Jump to content
swagondeck

Strat Help?

Recommended Posts

so i'm going to a tourney this weekend, and it looks like the most successful team there is running this... http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Omaha+Westside+%28NE%29+-+Lia+Hagen+and+Peyton+Wells

Our aff straight turns their counter-advocacy stuff, but any suggestions if we hit them on neg? (while they're aff)

 

I have a 1nc prepped now, but i'm wondering how to make it better. It's a pretty basic strat but my partner is 2n.

 

Current 1nc is:

Framework (i know....)

Zizek cap

anthro

 

Case: 

baudrillard shadow boxing

baudrillard strategic passivity (ive read some Baudrillard, not a clueless tool reading K stuff)

Civil disobedience stuff (their asking for the ballot is bad and contradictory)

Friere critical constructivism (ROB)

bunch of analytics about their aff... there's lots of inconsistencies/problems that are pretty obvious.

 

Any suggestions? I know a good amount of K stuff (for a novice) but my partner isn't that big on research outside of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the resolution requires them to defend a structure and a mechanism.  Thats a very minimalist responsibility.

 

I think the failure to do is warrants a negative ballot.  This is a negative argument.  This is tantamount to running a counterplan on the affirmative.

 

I think the failure to do so is a cop out.  

 

If they say they get to "queer" the rules.  You should "queer" the rules or norms of debate back.

 

Your best bet may be finding out how even queer/gay groups need to form coalitions.  They can't always be breaking the rules.  Queers need norms.   Anytime they say "theory" or say claim priority or--it seems rational that queer theory would dictate that can and should be queered.  

 

Everything they read to critique you.....is a rationale to vote negative.  Its stuff they should be defending in the first place.

 

Also, you might want to demonstrate multiple ways they could:

1. represent queer(s)

2. do their project in a topical way

 

Here are some options:

  • There are a number of homelessness or poverty specific Ks that you could run.  These are the most specific to what they do. 
  • Savior-Victim-Savage as a test of their meeting the resolution 
  • Transportation bad K as a test of their meeting the resolution
  • Normativity (Schlag)
  • Queer narratives bad (they may only be metaphorical narratives....so this may be a no go).
  • Queer theory (various approaches)
  • Speaking for others bad (this is all from one article).
  • Something along the lines of Nayar.  

Think about how consistent any of this is with your current strategy.  I wouldn't run any of it off-case.

 

Other alternatives might be:

1. doing a better job of representing homeless/poverty/queer

2. doing a better job of queering & challenging

 

Ultimately, pre-write your 2nc stuff if possible.  I think capitalism may be your best bet.  But you have to win offense versus queer theory perhaps--as being a singular focus.  I would go for:

 

1. capitalism = poverty

2. capitalism = hurts minorities (curious if this links to ID politics bad links).  I don't think so because you are talking about broad coalitions.

 

Both of which turn the case.

 

I think you need specific examples about how queer politics is coopted by capitalism.  

 

Hyper-identity focus causes us to neglect the broader cause of anti-capitalism or to get distracted from changing the system of capitalism  (their perm probably can solve the 2nd part--but any risk they would).  The problem is they will probably say they queer identity theory--or that under their system its subject to constant critique.  However, in my opinion--their 1ac shows no real evidence of that.  Its presents a pretty singular vision of what life in that situation is like.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

counternarrative of the aff's failure to include people of color and their plights, the aff merely blankets them and says "oppressed" people in general but specifies within queer boundaries, which basically eliminates the possibilty of PoC fighting for their rights within the room

best part is you don't have to be a poc to argue this; use cards of white privilege to say that you can use your privilege for positivity, ex;

 

their ROTB basically says "if ur not queer gtfo"

 

 

The act of deciding who gets the right to speak stifles debate and dehumanizes those that it deems unworthy of participation.  The terminal impact of this type of thought is either the end of debate or debate robbed of its educational potential.

