Jump to content
Edgehopper

Why is this a silly idea?

Recommended Posts

With the release of Aff previews for the Chicago city championships, there were 4-5 Affs that were what I'll call "consciousness-raising" K affs.  What I mean by that categorization is that the solvency/impacts/"reason to vote Aff" on these Affs is always something like "interrogating Islamophobia/American exceptionalism/American hegemony/the Middle Passage in educational settings is good, and therefore you should vote Aff to endorse it."

 

Now, this seems to invite an attack that is extremely gimmicky, but seems reasonable on its face.  Namely, in the first CX:

 

Q: You say that the judge should vote Aff to endorse a critical examination of X, right?

A: Yes.

Q: And that's because it's valuable to perform a critical examination of X in educational settings?

A: Yes.

Q: But the only people who ever see this round are the 5 of us, and you two are already convinced?

A: Yeah, but it's better than nothing, and you and the judge might spread the advocacy beyond the round.

Q: About that...I have here a contract for your signature that provides that if you concede the round, my partner and I will give a speech on the subject of X, which you can write in its entirety, in front of an assembly at our school.  Will you sign it?

A: Um...no?

 

Followed by adding a very strong perfcon element to the 1NC framework/wrong forum arguments we'd run anyways.

 

So, seriously, if you're running this type of Aff, what's the answer to a "contract for bigger critical impact" negative argument?

 

Edit: And then to ramp up the absurdity, since I like running pro-cap arguments, pointing out that this is an example of how free trade can be used to promote social justice and how capitalism solves for the K Aff better than just talking about stuff.

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohmygod what a great idea

 

I'm sure there are tons of flaws but that's hilarious and I bet it would leave average teams going "uh... dur... what...?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing is that you force them to say that something about the process of debate is key, and then you can wreck them on framework because they definitely do not employ a model of debate that best facilitates the exchange of ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agonism GOOD :D (Roberts-Miller '03)

 

If there's a general consensus on how to resolve an issue then there's really no debate to had (Roberts-Miller '03) - there's also a difference between having an advocacy that is contestable to one that is debateable (That's Steinberg and Freeley '13 - obviously there's much more to the evidence but in this context, that's all I need) 

 

If I was judging that round, I'd assume you'd be reading a "Ballot Commodification" argument in the 1NC from that C-X exchange (I think Spivak and Chow would be really useful in that instance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agonism GOOD :D (Roberts-Miller '03)

 

If there's a general consensus on how to resolve an issue then there's really no debate to had (Roberts-Miller '03) - there's also a difference between having an advocacy that is contestable to one that is debateable (That's Steinberg and Freeley '13 - obviously there's much more to the evidence but in this context, that's all I need) 

 

If I was judging that round, I'd assume you'd be reading a "Ballot Commodification" argument in the 1NC from that C-X exchange (I think Spivak and Chow would be really useful in that instance)

 

Eh, I'm trying to hit the K head on rather than counter-K.  The goal is more of an analytical case turn; Aff's refusal to take a loss to access the impacts they say are more important than debate proves the impacts to be nonexistent, so vote Neg.  Or phrased differently, don't give Aff a ballot for critically examining Islamophobia when they clearly care more about an Aff ballot than they do about examining Islamophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the release of Aff previews for the Chicago city championships, there were 4-5 Affs that were what I'll call "consciousness-raising" K affs.  What I mean by that categorization is that the solvency/impacts/"reason to vote Aff" on these Affs is always something like "interrogating Islamophobia/American exceptionalism/American hegemony/the Middle Passage in educational settings is good, and therefore you should vote Aff to endorse it."

The way that teams (in my view) should be framing this is as the judge voting for the best methodology to combat social ills-- the judge voting aff isn't consciousness building or opting to become "part of your movement" but simply saying that she believes that the methodology presented by the Aff was a comparatively good one.

 

Q: You say that the judge should vote Aff to endorse a critical examination of X, right?

A: Yes.

Q: And that's because it's valuable to perform a critical examination of X in educational settings?

A: Yes.

Q: But the only people who ever see this round are the 5 of us, and you two are already convinced?

A: Yeah, but it's better than nothing, and you and the judge might spread the advocacy beyond the round.

