.

And tons of back up from the healthcare topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some ideas for T on the Borders aff. I really like the idea, so I've been doing a little work on maybe construction a rudimentary one.

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. 

 

Economic: Justified in terms of profitability.

engagement: a pledge; an obligation or agreement

'profitability' would be the advantages, obviously

 

or: Used to indicate uncertainty or indefiniteness

borders aff is the literal embodiment of the resolution because it is allowing the US to be indefinite (maybe even the world if spillover is claimable); there would be no borders so we wouldn't have any sorts of limitations

 

 

 

The construction of the nation state defines ontological fulfillment in terms of violent destruction of alterity. Only through the violent destruction of the Other is it possible for the state to sustain itself and for the individual within the state to have a meaningful identity and existence. The only reason that wars and identity based violence such as genocide occur is due to this ontological motivation for the destruction of the Other.

Shapiro 97

(Michael J. Shapiro, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, Violent Cartographies.P 17-20) DF

 

Rather than being enslaved by the object, one's confrontations with alterity are aimed at self-recognition, which is a nonbiological desire.16 The Hegelian enemy, as an object of desire, is therefore an opportunity for the self-affirmation of the state body, an essential moment in the production of its coherence through a recognition of its autonomy and freedom. The Hegelian ontological impetus toward war is exemplary. Hegel is both instructive about the significance of identity attachments and an exemplar of one committed to the kind of collective identity coherence that translates as a commitment to a strong nationalism. Therefore, rather than allowing Hegel to merely instruct as though he provides a detached philosophical stance, we can also treat his commitment as a datum and seek to discern the pervasiveness of his form of desire; we can learn as much from what he manifests as from the objects of attention in his writing. Allowing Hegel an exemplary role, we can locate his kind of attachment to war in a more general cultural production of antagonism in which enemy/Others become acceptable—indeed, desirable—targets of violence for ontological rather than merely utilitarian reasons. Antagonistic Others serve as objects to perpetuate the identity of those who locate them as oppositional. This is the case for individuals as well as for collectivities such as peoples, nations, and states. Taking instruction from the broad outlines of this Hegelian model, Edward Said notes that the construction of identity requires an oppositional Other, for the struggles between peoples have involved contention over "historical and social meaning" as much as over territorial control.17 In the case of war, the use of the oppositional Other involves a more intense and higherstakes identity confrontation. But in the case of the modern state, this dimension of the antagonism is often difficult to discern because it tends to be over coded with strategic rationales. The prevailing orientations toward the study of war in the social sciences rarely attempt such a discernment, despite how pervasive ontological commitments are at various levels of social engagement, up to and including warfare. The ontological interests that Hegel both identified and expressed are nevertheless manifested in contemporary state violence. The modern state's warfare serves not only to maintain strategic interests, which are expressed in official discourses, but also to reproduce or maintain the coherence of the body politic as a whole. Enemy/ Others in the case of warfare, as in the case of less violent forms of self- Other confrontation, are to be immobilized, dominated, or destroyed in the interest of the constitution of the national self. Although the analysis that follows departs in important respects from the Hegelian construction of the ontological interests involved in the confrontation of warring bodies, the focus is nevertheless inspired by the Hegelian construction of desire as an ontological rather than a wholly strategically driven phenomenon. If we entertain the suspicion that an important impetus in modern warfare, in the case of state-dominated societies as well as in others, is both the individual and national body's striving toward unity and coherence, there must be a way to subject this suspicion to a provisional historical test 

 

in this card, 'the Other' is basically the borders keeping out the 'alterity' which are those outside of the united states

this can answer (and punish) extra-t by saying that by even bringing up extra T they are basically forcing a violent ontology into the round by attempting to limit the affirmative specifically to three countries

framework for this card to work would be the team that presents the least violent ontology into the round, obviously

 

please be nice if you think this post is stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please be nice if you think this post is stupid

 

I don't think it's stupid, but I'm having a hard time interpreting the Shapiro card in the way it's tagged.

