Jump to content
Solax10

Narrative Help

Recommended Posts

I think that although the advice you're receiving is well intentioned, it may be above your skill level right now. Focus on creating a solid framework argument first, then consider adding other elements to your strategy.

 

^This - Butler's criticism of gender binarism is way above what I would suggest for you given what I perceive your skill level to be. Try something more on the practical side, like just reading FW with an arg. There are a lot of good FW args about the "overextension of the political" and why it is bad to pretend like debate round decisions can do anything but provide a decision, which is where the Steinberg and Freely argument come in and maybe some Atchinson and Pannetti evidence might be good. You can try making a framework argument that sounds like: Narratives are bad and don't create real change, and their advocacy about debate doesn't actually lead to change in debate because rounds don't create real change, they just decide who does the better debating. We should use debate rounds to have USfg focused plans that can discuss government policies that can actually help oppressed people, and have meta-discussion of the community in a more productive forum outside the round. That's one way to be articulating your FW, but I do think the best avenue is to go Speaking for Others + FW

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@feldsy

they aren't limited to speaking for others or defending the patriarchy -- they can speak WITH others. it's possible for a man and woman to partner you know.

 

I totally agree with this, but i feel like everyone who runs SFO makes the argument that you can never speak with someone whom you don't share their oppression, that you can only ever speak for them, which i think is total BS.  I'll be the first to admit i am grossly inexperienced with this K (as i run a straight policy aff), so you're probably more familiar with the lit than i am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone cares I faced the narrative yesterday at conference and won with Speaking for Others and Framework

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. I don't like the argument speaking for others -- so if anybody is reading a critical-ish aff and wants answers to it, here are some cards.

(specific to colonialism) Passivity is a disad to the alt – leaving the struggle to those directly affected by colonialism leads to passivity as the forces of oppression take over.

Wanzer 12 (Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City) 2012 (Darrel, “Delinking Rhetoric, or Revisiting Mcgee’s Fragmentation Thesis Through Decoloniality†Rhetoric and Public Affairs Page 654, DKE) //DDI13

In short, I would submit that we all (regardless of whether we are interested in discursive con/texts explicitly marked by colonialism or imperialism) must seek to become decolonial rhetoricians. Rather than be “at the service†of Continental philosophy as so many in our ranks seem to be, we should adopt a decolonial attitude that aids in “shifting the geography of reason, by unveiling and enacting geopolitics and body-politics of knowledge†by putting our disciplinary tools in rhetoric “at the service of the problem being addressed.†It is not enough, however, to leave this task to scholars of color. Such a move is dangerous insofar as it continues to relegate these important questions to the margins of the discipline while constructing a fıction of “inclusion†that remains authorized by the hubris of zero point epistemology.45 We who are colonized or function in some way Otherwise cannot be the only ones leading the charge to delink rhetoric from modern/coloniality. An ethic of decolonial love requires those who benefıt most from the epistemic violence of the West to renounce their privilege, give the gift of hearing, and engage in forms of praxis that can more productively negotiate the borderlands between inside and outside, in thought and in being. We need not, as I have shown with McGee, throw out the baby with the bathwater; however, it is crucial that rhetoricians begin to take the decolonial option seriously if we wish to do more than perpetuate “a permanent state of exceptionâ€46 that dehumanizes people of color and maintains the hubris of a totalizing and exclusionary episteme.

 

 

Utopianism disad: Their search for an epistemically “innocent†position from which one can challenge power collapses into passivity and makes it impossible to challenge power. Speaking outside of our own personal lives is inevitable, it’s the way we do it that matters.