We take the strategies and ideas we learn in debate outside of the round. I would rather have you challenge me and provide a different methodology or question parts of the Affirmative than to just concede the round-- because the goal of Affs like these shouldn't be to build a movement per se but to allow a debate over methods. I have learned *so* much from reading a critical aff and having discussions about different methodologies/theories to promote social change.

 

Q: About that...I have here a contract for your signature that provides that if you concede the round, my partner and I will give a speech on the subject of X, which you can write in its entirety, in front of an assembly at our school.  Will you sign it?

Haha this is such a terrible form of activism

 

Edit: And then to ramp up the absurdity, since I like running pro-cap arguments, pointing out that this is an example of how free trade can be used to promote social justice and how capitalism solves for the K Aff better than just talking about stuff.

trade ≠ modern cap

 

If there's a general consensus on how to resolve an issue then there's really no debate to had (Roberts-Miller '03) - there's also a difference between having an advocacy that is contestable to one that is debateable (That's Steinberg and Freeley '13 - obviously there's much more to the evidence but in this context, that's all I need) 

competing methods is by definition contestable

 

If I was judging that round, I'd assume you'd be reading a "Ballot Commodification" argument in the 1NC from that C-X exchange (I think Spivak and Chow would be really useful in that instance)

Neg: "About that...I have here a contract for your signature that provides that if you concede the round, my partner and I will give a speech on the subject of X, which you can write in its entirety, in front of an assembly at our school.  Will you sign it?"-- Oh so now the *Aff* is commodifying the ballot? The Negative literally just offered a trade for it.

 

Also TuckYang have some pretty good ballot commod/consciousness building bad stuff.

 

Eh, I'm trying to hit the K head on rather than counter-K.  The goal is more of an analytical case turn; Aff's refusal to take a loss to access the impacts they say are more important than debate proves the impacts to be nonexistent, so vote Neg.  Or phrased differently, don't give Aff a ballot for critically examining Islamophobia when they clearly care more about an Aff ballot than they do about examining Islamophobia.

If the Aff is framed as a method and is looking for a method debate, then I think that this issue goes away.

 

I agree that having an aff framed as "consciousness building" or whatever is problematic, but I don't think that's how a lot of teams do it.

Edited by Miro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if you're only willing to give a much larger speech in order to win the ballot, you're just as bad (and more likely than not worse)  on the whole question of sincerity... which I could see them turning and using as a reason to vote aff. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, giving a speech doesn't have the same critical analysis a debate round would bring. It's a lot more than just going up and reading a speech on for example, anti blackness. In a debate round, we get to competitively interrogate methodologies and criticisms. At a school, it's a bunch of kids excited to skip class, no real engagement or clash. And there is no reason why we can't do both, perm. Have a competitive discussion, and I'd be more than happy to deliver a speech solely for educational purposes outside the debate tournament. For all you know, I'm already giving these speeches outside of debate, already an activists breaking structures of race through protests, writing books...etc., your argument just makes the assumption that we don't already do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if you're only willing to give a much larger speech in order to win the ballot, you're just as bad (and more likely than not worse)  on the whole question of sincerity... which I could see them turning and using as a reason to vote aff.

 

But as Neg, I don't claim to be sincere. I don't buy into your impacts, and I'm not running a counter-advocacy. I'm just testing your impacts. Remember, I'm running framework; I think this is the wrong forum for that discussion entirely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think you got it all wrong on the first question. We generally say that the judge is determining whether or not the 1AC is a good idea, just like normal policy-oriented debate.

 

I'd take that admission, because then there's nothing to discuss. Where's the Neg ground against an Aff that says nothing more than "racism is bad?" But I'm working directly off of previewed tags here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, giving a speech doesn't have the same critical analysis a debate round would bring. It's a lot more than just going up and reading a speech on for example, anti blackness. In a debate round, we get to competitively interrogate methodologies and criticisms. At a school, it's a bunch of kids excited to skip class, no real engagement or clash. And there is no reason why we can't do both, perm. Have a competitive discussion, and I'd be more than happy to deliver a speech solely for educational purposes outside the debate tournament. For all you know, I'm already giving these speeches outside of debate, already an activists breaking structures of race through protests, writing books...etc., your argument just makes the assumption that we don't already do that.

