Jump to content
swagondeck

Strat Help?

Recommended Posts

So you think that's enough?

 

No such thing as enough, but we should focus our resources elsewhere first. If you refuse to have priorities you'll waste resources for the sake of moral grandstanding. Perfectionism is not a good thing, even if perfection would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Which uniqueness arguments are you talking about?

 

I didn't see the decisions, but it seemed that the failure of Northwestern to reference much in terms of

1) Racism (injustice, Priviledge, etc...)

2) The Home Metaphor

3) Never engaging the Wiz

are the primary reason they lost. 

 

I don't even see why uniqueness claims in this instance would be an issue.  Especially given the "its the final ballot of the year" type argument made by the negative.  The ballot itself is a decision between two frameworks--period.  The ethical or otherwise claim to say vote against affirmatives which don't actually support the resolution isn't one which is subject to claims of uniqueness--except the ballot itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of there being some sort of irreconcilable research burden when it comes to facing these types of arguments. This idea that we can just wash our hands of these teams and complain about the form of their arguments is finally coming to an end... Especially in a world where non traditional teams can fill half the pool in quarters of the NDT.

 

Also - the uniqueness to why these criticisms need to exist and why they must take to the front of debate's priorities (chaos)... As long as Harvard can still break and pick up ballots in prelims after calling emporia tokens in round, and as long as white people from wake forest can think its acceptable to say the N word four times against louisville in a speech and win elimination rounds at the NDT these criticisms are much needed.

 

As long as Oklahoma is able to have winning debates against teams like west Georgia and Wake (different team than mentioned before) can come up to teams like emporia and have good clashing negative strategies and only lose because of 2nr mistakes it's a reason why these arguments you advance are un true.

 

I think by this time you and all others who believe framework is an issue should admit that you just don't believe these arguments belong in debate. When I debated in high school the argument I heard most was that w e make people want to quit... I'm still waiting for you to quit Nathan... This is novice nationals were talking about here,the future of debate and what keeps the activity alive and for anyone to think its acceptable to just tell people it's okay to stratigicaly disengage from the actually thinking and strategizing and just being confronted by the fact that people in the real world activate their agency in multiple ways is a bad form of knowlege production... This is what kills debate, when people like Nathan debate tell kids that its okay to not care and not try.

 

If you see debate as only a game that's fine, but for some of us it aint... Debate trains me for life, I would never even have a post high school education hadn't I found debate. I wouldn't have made it through high school even. I would have gone right back to my youth center and then strait into jail hadnt it been for debates revolutionary potential.These framework arguments operate under the assumption that debate isn't revolutionary for people like us... These framework arguments fail to realize the fact that debate itself and the things Ryan have done in debate are the reason a black and gay kid could have survived life in central kc and get to college. You're framework arguments are merely a denial of the power of debate and ignores every reason why these debates are good for having.

 

 

My final words on this issue... We are more than prepared to have these framework debates... Wouldn't the better strategies be to try and take my team off gaurd. I realize its almost inevitable that my girls will hit framework probably every round...but if this post just prevents one of y'all from reading framework than I have done my job. Before running this, imagine what it would be like if for six rounds plus elims of every tournament you were told your opinions have no place in this community and every feeling you've ever had on an issue is rendered irrelivant... These girls have been told that for a whole year but are still active. These claims as to why non traditional teams should leave the party clearly aren't working... Dispite all the Nathan debates of the world, we have not let the party stop...we're here we're queer get used to it.

 

Oh and the last of my uniqueness claims... If the oldest judge at the NDT scott harris can vote for Ryan in finals, there must be something wrong with the claims of this position... Is this enough uniqueness for you?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - the uniqueness to why these criticisms need to exist and why they must take to the front of debate's priorities (chaos)... As long as Harvard can still break and pick up ballots in prelims after calling emporia tokens in round, and as long as white people from wake forest can think its acceptable to say the N word four times against louisville in a speech and win elimination rounds at the NDT these criticisms are much needed.