Medina 11 (Jose, Ph. D., Northwestern University (1998), Philosophy, M.A., Northwestern University (1995), Philosophy, B.A., University of Sevilla (1991), Philosophy, “Towards a Foucaltian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerilla Pluralism†http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/philosophy/_people/faculty_files/_medinafoucaultstudies.pdf October 2011) rp

The second crucial idea that derives from the Foucaultian approach is that there is no such thing as epistemic innocence, for we always operate from a space of knowability and unknowability simultaneously, from a knowledge/ignorance framework. And this problematizes the notion of culpable ignorance. On the one hand, as Code remarks, there is no such thing as ‚an innocent position from which ‘we’ could level charges of culpability.‛ Therefore, as Code insists, in dealing with the epistemic aspects of particular forms of oppression, we should be very careful not to indulge in the naïve charge of epistemic culpability ‚they should have known better,‛ for very often subjects could not have known otherwise and, therefore, the charge of culpability is vacuous. On the other hand, however, interstices within discursive practices as well as alternative practices are often available; and they present opportunities for epistemic resistance, for challenging knowledge/ignorance structures. Genealogical investigations can be used to point out how these subjugated knowledges could have been used, how people could have known otherwise by drawing on them, how they could have become able to undo epistemic exclusions and stigmatizations. Hence the insurrectionary power of subjugated knowledges, which genealogical investigations try to mobilize

 

 

Exclusion disad: The oppressed aren’t included at the table now, absent action by scholars/activists they never will be. Their alt is complicity with subjugation – telling the oppressed to deal with it themselves.

Medina 11 (Jose, Ph. D., Northwestern University (1998), Philosophy, M.A., Northwestern University (1995), Philosophy, B.A., University of Sevilla (1991), Philosophy, “Towards a Foucaltian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerilla Pluralism†http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/philosophy/_people/faculty_files/_medinafoucaultstudies.pdf October 2011) rp

In order to be critical and to have transformative effects, genealogical investigations should aim at these insurrections, which are critical interventions that disrupt and interrogate epistemic hegemonies and mainstream perspectives (e.g. official histories, standard interpretations, ossified exclusionary meanings, etc). Such insurrections involve the difficult labor of mobilizing scattered, marginalized publics and of tapping into the critical potential of their dejected experiences and memories. An epistemic insurrection requires a collaborative relation between genealogical scholars/activists and the subjects whose experiences and memories have been subjugated: those subjects by themselves may not be able to destabilize the epistemic status quo until they are given a voice at the epistemic table (i.e. in the production of knowledge), that is, until room is made for their marginalized perspective to exert resistance, until past epistemic battles are reopened and established frameworks become open to contestation. On the other hand, the scholars and activists aiming to produce insurrectionary interventions could not get their critical activity off the ground if they did not draw on past and ongoing contestations, and the lived experiences and memories of those whose marginalized lives have become the silent scars of forgotten struggles. As I will try to show in detail in what follows, what makes the Foucaultian genealogical approach specifically critical is its capacity to facilitate insurrections of subjugated knowledges. In section 1, I will explain how exactly critical genealogies contribute ‚to desubjugate historical knowledges, to set them free, so that insurrectionary struggles against coercive epistemic closures are revived.

Coalition disad: Their critique of authenticity fragments and marginalizes coalitions

Smith 99 (Linda Tuhiwai, “Decolonizing Methedologies; Research and Indigenous Peoples, p. 72-3)