 

First, Shapiro claims that the desire to maintain an individual identity is the aim of confrontations with alterity, but he doesn't explain why this claim is true, it's just a story that he tells that sounds good. The claim that people define their identity in opposition to others is well supported in psychological literature, but Shapiro sort of just makes an assertion. At the very end of the card, Shapiro claims he'll use history to test his theory, but whatever follows is missing from the text, which seems like a big mistake.

 

Second, more importantly, when Shapiro says that 

 

 Allowing Hegel an exemplary role, we can locate his kind of attachment to war in a more general cultural production of antagonism in which enemy/Others become acceptable—indeed, desirable—targets of violence for ontological rather than merely utilitarian reasons. Antagonistic Others serve as objects to perpetuate the identity of those who locate them as oppositional. This is the case for individuals as well as for collectivities such as peoples, nations, and states. Taking instruction from the broad outlines of this Hegelian model, Edward Said notes that the construction of identity requires an oppositional Other, for the struggles between peoples have involved contention over "historical and social meaning" as much as over territorial control.17 In the case of war, the use of the oppositional Other involves a more intense and higherstakes identity confrontation. But in the case of the modern state, this dimension of the antagonism is often difficult to discern because it tends to be over coded with strategic rationales. The prevailing orientations toward the study of war in the social sciences rarely attempt such a discernment, despite how pervasive ontological commitments are at various levels of social engagement, up to and including warfare. The ontological interests that Hegel both identified and expressed are nevertheless manifested in contemporary state violence. The modern state's warfare serves not only to maintain strategic interests, which are expressed in official discourses, but also to reproduce or maintain the coherence of the body politic as a whole.

 

it doesn't seem to me that he's arguing that ontological coherency should be viewed as primary. It seems to me that he's arguing that it's difficult to tell utilitarian strategic motives apart from ontological ones, because there's a strategic incentive for governments to create the desire for ontological coherence. Meaning, this card doesn't claim that the desire for ontological coherency is the only cause of war, because it acknowledges that the desire to go to war is what gives rise to these notions of ontological coherence. Causality goes both ways, wars happen for many reasons other than ontological divisions, although those do make it easier to go to war. I think that Shapiro's work is being misinterpreted by whoever initially tagged this card.

 

There's the possibility that I'm misreading the phrase "But in the case of the modern state, this dimension of the antagonism is often difficult to discern because it tends to be over coded with strategic rationales."   though. That phrase is confusing me. I can't tell whether he means that the strategic rationales are false, or that they're true but they mingle with the ontological rationales so they're difficult to separate. I think he's claiming the second but I can't tell for sure.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please be nice if you think this post is stupid

Aw man, have some faith! I think you're on the right track.

 

That definition for "economic" could work but it opens the door to some weird affs since it's about whether or not something is "Justified" in terms of profitability - aka, anything with an econ advantage - aka, almost anything.

 

Also instead of defining "or" to your gain (which your qualification is kinda still short-circuited by the grammar of the sentence), just specify Mexico, since they're the only topical nation we have a border with.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think it's stupid, but I'm having a hard time interpreting the Shapiro card in the way it's tagged.

 

First, Shapiro claims that the desire to maintain an individual identity is the aim of confrontations with alterity, but he doesn't explain why this claim is true, it's just a story that he tells that sounds good. The claim that people define their identity in opposition to others is well supported in psychological literature, but Shapiro sort of just makes an assertion. At the very end of the card, Shapiro claims he'll use history to test his theory, but whatever follows is missing from the text, which seems like a big mistake.

