Jump to content
Solax10

Race K aff's

Recommended Posts

While at nationals I faced a K aff that discussed the racist nature of Cuban Economic engagement with the US. The team talked about the oppression and discrimination of the black body. My main question is what are most of your all's generic K or argument against race aff's,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOO DA for solvency takeouts

DnG K for solvency takeouts

Cap K (depends on what they read) 

Case Stuff: Fatalism Bad, Rejecting State Bad -> Political Vacuum -> Elites get more power; Social Death Not Real 

Accelerationism CP (Cuz I love me my Accelerationism <3) 

 

I think a Framework Debate is really iffy against race affs - the research/debate model that the negative advocates for will always already exclude the black body from any sort of discussion; I think the 2013 NDT 2AR shows that fairly well - but it also depends on who the judges are and whether or not they're composed of more policy-oriented judges

 

I'm assuming this was a Wilderson-Centered AFF, could be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOO DA for solvency takeouts

DnG K for solvency takeouts

Cap K (depends on what they read) 

Case Stuff: Fatalism Bad, Rejecting State Bad -> Political Vacuum -> Elites get more power; Social Death Not Real 

Accelerationism CP (Cuz I love me my Accelerationism <3) 

 

I think a Framework Debate is really iffy against race affs - the research/debate model that the negative advocates for will always already exclude the black body from any sort of discussion; I think the 2013 NDT 2AR shows that fairly well - but it also depends on who the judges are and whether or not they're composed of more policy-oriented judges

 

I'm assuming this was a Wilderson-Centered AFF, could be wrong though.

 

OOO DA for solvency takeouts

DnG K for solvency takeouts

Cap K (depends on what they read) 

Case Stuff: Fatalism Bad, Rejecting State Bad -> Political Vacuum -> Elites get more power; Social Death Not Real 

Accelerationism CP (Cuz I love me my Accelerationism <3) 

 

I think a Framework Debate is really iffy against race affs - the research/debate model that the negative advocates for will always already exclude the black body from any sort of discussion; I think the 2013 NDT 2AR shows that fairly well - but it also depends on who the judges are and whether or not they're composed of more policy-oriented judges

 

I'm assuming this was a Wilderson-Centered AFF, could be wrong though.

Whats the Fatalism and OOO argument?

Edited by MrEragonSaph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the Fatalism and OOO argument?

 

Fatalism is the belief that everything is pre-destined per say; driven by fate, its against the conception of "free will" - Wilderson is very fatalist. He believes that the ontological death of the black body is not capable of being solved unless we go through a process of "unflinching paradigmatic analysis" which will probably never happen and that Civil Society will always posit the Black Body in a state of absolute dereliction. The problem with fatalism is that when you constantly repeat it to yourself you start to believe it and you never even make the attempt to change anything because you're so convinced that everything is irrevocably fucked - so the method of the AFF dooms their movement to fatalism in which we don't DO anything in the face of racism because we're so convinced that there is nothing we can do to change that

 

The OOO argument is that the affirmative is going about trying to change society all wrong; what the Black Body needs is a pragmatic revolution that ENGAGES the material world of objects as opposed to the world of textual discourse in which we all talk about the issues in an academic enclosure but never make the attempt to go out and actually DO something about the things that were spoken in the round - Therefore, since the methodology of the 1AC doesn't engage the material world of objects, there revolution will always fail since they aren't DOING anything for their movement and are just trying to use the suffering of the black body for the ballot - It's kinda like a half solvency takeout/Ballot Commodification argument

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While at nationals I faced a K aff that discussed the racist nature of Cuban Economic engagement with the US. The team talked about the oppression and discrimination of the black body. My main question is what are most of your all's generic K or argument against race aff's,

 

Critical framework counter-advocacies can do well against these arguments. Did they read a plan? If they had a plan to remove the embargo, you could read the Whitewashing CP on open evidence. Some teams had Black Feminism kritiks that they read against anti-blackness affs. Did they spread? You could read reasons why that's bad in the context of race activism. Anthro is a good generic against most identity critiques, and so is the Cap K. Lacan is viable - "Desiring Whiteness" by Seshadri-Crooks has been popping up on college wikis. Speaking of, see what people put on the college wikis for when they go up against radical-political affirmatives about race. Deleuzian critiques could offer an alternative account of race and activism that could compete on multiple levels with the aff. Satire and irony are (probably tasteless) options as well. I think the Tuck and Yang article, "Decolonization is not a metaphor," might be very good against this aff.