At a recent international conference held in New Zealand to discuss issues related to indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights, the local newspapers were informed and invited to interview some of the delegates. One news reporter thought it would be a good idea to have a group photograph, suggesting that it would be a very colourful feature for the newspaper to highlight. When she and the photographer turned up at the local marae (cultural centre) they were so visibly disappointed at the modey display of track suits, jeans and other items of 'modern' dress, that they chose not to take a photograph. 'Oh, I forgot to come as a native', joked one of the delegates. 'My feathers got confiscated at the airport when I arrived.' 'I suppose my eyes are too blue.' 'Are we supposed to dress naked?' As we have seen, the notion of 'authentic' is highly contested when applied to, or by, indigenous peoples. 'Authorities' and outside experts are often called in to verify, comment upon, and give judgments about the validity of indigenous claims to cultural beliefs, values, ways of knowing and historical accounts. Such issues are often debated vigorously by the 'public', (a category which usually means the dominant group), leading to an endless parading of 'nineteenth century' views of race and racial difference. Questions of who is a 'real indigenous' person, what counts as a ‘real indigenous leader' which person displays 'real cultural values' and the criteria use d to assess the characteristics of authenticity are frequently the topic of conversation and political debate. These debates are designed to fragment and marginalize those who speak for, or in support of, indigenous issues. They frequently have the effect also of silencing and making invisible the presence of other groups within the indigenous society like women, the urban non-status tribal person and those whose ancestry or 'blood quantam' is 'too white'.51 In Tasmania, where experts had already determined that Aborigines were 'extinct', the voices of those who still speak as Aboriginal Tasmanians are interpreted as some political invention of a people who no longer exist and who therefore no longer have claims

 

 

(And if they read alcoff)

 

Alcoff flows aff – She concedes that speaking for others can be key, this is one such instance.

Alcoff 92 (Linda Martín Alcoff, Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University. “The Problem of Speaking For Others†Cultural Critique Winter 1991-92, pp. 5-32.) rp

In conclusion, I would stress that the practice of speaking for others is often born of a desire for mastery, to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another's situation or as one who can champion a just cause and thus achieve glory and praise. And the effect of the practice of speaking for others is often, though not always, erasure and a reinscription of sexual, national, and other kinds of hierarchies. I hope that this analysis will contribute toward rather than diminish the important discussion going on today about how to develop strategies for a more equitable, just distribution of the ability to speak and be heard. But this development should not be taken as an absolute dis-authorization of all practices of speaking for. It is not always the case that when others unlike me speak for me I have ended up worse off, or that when we speak for others they end up worse off. Sometimes, as Loyce Stewart has argued, we do need a "messenger" to advocate for our needs. The source of a claim or discursive practice in suspect motives or maneuvers or in privileged social locations, I have argued, though it is always relevant, cannot be sufficient to repudiate it. We must ask further questions about its effects, questions which amount to the following: will it enable the empowerment of oppressed peoples?

 

Especially if you're claiming change off of being in the debate space, push the argument that the oppressed people aren't in the debate space or are not at the "epistemic table" in conjunction with these cards. Obviously, this argument doesn't work as well with issues such as race or women (who are included, although disadvantaged, in the debate space)

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RainSilves

I'm having a hard time imagining running a Feminism K aff without having women authors speak to solvency, I'd certainly never write such a K aff without that.  But okay, i can see speaking for others as a K if their solvency advocates are men.  Actually, I could see speaking for others in that case even if it was women running the case.  Its the *testimony* that matters, not who the arguers are.  Making this clear in the judge's mind would be the key element.

Whether or not their solvency advocates are men or women doesn't unlink the SFO Kritik if they're both men, because they (as men) made the choice to select certain authors and certain parts of their writing to represent. The men speaking decide what parts of the oppressed they choose to present; thus the link.

 

 

Of course, this gets to your 'leading' the movement.  The debaters in the round never make a claim to leading the movement at all.  They're using testimony (evidence) to make arguments.  To the degree that their arguments avoid personal experience, their personal identity is completely inconsequential.  The arguer is irrelevant to the validity of an argument.  (And in my platonic ideal of debate, the debaters never provide testimony themselves, but occupy the role of adversary in the legal sense - their identity should not constrain their argumentation, only their evidence can do that).

 

Basically, Speaking for Others is an ad hominem attack when its directed at the debaters on the other team.  Ad hominem is *always* a fallacy in response to argument.  The only ways a Speaking for Others K would be a legitimate position would be (1) targeted at the opponent's authors OR (2) the debaters provided testimony themselves, and that testimony alone could be indicted with the K (because that's when ad hominem is legitimate).