 

1. This debate round doesn't have critical analysis, or at least the kind you want, because we didn't come here to talk about the best way to fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever.  We came here to debate ocean policy, and that's what we're prepared to talk about.

 

2. There's no real engagement or clash in this round, see point 1.

 

3. Perm fails:

 

  A. We're not giving this speech for free, and I'm not believing that you're giving this speech for free outside of debate rounds without some evidence.  Your choice is straightforward: concede a Neg ballot or there will be no speech about X at Joslin.

 

  B. You can't give the speech because you don't have access.  Lousy property rights, amirite?

 

  C. I don't have any incentive to have a competitive discussion, cross-apply my point from FW about lack of neg ground.  I'm not going to sit here and defend Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever, and you already know my position on how useful it is for us to sit in this room, talk about an issue, and the three people who came in not caring about it are going to leave not caring about it.  The only way you can access your impacts in this round is to sell your ballot.  And since the impacts are more important than debating the #$*&ing resolution per your topicality argument, shouldn't they be more important than who wins the round?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way that teams (in my view) should be framing this is as the judge voting for the best methodology to combat social ills-- the judge voting aff isn't consciousness building or opting to become "part of your movement" but simply saying that she believes that the methodology presented by the Aff was a comparatively good one.

 

Comparatively good to nothing?  Where's my Neg ground?  For reference, the Solvency mechanism previewed was "Discussing Islamophobia in educational settings, specifically classrooms allows us to begin to break down anti-Muslim and racist policy."  I'm not accepting an anti-topical framework that forces Neg to defend racism; that's not debatable.

 

We take the strategies and ideas we learn in debate outside of the round. I would rather have you challenge me and provide a different methodology or question parts of the Affirmative than to just concede the round-- because the goal of Affs like these shouldn't be to build a movement per se but to allow a debate over methods. I have learned *so* much from reading a critical aff and having discussions about different methodologies/theories to promote social change.

 

Then perhaps you should have read this argument on Neg, or in another event, so we had something to discuss.  We're here to discuss non-military ocean policy, that's what the resolution was, that's what we've spent the year learning about.  If you want to discuss methods to promote social change, presenting this Aff is a pretty terrible way to do it because we're not prepared to do anything other than argue about the unfairness of forcing Neg to defend racism.

 

Haha this is such a terrible form of activism

 

Fair enough.  How is presenting this Aff in a prelim round that no one's watching any better?  At least my form has an audience that isn't necessarily either actively hostile or cynical from having heard K Affs in 50+ rounds!  Anyways, if you don't like that, suggest another one.  The only limits are reasonability and that we won't do anything unless it's in exchange for you selling your ballot.

 

trade ≠ modern cap

 

I'd rather have that debate, so I'd be happy to discuss that.

 

competing methods is by definition contestable

 

If the only Neg ground is counter-advocacy with no relation to the topic, that's not even remotely fair.

 

Neg: "About that...I have here a contract for your signature that provides that if you concede the round, my partner and I will give a speech on the subject of X, which you can write in its entirety, in front of an assembly at our school.  Will you sign it?"-- Oh so now the *Aff* is commodifying the ballot? The Negative literally just offered a trade for it.

 

Also TuckYang have some pretty good ballot commod/consciousness building bad stuff.

 

Oh, I'm arguing ballot commodification good!  The only way you're going to convince me to advocate for your cause outside the round is by selling your ballot.  If you don't, I'll either win on framework and won't care, or I'll lose, write off the decision as an annoying trick to win rounds without doing the work of defending a policy option, and go on with my life.

 

If the Aff is framed as a method and is looking for a method debate, then I think that this issue goes away.

 

I agree that having an aff framed as "consciousness building" or whatever is problematic, but I don't think that's how a lot of teams do it.

 

It does depend on the 1AC, but see what they've previewed above.  As for the method debate, I'm happy to defend framework if the Aff's position is "I want a method debate on this entirely nontopical issue, so here's the single position you're allowed to use to negate without being awful (which, by the way, we're prepped out the wazoo for)."