 

Those are some ideas that I can think of going from your description. If you had the cites beforehand, researching it would be even easier!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critical framework counter-advocacies can do well against these arguments. Did they read a plan? If they had a plan to remove the embargo, you could read the Whitewashing CP on open evidence. Some teams had Black Feminism kritiks that they read against anti-blackness affs. Did they spread? You could read reasons why that's bad in the context of race activism. Anthro is a good generic against most identity critiques, and so is the Cap K. Lacan is viable - "Desiring Whiteness" by Seshadri-Crooks has been popping up on college wikis. Speaking of, see what people put on the college wikis for when they go up against radical-political affirmatives about race. Deleuzian critiques could offer an alternative account of race and activism that could compete on multiple levels with the aff. Satire and irony are (probably tasteless) options as well. I think the Tuck and Yang article, "Decolonization is not a metaphor," might be very good against this aff.

 

Those are some ideas that I can think of going from your description. If you had the cites beforehand, researching it would be even easier!

The aff was not a plan, I was semi confused on what they aff was saying. They said it's important to know the history of our EE before being able to do anything, and a ballot for the affirmative is a step to start a revolution ending the oppression, they did spread and I have the case but I feel it may be rude to upload it without their permission. This isn't directed to just you but anyone that could answer this question; how does attempting to help a race equal to capitalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff was not a plan, I was semi confused on what they aff was saying. They said it's important to know the history of our EE before being able to do anything, and a ballot for the affirmative is a step to start a revolution ending the oppression, they did spread and I have the case but I feel it may be rude to upload it without their permission. This isn't directed to just you but anyone that could answer this question; how does attempting to help a race equal to capitalism?

a) focusing on discourse obscures how racism was born out of MATERIAL oppression which are more important than discourse (similar to OOO)

B) cap is the root cause of racism (or so you say), so focusing on racial oppression misses the boat and provides meager forces that puts a happy face on capitalism and exports the problem while exploitation continues regardless-totalizing and wholeheartedly rejecting cap is key to solve

c) micropolitics (this may or may not link) Focus on local struggle only exports the problem: globalization is world-wide and requires worldwide solidarity and resistance

d) Enlightenment: aff's rejection of enlightenment values (Truth, objectivity, reason, progress) are capitalist guises use to mystify the proletariat--we need to focus on how capitalism is OBJECTIVELY exploiting people and creating material misery (poverty, inequality, etc.).  Subjectivity leads to us thinking "oppression all in our head" and gives cap a free pass

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Brent, I was the 1A from that round. I was actually very surprised you did not spread, I thought everyone in Cross-X spread haha. I also feel that you absolutely mishandeld that round and we would appreciate it if you do not upload our files to Cross-X

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Brent, I was the 1A from that round. I was actually very surprised you did not spread, I thought everyone in Cross-X spread haha. I also feel that you absolutely mishandeld that round and we would appreciate it if you do not upload our files to Cross-X

No problem! That's why I didn't upload without your permission. I also don't spread as much because where I come from judges usually prefer clarity over rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These two are so contradictory...