 

Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Chapter 1, educator and director of the Department of Cultural Extension of Recife University,1970

 

and u can go with your privilege; they don't acknowledge that they are white(?) or have other areas of privilege so therefore they can't even discuss oppression without acknowledging their privileged status

 

WE BEGIN WITH THE NOTION OF THE LUXURY OF OBLIVIOUSNESS. THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS CHOSEN TO TELL THE STORIES OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM BUT REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OWN PRIVILEGED STATUS IN SOCIETY. ROBERT JENSEN ONCE SAID THE ULTAMITE PRIVILEGE IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE PRIVILEGE, BUT IGNORE WHAT IT MEANS, IE THE LUXURY OF OBLIVIOUSNESS. 

 

AND THE IDEA THAT WE CAN DISCUSS OPPRESSION WITHOUT RECOGNIZING OUR OWN SOCIETAL PRIVILEGE SKEWS OUR NOTION OF THE OPPRESSED AND PERPETUATES SYSTEMS OF DOMINATION. THIS LUXURY OF OBLIVIOUSNESS ALSO FUNCTIONS AS AN INSTANCE OF ONTOLOGY THE AFFIRMATIVE CHOOSES TO FORGET, WHICH TURNS THE CASE.

Samuels, Dena R. No Date Given. “Connecting with Oppression and Privilege: A Pedagogy for Social Justice†Pg. 3

 

THE ABILITY TO IGNORE PRIVILEGE IS THE ULTIMATE ASPECT OF PRIVILEGE ITSELF AND TURNS OUR WELL-MEANT PROJECTS INTO TOOLS OF DOMINATION.
Samuels
, S. M., & Samuels, D. R. (2010). Incorporating the concept of privilege into policy and practice: Guidance for leaders who strive to create sustainable change. In Parco, J. E., Levy, D. A., & Blass, F. R. (Eds.) Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the U.S. Armed Forces. Maxwell, AL: AU Press, pp. 321-341.

 

u can find all of these at http://www.cross-x.com/user/175868-brian-d-gonzaba/ 's blog

 

anthro is good to run here too :)

 

edit: OOPS THEY DO TALK ABOUT PRIVILEGE oh well :/

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'm going to a tourney this weekend, and it looks like the most successful team there is running this... http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Omaha+Westside+%28NE%29+-+Lia+Hagen+and+Peyton+Wells

Our aff straight turns their counter-advocacy stuff, but any suggestions if we hit them on neg? (while they're aff)

 

I have a 1nc prepped now, but i'm wondering how to make it better. It's a pretty basic strat but my partner is 2n.

 

Current 1nc is:

Framework (i know....)

Zizek cap

anthro

 

Case: 

baudrillard shadow boxing

baudrillard strategic passivity (ive read some Baudrillard, not a clueless tool reading K stuff)

Civil disobedience stuff (their asking for the ballot is bad and contradictory)

Friere critical constructivism (ROB)

bunch of analytics about their aff... there's lots of inconsistencies/problems that are pretty obvious.

 

Any suggestions? I know a good amount of K stuff (for a novice) but my partner isn't that big on research outside of debate.

What's the freire critical constructivism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other alternatives might be:

1. doing a better job of representing homeless/poverty/queer

2. doing a better job of queering & challenging

 

 

1. capitalism = poverty

2. capitalism = hurts minorities (curious if this links to ID politics bad links).  I don't think so because you are talking about broad coalitions.

yeah the Cap has poverty and "queering" impacts

 

 

 

What's the freire critical constructivism?

kinda like what lexeous posted, that the role of the ballot as a singular concept/worldview disenfranchises everyone whos not represented by the aff, kills community basically. there's a good nancy card here.

 

 

How does Schlag link? is this normative legal discourse?

 

where can i find queer narratives bad?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.  I would google "wildman davis and privilege"  It should have an article from 1995, which has some decent cards.

