Jump to content
Tharealschoob

Empathy Spillover

Recommended Posts

I have an AFF that has an empathy contention. It basically says that the judge should vote based on who provides the most empathy, and that empathy solves war and such. I feel like I need a card that says that empathy spills over. I have been combing around google, but I have had no luck. I would really appreciate if anyone could help me out here. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if your aff is small and/or structural violency and what not, the nixon cards that people read with the neolib K usually says we need to talk about slow forms of violence in pedagogical spaces... you don't want to claim spillover (because it's just not true) but you should talk about what forms of pedagogy we as a debate community should endorse which is easier to imagine and should be a comparison of models of debate rather than a reading of an aff which spills over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this trend where people think that they need a card for everything.  You're a person.  If you become more empathetic, that doesn't magically disappear the second that you leave the debate.  If you win that your aff increases empathy, I challenge anyone to prove, card or otherwise, that it doesn't spill over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, attempting to create recognition through competition generates backlash. Inevitably, the losing team is frustrated that the affirmative requires them to be the sacrificial lamb in the name of creating broader change which undermines any recognition the affirmative hopes the broader community will achieve.

Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Phd Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Phd Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, “Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future,” The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)

Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change. The larger problem with locating the "debate as activism" perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change.

Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes mat each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, attempting to create recognition through competition generates backlash. Inevitably, the losing team is frustrated that the affirmative requires them to be the sacrificial lamb in the name of creating broader change which undermines any recognition the affirmative hopes the broader community will achieve.

Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Phd Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Phd Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, “Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future,” The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)

Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change. The larger problem with locating the "debate as activism" perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change.

Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes mat each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.

This all assumes a homogeneous debater that will get pissy about losing to a K aff team 

 

Not to mention the pedagogical value of debating controversial issues within the debate space; if I can't talk about my queer identity within the debate space, then debate just becomes another form of exclusion to add on to the list of queer-phobia FUCK YOUR FRAMEWORK 

 

I'd gladly drop to a K aff team that can defend their arguments REALLY WELL (which is again, subjective)

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all assumes a homogeneous debater that will get pissy about losing to a K aff team 

 

Not to mention the pedagogical value of debating controversial issues within the debate space; if I can't talk about my queer identity within the debate space, then debate just becomes another form of exclusion to add on to the list of queer-phobia FUCK YOUR FRAMEWORK 

 

I'd gladly drop to a K aff team that can defend their arguments REALLY WELL (which is again, subjective)

Nah, my point isn't k affs are bad. 

 

What is this trend where people think that they need a card for everything.  You're a person.  If you become more empathetic, that doesn't magically disappear the second that you leave the debate.  If you win that your aff increases empathy, I challenge anyone to prove, card or otherwise, that it doesn't spill over.

The point is that you probably need evidence to say things like empathy spillover; Unless you are OU CR or some other top 20 team in college, you cannot convince judges with an analytic that your empathy spillsover because individual debate rounds just aren't important and most debaters aren't going to be known for their emapthy but rather they will be popular in the community because everybody wants to use their shiny new k which will be  used for ballots if they are good enough. 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, my point isn't k affs are bad. 

 

The point is that you probably need evidence to say things like empathy spillover; Unless you are OU CL or some other top 20 team in college, you cannot convince judges with an analytic that your empathy spillsover because individual debate rounds just aren't important and most debaters aren't going to be known for their emapthy but rather they will be popular in the community because everybody wants to use their shiny new k which will be  used for ballots if they are good enough. 

fixed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an AFF that has an empathy contention. It basically says that the judge should vote based on who provides the most empathy, and that empathy solves war and such. I feel like I need a card that says that empathy spills over. I have been combing around google, but I have had no luck. I would really appreciate if anyone could help me out here. Thanks.

I am not empathetic to your request. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might seek out a "consciousness raising solves."

 

The question is what kinds of consciousness raising.

Theoretically the DA is a form of consciousness raising too.  You have to be able to distinguish one from the other in a meaningful way.

 

This is an argument out of the feminist movement......but is language that has been borrowed by other movements.

 

I know that Katherine Bartlett in Feminist Legal Methods (law review article available for free online) has some consciousness raising cards.  This article is quite long....you're going to to want to just read that section.  There is a helpful history of the feminist movement section at the end.  1st wave, 2nd wave, 3rd wave.

Edited by nathan_debate

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...