 

They see me reading multiple worlds and perf cons good... they hatin... 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While at nationals I faced a K aff that discussed the racist nature of Cuban Economic engagement with the US. The team talked about the oppression and discrimination of the black body. My main question is what are most of your all's generic K or argument against race aff's,

Okay, maybe my time to shine. In my circuit a lot of people read affirmatives like this, so I have a bit of experience debating them, and I read a critical affirmative about the history of EE (not specific to the black body) as well. I have a couple of questions which largely determine your strategy against teams like these:

  • First, what race was the team reading this aff? (my arguments tend to change rather drastically depending on whether I feel the team is speaking for themselves or from a position of privilege).
  •  
  • Second, can you recall who the authors the affirmative was basing their theory on were? (Frank Wilderson/Jared Sexton, bell hooks, Derrida, etc.) Indicts of the Affirmative's theory are fairly important.
  •  
  • Third, what sort of arguments does this team read on the negative (similar ones?) (You may not know this)
  •  

In terms, of arguments to read, they can really vary based on personal preference and the questions listed above.

 

First, I'm going to run through why I think some of the advice listed above should not be taken-

Deleuze: I think reading a critique centered in Western thought (and particularly one focused on fluidity and the like) is not what you want to be doing in these sort of circumstances. I know this forum has a strange obsession with Deleuze (unsure why, his theories are ridiculously difficult to understand), but as a team reading a critical affirmative, I am happy when a negative team decides that it is a good idea to read a Deleuzian-esque criticism against me, because I can weigh basically my entire affirmative and have broad indicts of both the Western philosophical tradition and of the idea of fluidity (there is some great literature in relation to indigenous epistemology indicting Deleuze and his ideas of fluidity, I would suggest Jodi Byrd's book [i can't remember the name right now] Edit: The Transit of Empire)

Second, reading a high-theory critique like Deleuze is basically like handing the Affirmative ethos. It's is extremely easy to control ethos when you're going off against a critique that is difficult to explain how it translates into real world change and isn't really accessible (like "how the fuck is someone being oppressed by civil society expected to read all your fucking deleuzian literature and then engage in this 'schizophrenic' bullshit"). There's a reason that high-theory critical teams do their worst against race/low-theory critical teams.

Accelerationism/OOO: I'm going to group these because they are both relatively new philosophical disciplines (although it depends if you're tracing Accelerationism to the manifesto or all the way back to Nick Land). What Theparanoiacmachine describes as an OOO DA (he says "what the Black Body needs is a pragmatic revolution ... as opposed to the world of textual discourse") is a really good idea, but is not what object oriented ontology is about, so OOO DA is a misnomer. If one reads OOO or Accelerationism, I think a lot of what I discussed above in relation to high-theory applies, plus you have the added negative of both of these being relatively new fields (so not much in relation to race has been written about them), with a lot of backlash (for OOO, those Berry cards are pretty damn good, and there's some good stuff answering Accelerationism as well).

Cap K/Framework/Anthro: The obvious problem with both of these arguments is that they're going to be expected, and probably going to be the most blocked out argument for any critical team.There is a lot of strategic value in having generics, and against certain crazy affirmatives, some form of framework is definitely viable, but there is a ton of literature on both sides of each of these topics, and the other team is *probably* going to have more experience debating it than you will.

I'm not as big of a fan of reading Anthro (particularly against race teams), but if that's your cup of tea, go ahead. This too is increasingly becoming a generic like the cap k.

Note: This is not including Dancon25's idea of framework, which I think is a good idea and I'll elaborate on in a sec.

 

Now are the arguments I think you *should* run.

Case: Well, duh. But I think that on case you should be focusing on pragmatism, or what my school calls a "politics of survival". In cross-x, I think you should set-up why and how they're rejecting the state, because you can get a lot of offense on these survival politics arguments through that. The fact is that yes, the state is probably a flawed institution, but millions of people who are in oppressed conditions rely on them for food, shelter, or their livelihoods, and it's pretty fucking privileged to basically disregard their needs as part of some "glorious [fucking] revolution" or new "critical pedagogy". I think that you can spin this as reasons why their case is pretty much just academic theorizing and is not at all accessible, which means that it can't truly ever solve for the stuff it's criticizing.