 

How little racism do we need to have in order for it to stop being a priority? Zero? If so, you're going to go to a lot of trouble for little reward. Maybe Louisville and Emporia have bad experiences occasionally, I'm not familiar with the specific incidents you reference, but they're much better off than a lot of people. They lose some, but they also win some. Other people just always lose, or never compete (metaphorically).

 

I think that there are good arguments as to why debate is a uniquely important site to combat racism, namely that debaters will often be powerful people someday, whether as activists or as policymakers or as scientists or as businesspeople or whatever. But even then, it's not clear to me that as much effort should be put into fixing debate culture as currently is. I think debate teams often act in a very self centered manner when they approach issues like this. Debate is mostly okay, we'll only get marginal improvements on a lot of these issues, and we should target our activism elsewhere for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How little racism do we need to have in order for it to stop being a priority? Zero? If so, you're going to go to a lot of trouble for little reward.

Seriously? We should abandon hopes/struggles/dreams/equal access to basic being because it's "a lot of trouble" for a LITTLE reward? We should allow such a repugnant, unfair practice to continue because it's just not fucking worth it? Because you have a beef with facing a few outside the white-box debaters?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? We should abandon hopes/struggles/dreams/equal access to basic being because it's "a lot of trouble" for a LITTLE reward? We should allow such a repugnant, unfair practice to continue because it's just not fucking worth it? Because you have a beef with facing a few outside the white-box debaters?

 

Priorities. Your comment is filled with the kind of moral grandstanding that discourages pragmatic approaches to activism, and is hollow on real argumentation. Debaters are not worth more than any other human beings. We should help as many people as possible.

 

Your argument is analogous to the view that life has infinite value. Maybe (probably not). But even so, more lives are better. Similarly, all racism is awful. But that means stopping as much racism as possible becomes more important. Not that we should focus all our efforts on the one little piece of racism that's brought to our attention first.

 

Also, I'm not defending framework arguments, rather case arguments or counteradvocacies about where our efforts should be focused. Strawmen are for crows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all this discussion is awesome timely and necessary but it's definitely off topic and Dan is still probably wanting help. I'd like to see more of this dialogue as much as y'all want to continue it but I think another thread is probably a better place than this advice thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that even the white students are starting to come to these conclusions about the way privilege operates in the debate community is proof that these criticisms are working, are needed, and are finally coming not just to the point of inclusion but also to the point of centralization and maintenance from the community itself. I think that lantern here is exemplifying what it means to understand and act upon these approaches to debate. I have not seen him debate at all but I can say that this is the mindset and basic understanding needed to start answering and even beating these arguments.

 

This notion of maintenance is why the fact that emporia won the NDT isn't a reason why the job is done, but rather a reason why the steps we take to change debate and politics is not one worth just giving up on after we've done just enough to say we've done something.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that even the white students are starting to come to these conclusions about the way privilege operates in the debate community is proof that these criticisms are working, are needed, and are finally coming not just to the point of inclusion but also to the point of centralization and maintenance from the community itself. I think that lantern here is exemplifying what it means to understand and act upon these approaches to debate. I have not seen him debate at all but I can say that this is the mindset and basic understanding needed to start answering and even beating these arguments.

 

This notion of maintenance is why the fact that emporia won the NDT isn't a reason why the job is done, but rather a reason why the steps we take to change debate and politics is not one worth just giving up on after we've done just enough to say we've done something.

 

This implies that you believe debate culture will backslide without the presence of teams reading kritikal affirmatives. Why do you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dancon is correct in his suggestion, but my only hopes is that the way I engaged in this discussion was helpful for y'all when developing strategies against my teams.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Priorities. Debaters are not worth more than any other human beings. Help as many as possible.

And allowing a large portion of the "worthless" debaters to feel subjugated and looked down upon because they don't have the affluent background, they don't have 30 coaches to cut IR evidence, they don't have the lovely privilege that others do? "Help as many as possible" by what, defending a framework in which these issues may never be discussed in a meaningful way? Because I'm sure debating about US heg actually saves babies in Afghanistan, alright. Downvote my all you want, justify your shit through misunderstanding literally everything that has been said, go ahead.