It's not an ad hominim; I'd suggest you actually read Dr. Alcoff's article rather than watery debater summaries of it. I'd be happy to further explain. 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking for others is ableist, what about the oppressed who cannot speak, do they not deserve justice? We need to work together to solve social problems.

 

On answering them, I would read FW, Roleplaying Good, and Exclusion.inevitable in debate because debate is hard and requires a special set of skills.

 

Also, on neg I would read a K that accesses the root cause of exclusion. Cant really tell you exactly what that might be w/o hearing the aff.

Edited by KTricksfordays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snarf

 

You (and apparently Dr. Alcoff) is saying that the gender of the debaters makes their argument wrong.  That's ad hominem by definition, its directed at the people providing argument. 

 

The whole point of ad hominem being a fallacy is that its illegitimate to direct attacks at the person making the argument, the argument stands or falls on its own merits and exists independent of the personal characteristics of the advocate. Ad hominem is only legitimate when refuting testimony, never argument.

 

If the debaters have chosen a flawed sampling of evidence, you should be able to demonstrate that *relative to the evidence*.  Ie, that they are not advocating what their authors are advocating.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speaking for others K is arbitrary -  there are a shit ton of answers too it - and honestly not that strong of an offensive argument.

 

The 1N should have Neitzche(Either EgoMasturbation or Security), Narratives Bad, Framework, Advocacy statement solvency argument (Like proof why their advocacy can never meet their role of the ballot) , and then personally I would throw in a K something along the lines of "Solving for particarchal normailities is impossible untill you fiirst adress the way the queer body is exposed to patriarchy"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speaking for others K is arbitrary -  there are a shit ton of answers too it - and honestly not that strong of an offensive argument.

 

The 1N should have Neitzche(Either EgoMasturbation or Security), Narratives Bad, Framework, Advocacy statement solvency argument (Like proof why their advocacy can never meet their role of the ballot) , and then personally I would throw in a K something along the lines of "Solving for particarchal normailities is impossible untill you fiirst adress the way the queer body is exposed to patriarchy"

Speaking for others worked for us. I am in Missouri so K's aren't to common and trying to advocate Neitzche would be hard. Nonetheless, what we did worked for us, if we go to larger scale tournaments then our strategy against narratives will change.

Edited by Solax10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snarf

 

You (and apparently Dr. Alcoff) is saying that the gender of the debaters makes their argument wrong.  That's ad hominem by definition, its directed at the people providing argument. 

No - the claim is a couple of ways; first, that there's a tradeoff between who's speaking. If we have five minutes of airtime, give it to women. If you really want to increase female participation, stop talking about them and allow them to talk. You can't fill a full cup; you can't let men dominate the speaking experience and give women the opportunity to speak. Second, there's a perspectival filter. When you speak for others, you never perfectly represent them (the speaker leaves certain details out). The choice of what to represent - and what to leave out - leaves a lot of power in the hands of the speaker. That reinscribes dominant power relations by giving the authority to define the nature of "the oppressed" to the dominant. That's part of why well-intentioned speakers often fail to create change - because the act of "speaking for" can be oppressive. That's especially true since there's probably a disconnect between what "the oppressed"* see as important and what the privileged see at all. 

 

*(as if there was even some homogenous mass "the oppressed" to which reference could be made) 

 

The whole point of ad hominem being a fallacy is that its illegitimate to direct attacks at the person making the argument, the argument stands or falls on its own merits and exists independent of the personal characteristics of the advocate. Ad hominem is only legitimate when refuting testimony, never argument.

The argument is the equivalent of saying "we're co-counsel and you're taking all the airtime. in this jurisdiction, if I don't object it's not preserved for appeal, and I lack the opportunity to object". Make more sense?

 

If the debaters have chosen a flawed sampling of evidence, you should be able to demonstrate that *relative to the evidence*.  Ie, that they are not advocating what their authors are advocating.

The argument is that the act of selection itself is an act imbued with power. When that power is exercised by dominant, privileged speakers, it is both itself oppressive by nature and likely to backfire by consequence. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is narrative their solvency mechanism so to speak?