Second, if the Affirmative is more of a high-theory sort of race affirmative, you can and should provide reasons why their fancy theories don't do shit for the people they're actually trying to help because they're stuck in the academia, but also because they're abstract and no one has any clue what they look like in the real world. I would also throw this under the label of pragmatism, but there is a distinction between "state good sometimes" and "your theory sucks". 

 

Also on case, if they read an afro-pessimism style affirmative, I think a lot of the fatalism arguments mentioned above apply, as well as some other indicts of wilderson-esque theory (I'd look at what Georgetown read against rutgers [i think] during the NDT)

 

Commodification: I think this argument is very tricky, and the way you run it is dependent on whether you feel like the team is benefiting or being harmed by the power structures they critique. If you feel that the team is benefiting from racist structures (ie, they're white), then you can go all out on this critique, which basically is arguing that presenting suffering (in this case racial oppression) and then claiming that you need the ballot only makes the oppression into a commodity good. If you remain clear in cross-x (they'll probably BS a lot), there is really no reason they need the ballot to engage in their method of praxis, so really the only thing the ballot serves to do is commodify oppression. 

I think you can combine several different arguments into this critique as well. Speaking for others can probably be subsumed into the broader framework of this critique, because they are pretending they know what these people want, (ie. hurray! the white people have come to the rescue!), without really considering their own personal place of privilege, and also critiques of "teaching people" stuff and then asking for the ballot in return can be used (kinda like Friere's critique of banking pedagogy).

If you think the Affirmative team is being harmed by the structures they criticize, then you have to make this argument more nuanced. It's not that they're the ones commodifying blackness (or whatever), but that the institution of debate is commodifying, incorporating their critique within it's system, and then they'll be utilized as the "token" minority. Be forewarned: There is a lot less literature on this position, and it is really really really easy to sound offensive (even though I don't think it's an offensive position, I think it's the reality of the white-liberal yet covertly racist structures we live in today). Personally, I don't read this argument against race teams anymore (mostly because the file I have right now is shit and I think there is better lit on it).

 

Framework??: While I don't read this argument because I think it'd be unethical for me to do so, I think there is a lot of strategic value to certain forms of framework. Obviously, you could just out-right the affirmative and read hardcore framework (like how many policy teams do successfully), but I think that the more nuanced form of framework mentioned by Dancon25 is better. First, you probably want to strip your framework of any claims to have fairness or ground, because those are the hallmarks of more traditional framework, and you want to be having a method debate rather than a theory debate. Second, I think you should probably consider the angle from which you want to attack them using framework. A lot of what I described on the case flow about pragmatism and engaging the government can probably be used as a standard to critical framework, but there are a huge excess of possible standards that I won't get into. I personally, read a sort of framework that critiques "inauthentic advocates" who read critical affirmatives some rounds, but the politics da others (but this argument usually only works if you yourself don't have a disembodied perspective like that [which most debaters do]).

 

High Theory Criticisms: Not all high-theory critiques are equal, and some are a lot better at dealing with critical (especially race) affirmative's than others. While I rejected the suggestions of deleuze (because honestly, like yes, it can work, but there is a lot of race/other literature critiquing it), Dancon25's suggestion of lacanian theories *could* work because there is a lot of theory relating those and race. Another high-theory critique that could work is Derrida's hauntology (especially as contextualized by a guy whose last name is Peterson, can't remember the title right now, but I have the book). If you go onto Oklahoma LM's wiki, you can see a critique (entitled "Spectrality") that they made using that literature base.

 

Again, you should be ready for broad indicts of western philosophy and arguments about how critical theory is bad, but honestly, their affirmative is probably as inaccessible as your criticism is.