One thats pretty interesting makes the analogy to how identity is like a Koosh ball.

 

The only problem is this is likely to have a bit of tension with your capitalism argument.  There may be ways around this.

Your rationale of why it doesn't link.....likely prove the perm (ie its part of a coalition). 

 

Realize it is a critique of traditional models of ID politics....so perhaps its consistent.

 

Maybe you can run the privildege argument on case or something.

 

If you're looking for even more...there are some folks like Kwan that talk about multi-dimensionality.  The challenge there its basically anti-essentialism in drag.

 

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Schlag link? is this normative legal discourse?

 

Their framing of the ballot.  When they say the judge should do "X"

 

But I think the link is probably generated from the cross examination question.

 

And....that ultimately puts you in a paradox of either contradicting....because you inevitably have to use normative discourse.

 

In this context...where they don't defend much of anything....

 

Plus they can always say "we queer norms" as a link out or a link turn.

 

On the flip side....you might be able to stand up for the universal.  Not sure how much that gets you.

 

The problem is they are selectivly going to decide which norms they queer & which ones they keep.

 

In terms of queer narratives.  My old narratives bad file had it....but I have no clue where it is.  I seem to

remember the cards were from Lexis Law Review (probably from 1990 or so on).  The argument was probably just 

anti-essentialism (queer narratives = stereotypes).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your best bet may be finding out how even queer/gay groups need to form coalitions.  They can't always be breaking the rules.  Queers need norms.   Anytime they say "theory" or say claim priority or--it seems rational that queer theory would dictate that can and should be queered.  

 

I feel like the Burrington 98 card they read (that talks about the GSA) supports this - it shows how coalition building is key to empirical success in queer movements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like they're preaching to the choir. Your argument, in overly harsh but descriptive terms that outline my thoughts well, should be that going to a debate tournament to  tell high school students that it's okay to be gay is not a confrontation with privilege and it's not a precursor to radical change. Their politics isn't confrontational at all, it's more comfort seeking. They want to win tournaments and to have the community rally around them with the ballot and promote their progressive agenda. Their goal is to create a "safe space". Instead, you should defend a more militant stance. They quote conservatives who hate gays. THOSE are the people who we should be engaged with, not high schoolers without much important power. Obviously, micropolitics exist and power is everywhere, so don't overdo it, but argue that we should focus on more important issues instead. Their desire for "safety" implies that they should be afraid, (and also that debate's not already safe, their relentless pursuit of making safe places safer seems bad). In reality, it's just an excuse for them to avoid dangerous or uncomfortable confrontations with homophobia. Have they ever talked to a homeless gay person? What about debating with someone who hates gays? If you're lucky, there might be some relevant queer literature on securitization that you can apply here, it would probably be awesome for turning case. There also might be arguments about victimization and stuff, for some reason their stance comes across as disempowering to me and I'm not really sure why. I guess it's because they're trying to use the narratives of these homeless kids as something for the community to rally around, it just sort of feels exploitative in a way.

None of my criticisms are true and really describe their mindsets, most likely. That was an over the top and quickly written outline of the sort of argument you might want to go for. But I do expect a good argument could be made along those lines, if it was done without being so blatantly rude. (You should actually probably take the opposite approach, and express your sympathy and respect for their position as clearly as possible while still taking issue with their position.)

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also question what it means to be "gay"?  And therefore pro-gay or anti-gay?

 

This (ideally) commits them to an identity.

 

If they don't....so you can't or won't define gay--the very basis of your affirmative?

 

If they can't tell you what it is....I'm still confused how you can define who is against it.

 

For instance, if you say there are democratic values--but can't define what they are.  There's no way to define whats

against it.  

 

If you have an apple pie eating contest...you have to be able to identify an apple pie or at least an apple + pie....before you can evaluate the results and render anything like a decision.

 

Plus, the inability to define means:

1. judge can't evaluate

2. teams can't talk about or evaluate

3. no way to generate offense

 

* I also like the idea of advocating confrontational options.