I don't see how this connects with narratives?

 

While I'm not a fan of speaking for others.....I think its at least a decent argument in this case.

 

I think you should have a pretty good reason not to speak for them.....because its incredibly counter-intuitive.

How do women get a place at the table.....if they aren't in the room or in the houses of power?  This would short circuit a lot of positive change around womens empowerment and womens issues.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - the claim is a couple of ways; first, that there's a tradeoff between who's speaking. If we have five minutes of airtime, give it to women. If you really want to increase female participation, stop talking about them and allow them to talk. You can't fill a full cup; you can't let men dominate the speaking experience and give women the opportunity to speak. Second, there's a perspectival filter. When you speak for others, you never perfectly represent them (the speaker leaves certain details out). The choice of what to represent - and what to leave out - leaves a lot of power in the hands of the speaker. That reinscribes dominant power relations by giving the authority to define the nature of "the oppressed" to the dominant. That's part of why well-intentioned speakers often fail to create change - because the act of "speaking for" can be oppressive. That's especially true since there's probably a disconnect between what "the oppressed"* see as important and what the privileged see at all.

 

Sigh

 

1. No trade off.  The team debating is the ones who have to speak.  They can't  just bring in a 3rd person to speak for them.  Its not 8 minutes of open airtime, its 8 minutes for the 1st affirmative speaker.

 

2. This abolishes any feminism from the male-sphere of activity (defined as whenever there are just men present).  Several implications.  First, this means that women are forever banned from the halls of power, as this is currently men's space, and under your 'speaking for others' K men aren't allowed to defend women.  Second, this not only allows but encourages casual sexism.  Men have to be able to defend women to other men, or frat-boy behavior will continue to be reinforced by male-male interaction outside the scope of the feminine gaze.  Combined, this means the fight against sexism is impossible, as it has a protected safe haven which can never be assaulted and from which it will continue to establish and support patriarchy.

 

Male-male spaces are significant sources of patriarchal power, including many government and legal associations.  Wherever two men meet alone, it is a male-male space.  If these two men hold power, that space holds power.  Excluding even the possibility of feminist action from those spaces completely dooms the movement and makes feminism powerless.

 

3. Your worldview is zero-sum, which necessarily places men as the enemy of women, and makes progress unlikely and difficult.  Participation does not need to be zero-sum - we can increase the participation of women without excluding men.

 

4. Non-unique as to gender of speaker.  No person perfectly represents another person.  A woman can misrepresent (for example) bell hooks as easily as a man can.

 

5. Not all women are pro-feminist.  Some men can be stronger advocates for feminist positions than some women are.  Restricting who can make the argument based on the gender of the speaker is therefor fundamentally flawed.

 

6. Your position insinuates that there is a difference between two otherwise identical arguments solely based on the gender of the speaker.  Ie, given a fixed 8 minute advocacy about feminism (eg, a 1AC), that speech makes a different argument if a man reads it than if a woman reads it.

 

a. This demonstrates your K is directed at the person rather than at the argument.

b. This makes it obviously ad hominem on face, and thus your speaking for others K is fallacious and should be ignored.

 

7. Your position is making the ridiculous claim that it's impossible to use logical argumentation to support a feminist position, because only women are capable of being 'true feminists' and thus capable of speaking for feminism, and thus the relevant consideration is the speaker, not the argument.

 

a. Essentializes and monolithizes the movement.  There is more than one feminism.

b. Ignores the argument actually made.  If there are deficiencies with the argument itself, you should be attacking those.  The speaker is an irrelevant distraction.

c. What if a woman wrote the 1AC?  Is a man incapable of reading it effectively?

 

*(as if there was even some homogenous mass "the oppressed" to which reference could be made)

 

This supports my position more than yours - Oppression could occur by a woman speaker as easily as a man, because the decisions you point to are made by one person.  Men are not the only oppressors, women are not the only oppressed. 