 

Coloniality/Other low theory criticisms: These are my personal fave. A lot of times affirmatives make the mistake of basing their critiques of racism or the like on the methodologies of philosophers who are open to criticism because they remain within the system of western thought (such as Derrida and Foucault). I've won several rounds against teams using Foucault as the basis for their critical theories by arguing that he remained within the Western tradition. Even Wilderson himself bases a lot his thought on Lacanian ideas and film theory, which you can probably find criticisms of (although there are a lot of criticisms of wilderson himself). (Also yeah, Maldonado-Torres has a critique of Fanonian scholars, so that'd work)

 

Okay, I'm running out of steam so I'll just end here. Also, I'll just throw in this comment by Maury, because I think it's very indicative of how trends in debate are occurring and the best race teams have moved beyond wilderson as the *basis* for their theories. Where I debate, most people have move beyond Wilderson in favor of more nuanced racial theories. Also, DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME ALL RACE TEAMS ARE WILDERSON. So many people do this, and just don't. With the possible exception of high-theory critiques, most of the arguments above are strategic ways to attack the affirmative, while also putting ethos firmly back into your hands-- so use it!

 

Edit: I'd love it if people could point out flaws in my strategy because this is *the* strategy I use and it'd be cool to know how to improve it.

 

Yeah also don't perfcon. Just don't. Like don't do it normally, but especially don't against critical teams.

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Brent, I was the 1A from that round. I was actually very surprised you did not spread, I thought everyone in Cross-X spread haha. I also feel that you absolutely mishandeld that round and we would appreciate it if you do not upload our files to Cross-X

 

It's generally good debate etiquette to post at least your cites on the wiki. The year's over so there's zero reason not to. If you don't know how to use the wiki, I can definitely help. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey ...I also feel that you absolutely mishandeld that round...

I think that's kind of messed up to say w/o any advice or constructive criticism, imagine if a judge gave you am RFD and just said "you sucked" and left the room

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's generally good debate etiquette to post at least your cites on the wiki. The year's over so there's zero reason not to. If you don't know how to use the wiki, I can definitely help. 

They've posted cites to a Cuban Oil aff, so I assume they know how to know to use the wiki.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's kind of messed up to say w/o any advice or constructive criticism, imagine if a judge gave you am RFD and just said "you sucked" and left the room

I wasn't sure if I was the only one who thought that he sounded a little snarky

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to touch on the high theory thing, I think that deploying it in a round with a judge who's cool with just about anything is a good way to regain ethos IF you can explain it, because the more nuances the K has, the less likely it is to be WELL answered past generic blocks (i.e. w/ a policy team, the only DnG K they have blocks to is the ego. Or w/ K teams they sort of use pathos to gloss over other oppressions, some say black suffering is the I/L to patriarchy etc. This can be turned against them with a solid warrant analysis, and the willingness to stand by your position.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, some affs (versions of assata shakur) col for violent revolution, I think subversive ideology typically works well here, because they're in a debate round, not throwing Molotovs through govt. buildings, which kind of proves the whole "you kind of want/need the system" but I wouldn't suggest reading this as a short, conditional position, take time to bring out nuances in each arg (especially high theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to touch on the high theory thing, I think that deploying it in a round with a judge who's cool with just about anything is a good way to regain ethos IF you can explain it, because the more nuances the K has, the less likely it is to be WELL answered past generic blocks (i.e. w/ a policy team, the only DnG K they have blocks to is the ego. Or w/ K teams they sort of use pathos to gloss over other oppressions, some say black suffering is the I/L to patriarchy etc. This can be turned against them with a solid warrant analysis, and the willingness to stand by your position.)

A couple of things to this. First, I'll say that I'm probably a little biased on this, because where I'm from high-theory doesn't do very well, and I've honestly never seen a high-theory critique beat a race team, but I will still stand with the fact that I think starting with high-theory starts you at a disadvantage, because I think you're already behind on ethos.

I think explaining the nuances of Deleuzian theory (or whatever) in less than an hour is *very difficult* and the fact that you have to explain it so well is just proof of my argument about accessibility. Sweeping indicts of your philosophical basis and critiquing the ability of your alt to actualize change are generic responses by K teams such as these, but that doesn't mean that they're not very good generics, and it puts you into the defensive defending your own theory, instead of critiquing theirs.