 

My guess is they will perm the argument.  And say debate is necessarily confrontation in the context of the debate.

 

Other than that....I'm not sure.

 

I might read this on the case because its going to link to your capitalism K probably--based on my initial thoughts.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also question what it means to be "gay"?  And therefore pro-gay or anti-gay?

 

This (ideally) commits them to an identity.

 

If they don't....so you can't or won't define gay--the very basis of your affirmative?

 

If they can't tell you what it is....I'm still confused how you can define who is against it.

 

For instance, if you say there are democratic values--but can't define what they are.  There's no way to define whats

against it.  

 

If you have an apple pie eating contest...you have to be able to identify an apple pie or at least an apple + pie....before you can evaluate the results and render anything like a decision.

 

Plus, the inability to define means:

1. judge can't evaluate

2. teams can't talk about or evaluate

3. no way to generate offense

 

* I also like the idea of advocating confrontational options.

 

My guess is they will perm the argument.  And say debate is necessarily confrontation in the context of the debate.

 

Other than that....I'm not sure.

 

I might read this on the case because its going to link to your capitalism K probably--based on my initial thoughts.

I'm not sure if this would work, but Deleuze has a lot of criticism of identity politics... The problem is, that seems to be almost the type of identity politics they are criticizing (ie. there are n numbers of sexes), but they would probably perm it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like they're preaching to the choir. Your argument, in overly harsh but descriptive terms that outline my thoughts well, should be that going to a debate tournament to  tell high school students that it's okay to be gay is not a confrontation with privilege and it's not a precursor to radical change. Their politics isn't confrontational at all, it's more comfort seeking. They want to win tournaments and to have the community rally around them with the ballot and promote their progressive agenda. Their goal is to create a "safe space". Instead, you should defend a more militant stance. They quote conservatives who hate gays. THOSE are the people who we should be engaged with, not high schoolers without much important power. Obviously, micropolitics exist and power is everywhere, so don't overdo it, but argue that we should focus on more important issues instead. Their desire for "safety" implies that they should be afraid, (and also that debate's not already safe, their relentless pursuit of making safe places safer seems bad). In reality, it's just an excuse for them to avoid dangerous or uncomfortable confrontations with homophobia. Have they ever talked to a homeless gay person? What about debating with someone who hates gays? If you're lucky, there might be some relevant queer literature on securitization that you can apply here, it would probably be awesome for turning case. There also might be arguments about victimization and stuff, for some reason their stance comes across as disempowering to me and I'm not really sure why. I guess it's because they're trying to use the narratives of these homeless kids as something for the community to rally around, it just sort of feels exploitative in a way.

 

None of my criticisms are true and really describe their mindsets, most likely. That was an over the top and quickly written outline of the sort of argument you might want to go for. But I do expect a good argument could be made along those lines, if it was done without being so blatantly rude. (You should actually probably take the opposite approach, and express your sympathy and respect for their position as clearly as possible while still taking issue with their position.)

This sounds like a really good argument. Sort of like the "wrong forum" that was on puttingthekindebate. If you have any cites/essays/lit that could back this up (obviously i could get a bunch of ID politics stuff) but specifics, that would be great. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure where you debate but running a shitton of baudrllard probably isn't your best bet

shadowboxing is more about changing the usfg than it is about changing the debate community.

deleuze is bad because if they're smart they'll say that we're literal nomads, we are the micro-resistance that these dead french dudes who might have been gay called for

 

northwestern read a bunch of cards on home bad in the ndt finals

framework is nothing to be afraid of

 

message me if you want cards that say what chaos posted above 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually win that any alternative RotB is bullshit. It doesn't say "which team best methodologically challenged queer theory or not". It fuckin says "the best debating was done by". A ballot is not an affirmation or challenge to queer theory. It marks who won the god damn round.