 

So if the act of speaking necessarily oppresses, that's true regardless of who the speaker is, because they speak only for themselves, and your impacts are therefor inevitable.  If we accept your position, change is impossible.

 

The argument is that the act of selection itself is an act imbued with power. When that power is exercised by dominant, privileged speakers, it is both itself oppressive by nature and likely to backfire by consequence.

 

So, if a woman wrote the 1AC, is it still oppressive? Even if a man reads it?

 

This applies to more than just sexism, right?  Who is your mythical non-dominant unprivileged speaker?  I'm pretty sure this person is not involved in a competitive activity.  Is there uniquely 1 person who should be allowed to speak?

 

I don't think you understand the concept of judging an argument on its merits.  The argument is distinct from the speaker of the argument - to allege otherwise is to commit an ad hominem fallacy.  If you think the speaker's privilege is likely to lead to a wrong argument, then examine the argument.  If the argument is wrong, you should be able to attack the argument without attacking the person.  'Speaking for Others' is just a distraction, is logically flawed, and is a refusal to actually engage the arguments being made.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh

Agreed. Read the article, and I think you'll get the argument better.

 

1. No trade off.  The team debating is the ones who have to speak.  They can't  just bring in a 3rd person to speak for them.  Its not 8 minutes of open airtime, its 8 minutes for the 1st affirmative speaker.

Recall the scope of the kritik is shaped by the aff, who claim a direct and material increase in women's participation. For male speakers, that effort is simply not served by speaking for women. If that is a genuine interest, then out-of-round actions are the appropriate answer.

 

Alternatively, allow a member of the oppressed category to write the narrative/descriptive portion of the debate, and then leave it unedited. It's not about the literal reading, its about the authoritative act of selecting descriptions.

 

Double alternatively, the aff could discuss gender dynamics that implicate their own speaker position (i.e. the importance of checking male privilege). 

 

2. This abolishes any feminism from the male-sphere of activity (defined as whenever there are just men present).  Several implications.  First, this means that women are forever banned from the halls of power, as this is currently men's space, and under your 'speaking for others' K men aren't allowed to defend women.  Second, this not only allows but encourages casual sexism.  Men have to be able to defend women to other men, or frat-boy behavior will continue to be reinforced by male-male interaction outside the scope of the feminine gaze.  Combined, this means the fight against sexism is impossible, as it has a protected safe haven which can never be assaulted and from which it will continue to establish and support patriarchy.

No internal link and turn - men discussing male-male gender dynamics aren't speaking for others, they're speaking for themselves. Ya know, since they're men. In fact, that would be the most appropriate engagement that men could have, because it's within the scope of their experience.

 

Independently, I think I explained above how men can participate in feminism without defining the scope of women's experience(s).

 

Male-male spaces are significant sources of patriarchal power, including many government and legal associations.  Wherever two men meet alone, it is a male-male space.  If these two men hold power, that space holds power.  Excluding even the possibility of feminist action from those spaces completely dooms the movement and makes feminism powerless.

This conflates sex (males and females) and gender (social and cultural dynamic expectations that constrain sexed bodies). Male identity can be feminized (as when men are raped) and is subject to constraints of masculinity ("there's no crying in baseball"). Men who are subject to those dynamics are welcomed to (and encouraged to) discuss them. 

 

3. Your worldview is zero-sum, which necessarily places men as the eneimy of women, and makes progress unlikely and difficult.  Participation does not need to be zero-sum - we can increase the participation of women without excluding men.

Your worldview is abstracted and simplistic. Forums for expression and resources for participation are absolutely limited - do you disagree? If not, then to the extent resources are limited, they should tip in favor allowing and facilitating expression by the oppressed themselves. 

 

4. Non-unique as to gender of speaker.  No person perfectly represents another person.  A woman can misrepresent (for example) bell hooks as easily as a man can.