 

Second, more importantly, when Shapiro says that 

 

 

it doesn't seem to me that he's arguing that ontological coherency should be viewed as primary. It seems to me that he's arguing that it's difficult to tell utilitarian strategic motives apart from ontological ones, because there's a strategic incentive for governments to create the desire for ontological coherence. Meaning, this card doesn't claim that the desire for ontological coherency is the only cause of war, because it acknowledges that the desire to go to war is what gives rise to these notions of ontological coherence. Causality goes both ways, wars happen for many reasons other than ontological divisions, although those do make it easier to go to war. I think that Shapiro's work is being misinterpreted by whoever initially tagged this card.

 

There's the possibility that I'm misreading the phrase "But in the case of the modern state, this dimension of the antagonism is often difficult to discern because it tends to be over coded with strategic rationales."   though. That phrase is confusing me. I can't tell whether he means that the strategic rationales are false, or that they're true but they mingle with the ontological rationales so they're difficult to separate. I think he's claiming the second but I can't tell for sure.

 

thanks for the input! at the moment i'm just taking cards by the handful from random borders Ks and ontology-based negs/affs and trying to get together something that makes a somewhat-coherent string of cards linking together a possible aff

i don't know a lot about k lit, either, so this was really helpful

 

Aw man, have some faith! I think you're on the right track.

 

That definition for "economic" could work but it opens the door to some weird affs since it's about whether or not something is "Justified" in terms of profitability - aka, anything with an econ advantage - aka, almost anything.

 

Also instead of defining "or" to your gain (which your qualification is kinda still short-circuited by the grammar of the sentence), just specify Mexico, since they're the only topical nation we have a border with.

 

first part is true, but i think the interp of economic could be defended well enough to at least win most T clashes

and  my only issue with specifying mexico is if we open our borders exclusively to mexico the aff itself is demolished because we still have borders with other places... not sure how to defend against that

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Your underlining is very inefficient. Try to slim it down.
2. Your tags are a bit confusing. They don't fit very well together. I mean, it's fine while reading them, but hearing them spread would be a different matter.
3. I can't pin down why, but I don't like your case very much. I think it's partly because there's a lot more specific literature for you to engage than just the generic literature about borders. Talking in more detail about why US-Latin American borders are bad would be a good idea. Maybe discuss their history, or something. I don't know. The affirmative seems very abstract, and I don't like that very much. This isn't a problem, as long as you keep reading through the literature this summer and develop your affirmative much further.
4. Obviously topicality is a problem, but I assume you're working on that one.

My "constructive" criticism usually makes me sound like a jerk, sorry. I think your affirmative has a lot of good potential, and I'm focusing on what's wrong with it because that's what makes it easier for me to help improve the concept. I don't hate it or anything, I actually think your approach to the topic is a good one, so don't feel upset.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Causality goes both ways, wars happen for many reasons other than ontological divisions, although those do make it easier to go to war. 

 

Boom.

 

Plus, unless you've got a scenario specific internal you don't have a takeout to their internal access to their impact.  You kinda have one.  Borders might have caused the war, because of course they've caused every war in history.

I think border identities are complex issues....and the reason why someone wants to hold onto say Ireland/Ireland-ness/Self-ness/Identity are (perhaps) equally complex.

 

It seems that attatching the argument to Hegel only seems to make it more difficult for the alternative to actually solve.  It becomes part of human identity (particularly over time or over the ages)--not just our contingent identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom.

 

Plus, unless you've got a scenario specific internal you don't have a takeout to their internal access to their impact.  You kinda have one.  Borders might have caused the war, because of course they've caused every war in history.

I think border identities are complex issues....and the reason why someone wants to hold onto say Ireland/Ireland-ness/Self-ness/Identity are (perhaps) equally complex.

 

It seems that attatching the argument to Hegel only seems to make it more difficult for the alternative to actually solve.  It becomes part of human identity (particularly over time or over the ages)--not just our contingent identity.

 

 

but the point isn't like, the fact you like your identity, it's that people right now because of the borders themselves people see your identity as bad

you can be from ireland or mexico and be PROUD of it but because of the borders and the whole 'american-ness' people will see you as less than a person or as inferior

do i need to expand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...