 

I think some baudrillard will do- but I would run a visibility K.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually win that any alternative RotB is bullshit. It doesn't say "which team best methodologically challenged queer theory or not". It fuckin says "the best debating was done by". A ballot is not an affirmation or challenge to queer theory. It marks who won the god damn round.

 

*2 chainz voice* Truuuuuuuuuuuuu

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually win that any alternative RotB is bullshit. It doesn't say "which team best methodologically challenged queer theory or not". It fuckin says "the best debating was done by". A ballot is not an affirmation or challenge to queer theory. It marks who won the god damn round.

 

I think some baudrillard will do- but I would run a visibility K.

yeah, we've cut a visibility K and i think it's a good idea. Baudrillard actually works here because it is "radical opposition" to the system...?

 

DnG- not gonna run it because their neg looks pretty Deleuzian, it seems as though they understand it, and they could turn it hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, we've cut a visibility K and i think it's a good idea. Baudrillard actually works here because it is "radical opposition" to the system...?

Yeah just say- if you want to affirm queer theory- you have to be queer itself. That's the problem with a lot of K affs. You're demanding a hetero-normative practice like policy debate to be queer- it doesn't change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wouldn't take too much of what was said here, a lot of them are fine strategies they just aren't 'exceptional' strategies and doesn't address the fact that (as you said) your a novice and your partner isn't as knowledgeable as you. I have a ton of ideas/arguments that answer this aff but none of them are useful if you don't know how  to run them in the first place. No kritik is able to be picked up and ran without some practice or cutting first.

 

My 1NC strat (going only based off what you told me) would be:

Framework

(Maybe a pragmatism framework, like they can be non-topical as long as they present a hypothetical policy that can improve the lives of queer bodies)

Cap

And maybe the crit con/rotb indicts on case

 

I really wouldn't run Baudrillard unless you really trust your knowledge with it (and by this I mean if you've personally cut it and it's not from the baudrillard file everyone has). Saying 'your oppression will go away if you stop talking about it' is not an easy argument to win.

 

I think your 'visibility' K (which I'm not entirely sure what your referring to but is in opposition to most of the visibility Ks I am familiar with) is kind of problematic. It seems to fall into a personal advocacy framework.

 

My 1NC strat (with the ev in my bin and with an ideal judge) would be, just for reference

Quare Theory

Crip Theory

Visibility

Queer Pessimism (maybe, I'd need a stronger link)

On case:

Foucauldian arguments about confessionalism

Essentialism turns/Queer politics indicts

Maybe some fem turns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visibility

 

Visibility good/bad or something more nuanced.  

 

Essentialism turns/Queer politics indicts

 

To me this is a bit of a time filler.  They probably have answers.  Its a pretty decent one--mind you.  

Again...this is identity politics/post-identity politics.

 

In terms of going deep on framework a la Northwestern.  I would write my blocks ahead of time as much as possible (or at least my overview block for the neg block)--so that I was sure that I turned their metaphor or their core otherization/-ism argument (my guess in the case of this aff its more whats beneficial for LGBT concerns/rights/respect/futures/well-being).  Thats what Northwestern didn't do as much of.  They mostly said "turns their argument"  Admittedly, I may have missed some of this that happened or happened at some other point than the 2nr.  But I would assume that most of the decisions began on that issue.

 

In my humble opinion....unless someone has spent time in the literature and has had some mentoring from an experienced K debater (and I mean a pretty good one).

 

To me...the define your argument is fundamental to argument period.  I think it at least turbo charges your framework arguments.  I'm not sure how likely they are to defend what it means to be "gay" or who (the)

LGBT are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to point out: They're reading queer theory badly. They're conflating being LGBT with being queer, which is really just being outside of the norm. You could honestly read queer theory against them. But this conflation of LGBT draws tension between their link to Queer Theory to solve it. It also means they don't have an internal link to garner offense against a k as a competing methodology. Really, the way they have this set up is more as a generic heteronormativity advantage, which means you can solve the shit out of this aff with cap and "cap causes heteronormativity" cards.