Sure; that's Spivak's argument. The question of degree of commonality is certainly one speakers should investigate, which is a major problem with white feminism. That does not and should not downplay the existences of social dynamics  (e.g. the disproportionate risk of rape faced by women). Your argument goes to weight ("where should we draw the line of when someone is an 'other'") not admissibility ("whether we should draw lines between speakers").

 

5. Not all women are pro-feminist.  Some men can be stronger advocates for feminist positions than some women are.  Restricting who can make the argument based on the gender of the speaker is therefor fundamentally flawed.

This is a non-sequitor. Whether or not a woman chooses to speak doesn't undermine the argument that only women have legitimacy to speak. 

 

6. Your position insinuates that there is a difference between two otherwise identical arguments solely based on the gender of the speaker.  Ie, given a fixed 8 minute advocacy about feminism (eg, a 1AC), that speech makes a different argument if a man reads it than if a woman reads it.

I think I explained why this isn't the case when answering 1. I'd really encourage you to read Dr. Alcoff's article - it's online, free and short. It might fix the major misunderstandings you're having about this argument. 

 

Its free here ---> http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html

 

a. This demonstrates your K is directed at the person rather than at the argument.

b. This makes it obviously ad hominem on face, and thus your speaking for others K is fallacious and should be ignored.

Yeah, read the article to understand better.

 

7. Your position is making the ridiculous claim that it's impossible to use logical argumentation to support a feminist position, because only women are capable of being 'true feminists' and thus capable of speaking for feminism, and thus the relevant consideration is the speaker, not the argument.

Misunderstands the position; read article/post.

a. Essentializes and monolithizes the movement.  There is more than one feminism.

Misunderstands the position; read article/post.

b. Ignores the argument actually made.  If there are deficiencies with the argument itself, you should be attacking those.  The speaker is an irrelevant distraction.

Misunderstands the position; read article/post.

c. What if a woman wrote the 1AC?  Is a man incapable of reading it effectively?

Nope. See 1.

 

This supports my position more than yours - Oppression could occur by a woman speaker as easily as a man, because the decisions you point to are made by one person.  Men are not the only oppressors, women are not the only oppressed. 

...this was my point. 

 

So if the act of speaking necessarily oppresses, that's true regardless of who the speaker is, because they speak only for themselves, and your impacts are therefor inevitable.  If we accept your position, change is impossible.

The act of speaking doesn't necessarily oppress (thus the "re-read the post") - giving the dominant power to define the oppressed and authoritatively represent them is what's oppressive. 

 

So, if a woman wrote the 1AC, is it still oppressive? Even if a man reads it?

You've asked this three times, and it demonstrates you're really missing the argument-boat. Do actually read the article. 

 

This applies to more than just sexism, right?  Who is your mythical non-dominant unprivileged speaker?  I'm pretty sure this person is not involved in a competitive activity.  Is there uniquely 1 person who should be allowed to speak?

Ironic - this is monolithic thinking. It may me legitimate for me as a queer to speak about queerness, but as a white person illegitimate to speak about blackness.  Get the idea?

 

I don't think you understand the concept of judging an argument on its merits.  The argument is distinct from the speaker of the argument - to allege otherwise is to commit an ad hominem fallacy.  If you think the speaker's privilege is likely to lead to a wrong argument, then examine the argument.  If the argument is wrong, you should be able to attack the argument without attacking the person.  'Speaking for Others' is just a distraction, is logically flawed, and is a refusal to actually engage the arguments being made.

Each of these points has been addressed above, and I'm going to quote to show you that you ought to read more closely. You argue that "the merits" are distinct from the speaker, I respond that they are not disconnected (though not dispositively connected either) to and shaped by the speaker's subject location [see original answer, "That's especially true since there's probably a disconnect between what "the oppressed"* see as important and what the privileged see at all."] It also ignores existing power dynamics in debate and society [see original answer, " The choice of what to represent - and what to leave out - leaves a lot of power in the hands of the speaker."] Those dynamics are relevant to a tradeoff in a world of limited resources [see original answer, "You can't fill a full cup; you can't let men dominate the speaking experience and give women the opportunity to speak"]. 