Edited by Edgehopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This debate round doesn't have critical analysis, or at least the kind you want, because we didn't come here to talk about the best way to fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever.  We came here to debate ocean policy, and that's what we're prepared to talk about.

 

2. There's no real engagement or clash in this round, see point 1.

 

3. Perm fails:

 

  A. We're not giving this speech for free, and I'm not believing that you're giving this speech for free outside of debate rounds without some evidence.  Your choice is straightforward: concede a Neg ballot or there will be no speech about X at Joslin.

 

  B. You can't give the speech because you don't have access.  Lousy property rights, amirite?

 

  C. I don't have any incentive to have a competitive discussion, cross-apply my point from FW about lack of neg ground.  I'm not going to sit here and defend Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever, and you already know my position on how useful it is for us to sit in this room, talk about an issue, and the three people who came in not caring about it are going to leave not caring about it.  The only way you can access your impacts in this round is to sell your ballot.  And since the impacts are more important than debating the #$*&ing resolution per your topicality argument, shouldn't they be more important than who wins the round?

 

1. When did I ever say you had to be prepared. When did I say you have to even use evidence. The 1ac is already a step away from normative white debate, nobody restricted you to any of this. You are a person aren't you? You have a race don't you? You have lived experiences don't you? Why can't you narrate your side of the story, your witnesses and lived experience. Why can't you orally narrate a counter methodology or criticism?  You're not limited to ev or preparedness, race is something everyone interacts with and is entagled in. 

 - Moreover, race debate is not out of nowhere. This is a style of debate that has been actively practiced on the national circuit for some time now. The best teams in the nation, including 2014 TOC Champs Centennial KK run race arguments, it's become a normative element to some extent, there's no reason for you NOT to be prepared other than lack of commitment to the activity. There are numerous camp files (which wouldn't be there for no reason) specifically to counter affirmatives like ours. Not our fault you choose not to immerse yourself in all aspects of the activity.

 

2. Oh? But there is. This isn't the first round this aff was read, and most definitely not the first time a race argument was read. You could've read cap, anthro, wilderson, suffering whatever, there are numerous competitive methodologies FREELY available for your use. Again, your fault not ours. Why would camps put out SO MANY ANTI-RACE files for no reason.

 

3. Perm fails? Not even. The fact that neither of us have forfeited and the round continues on means this critical analysis is still going on.

    - What could have been more focused on liberating oppressed people, has turned into an argument of the best model of communication for these types of ideas and methodologies.

 

4. You don't have any incentive for discussion? Well neither do I. Why do I care about white issues such as Ocean Policy? Does me reading crap about oceans off of a laptop do anything for me other than educate me on irrelevant topics? I have to affirm the United States Federal Government, the same USFG that was founded on slavery, the same USFG that cleared native lands, the same USFG that bombs other countries unfairly (this is an entirely different debate)? I have to give up my identity, and the issues that I face to do that? Don't tell me a topical version of aff solves, cause the state never does, and can't ever do anything to resolve racial debates. I mean look at the tinderbox that ignited in Ferguson.

 

- I think you're getting into a ballot commodification argument, or like "guilt tripping" judge to win kind of thing. NO. The judge doesn't vote aff because black body is oppressed for example, rather that a pragmatic analysis is a good methodology to approach the issue. The judge votes on the methodology, not the impact.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take that admission, because then there's nothing to discuss. Where's the Neg ground against an Aff that says nothing more than "racism is bad?" But I'm working directly off of previewed tags here.

See, that's the problem, you're just looking at the surface level of the affs. I guarantee you no aff is just "racism bad", but if you actually try to engage it, you can find reasons why it's bad. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When did I ever say you had to be prepared. When did I say you have to even use evidence. The 1ac is already a step away from normative white debate, nobody restricted you to any of this. You are a person aren't you? You have a race don't you? You have lived experiences don't you? Why can't you narrate your side of the story, your witnesses and lived experience. Why can't you orally narrate a counter methodology or criticism?  You're not limited to ev or preparedness, race is something everyone interacts with and is entagled in. 

 

Because I'm white (OK, to be fair, the debater arguing this wouldn't be), so by your own evidence any attempt to do that would be a racist attempt to negate your narrative.  No one in the literature base you're working from would validate any counter-narrative from a straight white cis-male.  In fact...