 

Note to above mentioned ideas with how they'll try to answer mentioned ideas:

- Queer Theory is about fluid identity and their aff is about being displaced, so they probably don't link to/solve delueze k's

- One brand of Queer Theory is founded off of Foucault and Critical Gender Studies, so they solve for those k's (which seems to be what they're basing themselves off of, since they don't seem to be going hard with Edelman and Queer Negativity)

 

Now, given the above note on how they aren't queer theory, you can still try to get away with reading those.

 

Now, ideas for arguments:

- Ryan Wash and Elijah Smith won CEDA and the NDT reading Quare Theory (which is founded off of QT and Whiteness). There's no uniqueness for the queer body being excluded from debate when two queers are the undisputed college champions of debate, meaning they can't garner offense against framework.

- Analytic for them not reading queer theory right

- Cap (see above)

- Anthro (a generic I typically throw at ID tix teams)

- Case cards about queer politics and whatever you think works

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with making this case turn argument (cap = heteronormativity).  I'm not sure how it doesn't have HUGE tension with about 1/2 the links.

 

Really, the way they have this set up is more as a generic heteronormativity advantage, which means you can solve the shit out of this aff with cap and "cap causes heteronormativity" cards.

 

RE: The Uniqueness Argument

I think their win loss ratio might be evidence (assuming they have more wins than losses--and particularly).  And probably those that they lost were probably still an affirmation of queer identity....just that you want to avoid the impact of capitalism and vote neg.

 

Ryan Wash and Elijah Smith won CEDA and the NDT reading Quare Theory (which is founded off of QT and Whiteness). There's no uniqueness for the queer body being excluded from debate when two queers are the undisputed college champions of debate, meaning they can't garner offense against framework.

 

I would say that post 1995 that pro-gay args. at circuit tournaments haven't exactly been challenged.  Sorry these types of arguments its almost impossible to verify except by going back to the records (and even then you don't have RFDs).  My year may be a bit off.  You could make the additional argument that the debate community is 5 to 10 to 20 years ahead of mainstream on many issues (at least in terms of awareness).  And far more open to radical politics & philosophy as a general rule.  These arguments (K-type) consistently do well at circuit tournaments.  Thats not to say they don't lose for legit reasons.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graced by the uniting of the CEDA/NDT Crowns, there will be a new version of the aff.

Edited by Brian D. Gonzaba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because a black man got elected president don't mean racism don't exist anymore... That uniqueness argument is strait offensive... If you listened to Ryan's 2ar you would know that we ain't done making debate home yet.

 

Critical constructivism is a good and decent argument to go with.

 

Framework is not a good argument at all... Ryan and Elija at the NDT proves there's not uniqueness to any of those claims on framework.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because a black man got elected president don't mean racism don't exist anymore... That uniqueness argument is strait offensive... If you listened to Ryan's 2ar you would know that we ain't done making debate home yet.

 

I agree that it's a bit of a hasty overgeneralization, but it's indicative of trends, both in the metaphor you use and in the debate and homophobia specific application. All else being equal, it's a good sign when black people can be president or gay people can win debate tournaments. Being offended by that claim is reactionary.

 

This sort of gets back to what I was talking about earlier. In my impression, debate is by and large already a queer friendly space. I'm sure there are instances of hate that occur, because debates happen across the country and high school and college kids are stupid. But the kids in debate tend to be less stupid and hateful, I think. Debate culture isn't perfect, but it's better than the culture in a lot of other areas. Trying to make debate into a perfect bastion of pure progressive identity politics and love is an inefficient use of resources, we should confront homophobia or privilege or racism at its heart instead of at tournaments where people tend to be mostly okay. Otherwise we'll spend the rest of forever making small marginal increases in the debate culture instead of larger ones in other cultures.

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...