 

In relation to the whole glossing over other oppressions- a couple of things:

a. I wouldn't consider a critique of patriarchy to be traditionally "high-theory"

b. I think that it's generally mediocre (race) teams that do stuff like that, most good teams have far more nuanced discussions.

 

Also, some affs (versions of assata shakur) col for violent revolution, I think subversive ideology typically works well here, because they're in a debate round, not throwing Molotovs through govt. buildings, which kind of proves the whole "you kind of want/need the system" but I wouldn't suggest reading this as a short, conditional position, take time to bring out nuances in each arg (especially high theory)

I don't know what you mean by "subversive ideology", but I think your argument about how they're in a debate round not throwing molotovs applies just as much to the inability to actualize the alternative of high-theory critiques as it does to "race" teams. 

Also, I don't see many calls for violent revolution among the top-tier of these teams. (maybe I'm wrong?)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things to this. First, I'll say that I'm probably a little biased on this, because where I'm from high-theory doesn't do very well, and I've honestly never seen a high-theory critique beat a race team, but I will still stand with the fact that I think starting with high-theory starts you at a disadvantage, because I think you're already behind on ethos.

I think explaining the nuances of Deleuzian theory (or whatever) in less than an hour is *very difficult* and the fact that you have to explain it so well is just proof of my argument about accessibility. Sweeping indicts of your philosophical basis and critiquing the ability of your alt to actualize change are generic responses by K teams such as these, but that doesn't mean that they're not very good generics, and it puts you into the defensive defending your own theory, instead of critiquing theirs.

 

In relation to the whole glossing over other oppressions- a couple of things:

a. I wouldn't consider a critique of patriarchy to be traditionally "high-theory"

b. I think that it's generally mediocre (race) teams that do stuff like that, most good teams have far more nuanced discussions.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "subversive ideology", but I think your argument about how they're in a debate round not throwing molotovs applies just as much to the inability to actualize the alternative of high-theory critiques as it does to "race" teams. 

Also, I don't see many calls for violent revolution among the top-tier of these teams. (maybe I'm wrong?)

I'll grant you that you may have to be put on the defensive for a short amount of time, but, typically these indicts are the same and can be grouped and answered in a few words and be WELL covered (depending on what version of whatever K you run) and typically you can find a creative way to spin it into another link or some type of offensive argument.

Subversive ideology is typically a zizek or baudrillard K that teams run against K affs that says you want the system to have something to rebel against.

Even if you lose the alt if you take out aff solvency the neg still gets the ballot. But typically you can use an alt that doesn't make you bite the K.

I can't remember the team(s) but some where calling for violent revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, on the patriarchy thing I'll give you it typically doesn't get too high theory (except for maybe introna and a few other authors), but the point to be made was that some teams try to gloss over other oppression, but you're right typically they aren't the best race teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subversive ideology is typically a zizek or baudrillard K that teams run against K affs that says you want the system to have something to rebel against.

Oh! I know that by the name overidentification and associated theories like that.

I'll grant you that you may have to be put on the defensive for a short amount of time, but, typically these indicts are the same and can be grouped and answered in a few words and be WELL covered (depending on what version of whatever K you run) and typically you can find a creative way to spin it into another link or some type of offensive argument.

Subversive ideology is typically a zizek or baudrillard K that teams run against K affs that says you want the system to have something to rebel against.

Even if you lose the alt if you take out aff solvency the neg still gets the ballot. But typically you can use an alt that doesn't make you bite the K.

I can't remember the team(s) but some where calling for violent revolution.

Yeah I mean if you're really deadset on reading a high-theory critique you could do this, but I just feel like there are better options.

The fact is that high-theory teams (at least in college) do their worst against "race" teams.

 

I think this may be influenced by the fact that the types of arguments that are common are probably different based on where we live and thus we have different views on the topic.

Edited by Miro

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...