 

 - Moreover, race debate is not out of nowhere. This is a style of debate that has been actively practiced on the national circuit for some time now. The best teams in the nation, including 2014 TOC Champs Centennial KK run race arguments, it's become a normative element to some extent, there's no reason for you NOT to be prepared other than lack of commitment to the activity. There are numerous camp files (which wouldn't be there for no reason) specifically to counter affirmatives like ours. Not our fault you choose not to immerse yourself in all aspects of the activity.

 

Yeah, and if you look at the Centennial KK planned response on the NDCA wiki to "There is no Model Minority Myth," the answer given was "That's racist."  If the only choice offered is to be racist or to accept your premises, that's not a real debate.

 

2. Oh? But there is. This isn't the first round this aff was read, and most definitely not the first time a race argument was read. You could've read cap, anthro, wilderson, suffering whatever, there are numerous competitive methodologies FREELY available for your use. Again, your fault not ours. Why would camps put out SO MANY ANTI-RACE files for no reason.

 

So the big critical impact you're accessing comes from the chance to have the same tired K vs. K debate that's existed ever since K Affs started getting run?  And I'm still not able to run any on-case or argue directly against your advocacy.

 

3. Perm fails? Not even. The fact that neither of us have forfeited and the round continues on means this critical analysis is still going on.

    - What could have been more focused on liberating oppressed people, has turned into an argument of the best model of communication for these types of ideas and methodologies.

 

See above answer to Miro - if you don't forfeit, we aren't going to discuss this outside the round because we didn't really care before, and you using your ideology as a strategic pawn in a debate game isn't impressing us to make us take up your cause.  And then I don't know what benefit you're getting out of all this that outweighs the benefits of debating a topical policy option.

 

4. You don't have any incentive for discussion? Well neither do I. Why do I care about white issues such as Ocean Policy? Does me reading crap about oceans off of a laptop do anything for me other than educate me on irrelevant topics? I have to affirm the United States Federal Government, the same USFG that was founded on slavery, the same USFG that cleared native lands, the same USFG that bombs other countries unfairly (this is an entirely different debate)? I have to give up my identity, and the issues that I face to do that? Don't tell me a topical version of aff solves, cause the state never does, and can't ever do anything to resolve racial debates. I mean look at the tinderbox that ignited in Ferguson.

 

You didn't have to debate.  Would you pay to enter a chess tournament, then flip over the board and yell about why you should care about some Italian bastardization of an Arab game?  If you have to do high school forensics, there's an awesome event called Original Oratory where you can talk about whatever you want.  If this is so important to you, why are you spending your weekends yelling at one team whose role it is to oppose you in front of a judge whose role is to be neutral, instead of going out on the street and organizing a movement?  But in any case, this is not in response to Affs that relate to any identity of the Aff team.  If you're running something personalized, I'm not going to ask you to sell your ballot, that would be silly.

 

- I think you're getting into a ballot commodification argument, or like "guilt tripping" judge to win kind of thing. NO. The judge doesn't vote aff because black body is oppressed for example, rather that a pragmatic analysis is a good methodology to approach the issue. The judge votes on the methodology, not the impact.

 

I'm not running this argument against that kind of Aff.  Against Wilderson, I'd run more straightforward "blackness not ontological" arguments.  Because those Affs actually advocate a non-inherent method we can debate, unlike "let's talk about Islamophobia because it's the first step to challenging Islamophobia."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're white? Even better! All the more reason to engage the 1ac. I'm not saying because you're white, you're a supremacist/racist, but, because you are white and are able to access white privilege -- this form of pedagogy is more valuable to you, it allows you to self reflect and identify your privilege before you prescribe actions on to others and deem it as good, as you would in traditional policy. See that's the most common misconception, that you have to negate my narrative. You can agree, I'm being oppressed, and my race is  being oppressed, BUT you can negate HOW we approach that oppression, OUR METHODOLOGY.


 


Yeah, i agree, if the only choice offered is to accept or be racist it's not a real debate. That's not at all what I'm saying. Like I said earlier, you can negate our methodology, how we choose to approach racism.