 

The point of this discussion is to recognize that people are being helped by the widespread actions being taken. Emporia winning all they have and allowing each and every one of us, including judges, to recognize the potential and message behind finding a home in this activity is exactly what you want - it helps as many as possible. We can't the stable advocacy skills and real world worth without taking these crucial steps. Oh, and your pretty blatant racism kinda hurts the mission, too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This implies that you believe debate culture will backslide without the presence of teams reading kritikal affirmatives. Why do you think that?

This implies that I think the presence of these critical thinkers is an inevitable part of debate... And life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And allowing a large portion of the "worthless" debaters to feel subjugated and looked down upon because they don't have the affluent background, they don't have 30 coaches to cut IR evidence, they don't have the lovely privilege that others do? "Help as many as possible" by what, defending a framework in which these issues may never be discussed in a meaningful way? Because I'm sure debating about US heg actually saves babies in Afghanistan, alright. Downvote my all you want, justify your shit through misunderstanding literally everything that has been said, go ahead.

 

The point of this discussion is to recognize that people are being helped by the widespread actions being taken. Emporia winning all they have and allowing each and every one of us, including judges, to recognize the potential and message behind finding a home in this activity is exactly what you want - it helps as many as possible. We can't the stable advocacy skills and real world worth without taking these crucial steps. Oh, and your pretty blatant racism kinda hurts the mission, too.

 

The%20Scarecrow%201.jpg

 

 

This implies that I think the presence of these critical thinkers is an inevitable part of debate... And life

 

Your comment said that maintenance was necessary in order to preserve the gains we've made. Why don't you think those gains would persist absent frequent readings of critical affirmatives?

 

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.

 

I'm not familiar with the wrong forum argument you reference, maybe throw a link into this thread? When I wrote the post, I was sort of channeling my inner TLP (from http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/). He(?) makes a bunch of arguments similar to it. They're sort of looking to the debate community to justify their position. They're still seeking safety and confirmation from an external entity, even when that entity (the community) is already pretty safe and has done a decent job of communicating that. They're obsessing about making debate a safe space for gay debaters, but that focus overlooks a lot of more important areas of struggle and almost serves to just make us feel good without getting anything significant accomplished. (This rhetoric is all overblown.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(He put up a picture of George Wallace in response to my post, but has since deleted it. Yet, I've been given no apology.)

Okay. I'll bite. In what way is my stance equivalent to George Wallace's? Don't use an analogy, because those are lazy and too easy. Give me a real meaty criticism of my position.

Actually, coming back to this thread a few minutes later: you called me a racist and said I was being obviously racist and compared me to one of US history's worst people without any justification. That really pisses me off, second time around. I don't like you, and I don't think that you have anything valuable to tell me at all.

 

Because I believe in debate as a training ground for these advocacies.


I must be misunderstanding you. I don't understand how that answers my question about why you believe debate would return to its previous racism without kritikal teams. I would expect debate culture to remain stagnant, not to backslide to the norms of its previous years. Can you give a longer reply please?

Edited by xlii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that even if it did stay the same there's no reason why it shouldn't still be moving forward, and regardless these aff's should still be read as long as students are inspired to run them and use debate as a method of training the way we advocate for these things things outside of the four walls of a debate room. This ties into a lot of the stuff I said earlier about debate being more than a game right... For the two girls that inspired this thread. They use debate as a means of taking the things we learn in debate back into the other communities they occupy... This is why debate is a home for them, it's the place they get together with like minded individuals and learn to educate other people. Debate is where they energize and prepare themselves for interacting in the rest of the world.

 

And honestly I don't know if debate will stay the same if we just leave it be... Debate as of right now is progressive... If we quit trying to keep it moving than it can't be considered progressive anymore when it fails to continually progress... And also I'm here because debate is my home, A home needs maintenance.

