Jump to content
idahopotatoe

Makah Whaling Neg

Recommended Posts

why need a whole case neg when you have this: 

 

Interpretation: “Its” means belonging to or that thing

OED 14  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its

Its A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus); also refl., Of or belonging to itself, its own (L. suus).

The affirmative must defend action of all three branches of the United States federal government. “The” is used to indicate inclusion of an entire group.

Merriam-Webster's 9 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the)

 

4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>

The United States federal government includes all three branches, not just the supreme court.

WhiteHouse.gov 5.     

 

Branches of Government: Executive Branch. The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Judicial Branch. The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Legislative Branch. The legislative branch of the federal government consists of the Congress, which is divided into two chambers -- the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Violation: Native American tribes aren’t part of the federal government – they are their own government

DOI 10 (Department of the Interior, United States government, 01.16.10, “Tribal Governments”, http://www.doi.gov/governments/tribalgovernments.cfm, Accessed 07.21.14)//LD

Our nation has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities as provided by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, court decisions and federal statutes. Within this government-to-government relationship, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to 564 federally recognized tribes with a service population of about 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why need a whole case neg when you have this: 

 

Interpretation: “Its” means belonging to or that thing

OED 14  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its

Its A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus); also refl., Of or belonging to itself, its own (L. suus).

The affirmative must defend action of all three branches of the United States federal government. “The” is used to indicate inclusion of an entire group.

Merriam-Webster's 9 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the)

 

4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>

The United States federal government includes all three branches, not just the supreme court.

WhiteHouse.gov 5.     

 

Branches of Government: Executive Branch. The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Judicial Branch. The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Legislative Branch. The legislative branch of the federal government consists of the Congress, which is divided into two chambers -- the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Violation: Native American tribes aren’t part of the federal government – they are their own government

DOI 10 (Department of the Interior, United States government, 01.16.10, “Tribal Governments”, http://www.doi.gov/governments/tribalgovernments.cfm, Accessed 07.21.14)//LD

Our nation has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities as provided by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, court decisions and federal statutes. Within this government-to-government relationship, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to 564 federally recognized tribes with a service population of about 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives.

Most Makah affs I've seen are USfg courts affs, so that is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people reading that much?  I feel like it can't really answer 1-off give back the land, especially since half the cards they read are a defense of giving it back. 

Please god(if you are still alive) keep people from reading 1-off Give back the land, I really like GBTL, but people(in many cases) don't read the lit or legitimately care about the plight of the Native American people(s). I don't think you necessarily have to believe in giving back the land, but i think that any one making an argument surrounding someone's identity(sexuality, gender, race/nationality, etc.) should be invested. This isn't to say you have to be gender fluid to read queer theory, or female to read fem, or black to read afropess IMO, but i don't think you should read these arguments if a.) you outright disagree with the theory/theories or, b.) aren't willing to pick up some books and learn past someone else's file. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please god(if you are still alive) keep people from reading 1-off Give back the land, I really like GBTL, but people(in many cases) don't read the lit or legitimately care about the plight of the Native American people(s). I don't think you necessarily have to believe in giving back the land, but i think that any one making an argument surrounding someone's identity(sexuality, gender, race/nationality, etc.) should be invested. This isn't to say you have to be gender fluid to read queer theory, or female to read fem, or black to read afropess IMO, but i don't think you should read these arguments if a.) you outright disagree with the theory/theories or, b.) aren't willing to pick up some books and learn past someone else's file. 

I think there's a distinction when the aff is a colonialism aff; at that point, it becomes a question of competing methods and GBTL is a substantive engagement with the aff over how best to solve their harms, even if that's not the neg team's main focus in other rounds (that said, if they don't engage the lit substantively at all, you're right, but that probably means they'll lose anyway against a good team that knows what they're talking about, especially if the aff is also about colonialism and can be reasonably expected to be deep in the lit).

 

Also, to get rid of the sorts of Makah whaling affs I've seen, I'd accept people being slightly less genuine with their arguments, because the aff is based on severe misrepresentations of evidence that seems unethical in terms of both debate standards and butchering the lit to an extraordinary degree (the 1acs I've seen take cards about decolonization in the context of actually giving back the land and claim to solve them just through the treaty rights, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that Churchill is referring to when he describes the invader population rearranging itself in such a way as to make itself more comfortable).  That said, it's entirely possible that I'm just looking at particularly severe examples, and that better versions of the aff exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a distinction when the aff is a colonialism aff; at that point, it becomes a question of competing methods and GBTL is a substantive engagement with the aff over how best to solve their harms, even if that's not the neg team's main focus in other rounds (that said, if they don't engage the lit substantively at all, you're right, but that probably means they'll lose anyway against a good team that knows what they're talking about, especially if the aff is also about colonialism and can be reasonably expected to be deep in the lit).

 

Also, to get rid of the sorts of Makah whaling affs I've seen, I'd accept people being slightly less genuine with their arguments, because the aff is based on severe misrepresentations of evidence that seems unethical in terms of both debate standards and butchering the lit to an extraordinary degree (the 1acs I've seen take cards about decolonization in the context of actually giving back the land and claim to solve them just through the treaty rights, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that Churchill is referring to when he describes the invader population rearranging itself in such a way as to make itself more comfortable).  That said, it's entirely possible that I'm just looking at particularly severe examples, and that better versions of the aff exist.

I definitely agree that GBTL I'd substantive engagement, I just don't think that anybody reading the versions of Makah Whaling I've seen know what the lit is saying (or they don't care).

IMO disingenuous reading of identity args is not ok, not even to get rid of bad disingenuous affs, it only dilutes the legitimacy of the scholarship within the debate community. It's like when people read really contrived/wrong/stupid links with good k's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 i don't think you should read these arguments if a.) you outright disagree with the theory/theories 

I disagree: one of the biggest benefits of debate is opening yourself to new ideas and forcing yourself to come up with reasons you agree with something you hate.

 

 

 b.) aren't willing to pick up some books and learn past someone else's file. 

This is true for all arguments (though admittedly more so for K's).  Unless you're relying on some bullshit "but the judge really starts the revolution the revolution by voting aff/neg" solvency, there's no reason why its ethically wrong to run K's you disagree with.  I wouldn't simply because its easier to argue for something you agree with, but there's no reason you can't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree: one of the biggest benefits of debate is opening yourself to new ideas and forcing yourself to come up with reasons you agree with something you hate.

 

True. But you're effectively rendering someone's pain a commodity when you read an identity k you disagree with, it's not like Nietzsche or OOO, etc. It's someone's life.

 

This is true for all arguments (though admittedly more so for K's).  Unless you're relying on some bullshit "but the judge really starts the revolution the revolution by voting aff/neg" solvency, there's no reason why its ethically wrong to run K's you disagree with.  I wouldn't simply because its easier to argue for something you agree with, but there's no reason you can't

It's ethically wrong IMO because of the reasons above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a couple case negs on open evidence. As far as off case, the case negs have some off case args but anthro and T get ran on me pretty much every time so those are definitely ways to go. Speaking for others, but don't go assuming people's race because that will totally screw you over. I know that because someone did that against us and it ended terribly for them. Any K involving some other cause like feminism or queer theory are pretty cool. If you're going to run a trade-off DA, make sure it links to court action and not congress. Fatal mistake. Just, know that not every Makah Whaling aff will be the same so definitely don't just run the standard 1NC from a neg and end up dropping half of their contentions. That's happened. It's really sad.

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...