 


"the same tired K vs. K debate that's existed ever since K Affs started getting run". Well even if you decide to perceive it that way, how is it any different than traditional policy. me reading the same generic BS every round (politics, spending, whatever). AND WHO EVER SAID YOU CAN'T GO ONCASE. There are tons of cards negating most methodologies, including a simple discussion or analysis methodology. Or even if there isn't, you're gonna want to win, so you'll probably do the research and get up on the lit to beat the methodology. The fact that it spurs people to go out research for it, or compile new methodologies means our pedagogy does something.


 


You say you don't care? I'll take that back, that's straight up supremacist perpetuation rhetoric (No offense). It is that mentality, when "white people don't care" that cause these racial divides in the first place. You think all of this suffering and debating is irrelevant, because you live in your world of white priviledge. I can't, so I escape that sphere of oppression through an immersing of my methodology. By saying that, you perpetuate the same structures we aim to deconstruct. When you know racism and oppression exists, and choose, as you do, to ignore it to prove a point or just because "you don't care" you reinstate that hierarchy.


 


See I want to debate, I want to become a policymaker. But I will never truly be accepted because of the sphere of oppression that surrounds me, so we say that the methodology is a prerequisiste to any policy preparedness. Yeah, in original oratory you may be able to "talk" about whatever, BUT you won't be able to have the sort of discussions policy debate allows for with clash, methodologies and political analysis.


 


" If you're running something personalized, I'm not going to ask you to sell your ballot, that would be silly."


 


I get you. I do understand all of what you're trying to argue, and it makes sense for some of the Affs I've hit in the past, but not all, like mine for example. It is an interesting argument nonetheless :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're white? Even better! All the more reason to engage the 1ac. I'm not saying because you're white, you're a supremacist/racist, but, because you are white and are able to access white privilege -- this form of pedagogy is more valuable to you, it allows you to self reflect and identify your privilege before you prescribe actions on to others and deem it as good, as you would in traditional policy. See that's the most common misconception, that you have to negate my narrative. You can agree, I'm being oppressed, and my race is  being oppressed, BUT you can negate HOW we approach that oppression, OUR METHODOLOGY.

 

Sure--and against your form of Aff, I'd probably just run my long block of Sowell case turns :)  But that's the key--you advocate a methodology.  If you want, think of this as a plan spec argument against a K Aff.  If your advocacy is "We advocate that we should 'burn it all down' per Wilderson as the only hope to solve for the social death of the black body," I know what you're advocating, I know what your method is, and I can argue it.  If the plan is one of the following (actually previewed):

 

"My partner and I advocate that the United States federal government should actively disengage with the Earth's Oceans."

 

"Vote AFF to endorse a critical exploration of Islamophobic US oceanic policies."

 

"We Affirm the Exploration of the Middle Passage."

 

"My Partner and I recognize and advocate for the eradication of the current Hegemonic thought institutions."

 

Then, I don't know what method you're advocating, and I can't even argue methodology with you.  It's exactly the same complaint I would have against a policy Aff that says "The USFG should establish a policy to combat climate change."  What policy?  Stop defining your plan by its goals!

 

"the same tired K vs. K debate that's existed ever since K Affs started getting run". Well even if you decide to perceive it that way, how is it any different than traditional policy. me reading the same generic BS every round (politics, spending, whatever). AND WHO EVER SAID YOU CAN'T GO ONCASE. There are tons of cards negating most methodologies, including a simple discussion or analysis methodology. Or even if there isn't, you're gonna want to win, so you'll probably do the research and get up on the lit to beat the methodology. The fact that it spurs people to go out research for it, or compile new methodologies means our pedagogy does something.

 

See above.  And like I said, I have the same complaint with unspecified policy Affs that make it impossible to have a good solvency debate because Aff won't define what it is they actually do.  In both cases, the issue is really the plan spec; if you choose to strategically refuse to define an Aff methodology so we can't have a good debate, you can't complain when we don't have a good debate.  