Edited by Brian D. Gonzaba
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice dictates that both teams get to run the most radical strategy they can consistent with:

1. the minimalist burden of defending institutional action in the direction of the resolution.  

2. fair treatment of the other side (aka basically just #1)

 

I want to talk about my Scotch Irish heritage in debate and how that relates to the oppression I've experienced.

• How are we to compare these two?

 

Moreover:

• Which is most important?  Which subjectivity should be prioritized over the other?  Which psychic harm?

• Or conversely.....what if I think telling my stories are too painful?  Should I be forced to tell my story even though the resolution shows no predictability that will be relevant?

• Or what makes me a better activist for minorities?  

• What if I've done clean water activism thats saved 1000 lives--how do we compare? (I haven't--its a hypothetical)  Or what if good I do spills over to those people?

• It creates an infinite research burden, because I can't possible know the stories of everyone on the circuit.

 

Rainbow Coaltion:

I agree with everything you.    We are all gay.  We are all minorities.  We are all immigrants.  We are all outcasts.

Telling your story in the debate context.....without asking for a discussion, flipping a coin, or giving up the ballot or at least your quest for the ballot is disengenous.  It forces identities to fight zero-sum between identities.  It destroys the possibilities for a true rainbow coalition.   By asking for the ballot, you polarize the issue unnecessarily.  Letting go of the ballot.   Letting go of desire.  Letting go of power and ego would allow a more genuine and complex and honest and authentic discussion of priviledge and the issues you want to talk about.  For instance, If you did that....we probably wouldn't run framework.

 

Why am I penalized in debate for not being uber or hyper-oppressed?

Why am I less credible in debate because I am not an uber minority?

 

It sucks to be you.  I'm sorry.  Debate should be better.  I don't have control over that.  Changing one ballot doesn't fundamentally change that either.  Your tactical approach to change is absurd.  Its like protesting airlines when the government is the one committing the problem--especially when you haven't made efforts to actually change the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all this discussion is awesome timely and necessary but it's definitely off topic and Dan is still probably wanting help. I'd like to see more of this dialogue as much as y'all want to continue it but I think another thread is probably a better place than this advice thread.

 

This.

 

Gonzaba, I like you and I pretty much think you're right. The mention of Elijah and Ryan was a suggested argument that they can make if they read framework, which in context of the OP seems like something that he would know better and be more comfortable with. I understand the desired need to blow this up into a meaningful discussion, but all of the grandstanding (and "former" chaos' devils advocate playing) is derailing the thread massively, which in the context of what you talk about debate being to you (a training place for advocacy skills) is a hinderance of what you see as the goal of debate. You did mention Critical Constructivism and that your argumentation in this thread gives context for how to debate your kids, but the former doesn't seem like something the OP would have and the latter is more of telling how your kids will debate rather than how to debate your kids.

 

Just one thing, though. You mentioned that this was novice nationals. I understand the need to open up novices to strong and important ideas in debate, but seriously, it's their first year. That means 1) They really don't have much context of what debate is in order to effectively criticize it and 2) Other novices who won't know what else to read than framework are by no means going to be able to give any kind of effective defense of an activity that they aren't entirely familiar. (And Dan, those are both arguments you should make with framework if you read it). I understand the desire to promote a cause and to advance your kids, but that throws other novices under the bus because it makes it really fucking hard for them to keep up and will just frustrate them. So yeah, novice nationals, probably one of the few exceptions to the "people will quit" argument being dumb and unfounded, because I've seen novices quit out of frustration of things they don't understand or can't keep up with. I support progressive political agendas in debate and was really excited by NDT elims and the finals result and am planning on engaging in styles of debate like that next season for personal beliefs (decided on before CEDA and the NDT, mind you), but it seems irresponsible to incorporate them into novice debate.