 

Since theoretically you've been to law school, a fair analogy is a best-evidence objection. That help to think about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just jumping in here to note that:

 

1. I'm the lawyer & engineer, Squirreloid's the biologist.

 

2. Your legal analogies are pretty incoherent:

 

"The argument is the equivalent of saying "we're co-counsel and you're taking all the airtime. in this jurisdiction, if I don't object it's not preserved for appeal, and I lack the opportunity to object". Make more sense?"

 

No. Parties have rights to be heard, not counsel. Co-counsel for the same party either come to an agreement over who speaks or have the client decide. But the more accurate analogy here is a class-action representation (because the lawyer represents a diffuse, numerous group), where a class member objects that the class representative isn't adequately representing the class. But in that case, the focus is on the advocacy, not the identity of the class representative or the lawyer.

 

"Since theoretically you've been to law school, a fair analogy is a best-evidence objection. That help to think about it?"

 

The best evidence rule requires that if there's a dispute as to authentication of a writing, you can only admit the best available evidence as to its content. It doesn't necessarily require the original; copies are admissible unless disputed (FRE 1003), and other evidence about the writing is admissible if the writing is unavailable (FRE 1004). Basically, if the original or a copy of a writing is available, you have to admit that instead of having a witness testify about it.

 

What this has to do with the argument you're making is a mystery to me. There's no available writing here to work with; no authoritative declaration of what the oppressed group at issue believes--and to the extent there is, the male feminist Aff is almost certainly directly quoting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squirrelloid: I think one of the reasons you are misconceptualizing the Speaking for Others arg is (as Snarf has alluded to) your strict division between the speaker and the argument. Most cultural and race theorists call this the "View From Nowhere", an argument I'm sure you have heard and is frequently ran in debate. I think one of the assumptions you have is that subject position/social location has no input into an argument, political position or specific advocacy, when most theorists would say it does (I generally find this somewhat difficult to disprove on a macro level). You view of Speaking For Others as an ad hom then makes sense when the limits of the argument are to what is said, but that is only because you have taken this (debatably) 'flawed' assumption that a) what isn't said and b ) who says it don't effect the argument, which is central to Alcoff and Snarf's argument.

 

Even if a black person and white person advocated the exact same 1AC, I think there is still an argument to be made about the capacity of a white person to speak on behalf of a black person. That model is consistent with diagrams of power that are inherently oppressive, crowds out the ability for black people to speak for themselves, and really is possible because of the legacy of white supremacy. This is probably the same reason why I would argue affirmative action policies and increased representation for black Americans in the senate is good. One of my white friends asked me why a white senator can't represent a black person, and I said it is less about that and more about the fact that the reason most often straight white males represent LGBT/women/non-white people is because of ongoing and/or the legacy of patriarchy, white supremacy, and heterosexism, so obviously when these beliefs occur they occur in the same modes of power which allowed for domination in the first place, which is problematic. I'd say in real life it's probably not a reason to reject, but it is definitely something to be conscious of and why we should work towards living in a world where people can be equally represented by themselves. Minority identities give unique perspectives based off social location and lived experiences that are often unattainable to people outside of that identity group (I will never be able to truly understand the effects of institutional homophobia) and sometimes the lack of those specific experiences both lead to failed policies but also do some form of ontological violence to the degree that it allows us to objectify people (by this I mean to literally make the object of a discussion, like how straight people debate gay marriage like it is just another political issue when in fact we are discussing the validity of a certain type of experience).

 

I think one of the best debate answers to this is drawing the distinction between speaking for others and speaking with others. Obviously there is probably truth on both sides of the debate, I don't think speaking for others is always bad but I definitely think it is a legit argument and it can be problematic.

  • Upvote 2

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...