 

If you and others want to continue this discussion, start a new thread, but come on, this is the "Help" forum, not the "Culture" forum.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing, though. You mentioned that this was novice nationals. I understand the need to open up novices to strong and important ideas in debate, but seriously, it's their first year. That means 1) They really don't have much context of what debate is in order to effectively criticize it and 2) Other novices who won't know what else to read than framework are by no means going to be able to give any kind of effective defense of an activity that they aren't entirely familiar. (And Dan, those are both arguments you should make with framework if you read it). I understand the desire to promote a cause and to advance your kids, but that throws other novices under the bus because it makes it really fucking hard for them to keep up and will just frustrate them. So yeah, novice nationals, probably one of the few exceptions to the "people will quit" argument being dumb and unfounded, because I've seen novices quit out of frustration of things they don't understand or can't keep up with. I support progressive political agendas in debate and was really excited by NDT elims and the finals result and am planning on engaging in styles of debate like that next season for personal beliefs (decided on before CEDA and the NDT, mind you), but it seems irresponsible to incorporate them into novice debate.

 

 

Actually, just to tie this back more clearly to the topic of the thread. OP, if you go for framework in the block and the 2nr, you should be impacting it this way. Really, you can contextualize all of your standards with the fact that it's novice nats. I'll just go through a list of it:

- Predictable limits - Most novices learn policy debate from a government action standpoint. The majority won't be adequately prepped to answer this style of debate.

- Ground - Most novices won't have arguments against this or have the understanding to be able to adequately apply them. Most critical theory goes over the heads of people who haven't had a chance to sit down to really try and understand it.

 

 

Now for impacting it. Specifically, impacting the fairness voter. Make the "people will quit" argument because it is novice debate. Really, that argument makes sense. A lot of novices who quit or decide not to come back for the next year do so because they find it hard and frustrating. The aff intensifies that by taking the debate away from the key starting point that the majority of novices understand, government action and policy analysis.

 

And even if the aff's style of debate is beneficial, they can do it the next year in JV or varsity debate when people will actually have some understanding of how to debate this kind of aff. It's not the "wrong forum," it's the "wrong time."

 

Also, like I kind of said in the quoted part of the above post, novices don't really have an in-depth understanding of debate, it's non-educational for those debating to engage in the merits and inequities in policy debate without much context on the activity and it's unfair to burden the negative team with defending debate.

 

If they say "well they don't have to defend debate, they can read a competing methodology," just remind them that you're in the novice division and that the majority of novices won't have much to say other than framework.

 

I think you should alter your framework interpretation to read whatever you say, but add "- in the novice debate division" at the end, just so you can uniquely access the arguments you're making and make the argument that you steal their offense by saying they can read this style of aff next year outside of the novice division (which is mentioned in how you should impact fairness).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and your pretty blatant racism kinda hurts the mission, too.

What the hell is going on? Is it just hate on everyone who disagrees with you day? (http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54964-ndt-finals-emporia-versus-northwestern/?p=871339)

When is it acceptable to call someone racist, because you disagree with them.

 

Edit: also, sorry if I'm knocking the thread from it's purpose again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

It's not just about hate. Yeah debate is ahead of the curve, but our pedagogy is deeply grounded in a white, hetero-normative, euro-centric framework. And because of the infinite possibilities of debate compared to other things (say school, or anything), we carry what we learn much farther. The heart of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is its epistemology. We as debaters frequently break down our own epistemology. We can change this shit if we just think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's neat rawrcat, how you get to call our coaching decision "irresponsible" and then nobly shield yourself from response by humbly returning to the OP's question.

 

maybe it would be more "responsible" of us to tell the kids they can't run this aff, that they've been running all year, at this tournament. shit maybe it would be more "responsible" of us to tell them they can't talk about the aff at all in novice. or you know what, maybe it's not "responsible" for them to talk about it in debates at all, or in debate class, because we wouldn't want anyone as young as 15 or 16 to have to confront an issue like homosexuality. you know, why don't you tell me so in the future i can tell my homosexual debaters - when is it responsible to talk about their identity?

  • Upvote 1

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...