 

You say you don't care? I'll take that back, that's straight up supremacist perpetuation rhetoric (No offense). It is that mentality, when "white people don't care" that cause these racial divides in the first place. You think all of this suffering and debating is irrelevant, because you live in your world of white priviledge. I can't, so I escape that sphere of oppression through an immersing of my methodology. By saying that, you perpetuate the same structures we aim to deconstruct. When you know racism and oppression exists, and choose, as you do, to ignore it to prove a point or just because "you don't care" you reinstate that hierarchy.

 

But that's irrelevant to my argument :)  Unless you're advocating for a punitive ballot (in which case you'd better have evidence of your out-of-round activism), this is just a cost-benefit analysis as to your goals in the debate round.  Telling me I'm a bad person for not advocating for your positions isn't going to make me do anything.  Offering me an incentive to do so will.  And being the socially responsible capitalist I am, I actually know where to get supporting literature for that point :)

 

See I want to debate, I want to become a policymaker. But I will never truly be accepted because of the sphere of oppression that surrounds me, so we say that the methodology is a prerequisiste to any policy preparedness. Yeah, in original oratory you may be able to "talk" about whatever, BUT you won't be able to have the sort of discussions policy debate allows for with clash, methodologies and political analysis.

 

And where you phrase it that way, I have something to debate and I pull out my Sowell block so we can have an argument (and if it's specifically about race, I use Sowell, Thomas, and Rice as examples of extremely well-accepted black policymakers--Clarence Thomas's opinions on race issues have probably done more to convince conservatives to rethink issues of privilege than any 10,000 left-wing academics you care to name).  But see the plan texts listed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about the fact that there is 0 solvency that you actually have a speech after the round? them signing the contract doesnt mean shit because you can just refuse to actually carry out the speech, especially considering the fact that actually giving the speech requires the successful maneuvering of many variables out of your control such as permission from principles, scheduling, availability, etc. If i randomly solicited my principles to let me give a speech on ______ to my entire school, i promise you it wouldn't happen. Way to abuse your privilege to silence opposing voices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about the fact that there is 0 solvency that you actually have a speech after the round? them signing the contract doesnt mean shit because you can just refuse to actually carry out the speech, especially considering the fact that actually giving the speech requires the successful maneuvering of many variables out of your control such as permission from principles, scheduling, availability, etc. If i randomly solicited my principles to let me give a speech on ______ to my entire school, i promise you it wouldn't happen. Way to abuse your privilege to silence opposing voices.

I'll include a liquidated damages clause of $1000 and make sure my debaters are over 18 so it's legally binding :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll include a liquidated damages clause of $1000 and make sure my debaters are over 18 so it's legally binding :)

you're just opening yourself up to countless turns of legal systems and the privilege required to use these legal structures. I'm sure the average highschooler has the means to follow up on a violation of the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is bad because

 

1. There is no mechanism for ensuring said speech gets given, so even if you win everything else you literally don't solve for it. (what AGL125 said) For real though the logistics it takes to get an entire school in to an auditorium. That trades off with instruction time. In what fucking world can a person just say "hey superintendent and/or principal I will give a speech to the entire school, fuck the common core!" Its laughable and betrays a deep misunderstanding of status quo schooling.

2.Speech is a medium for education which is far less effective than debate (what consult vermin said)

3.Who says the people running these critical affs are experts? Maybe they want to learn about it. In fact I'm pretty sure that is the fundamental claim in any response to SSD good. That current squo schools may not go in to:  ""interrogating Islamophobia/American exceptionalism/American hegemony/the Middle Passage". This means that debate is important for them to learn these things. (what Miro said)

 

I guess you all made these points, nm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edgehopper said: "we didn't come here to talk about the best way to fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever.  We came here to debate ocean policy, and that's what we're prepared to talk about."

 

Ok, but now you just proved their framework args right. EVEN IF ALL YOUR SHIT IS TRUE: If they have to break the game so be it, if the ress is rigged to not allow us to discuss these key social issues. And thats a fallback arg!!!! We can debate all day about whether or not debate should be one way or another. But you by making this argument have made the debate for the judge a decision between "fight Islamophobia/antiblackness/whatever." or...defend traditional framework for the good of the community! I just don't see a world in which anyone votes for protect the imagined community over solving real world harms. But then again some judges are bad, some judges are racist, and some honestly see themselves as defenders of an illusory golden age of purity in this inherently profane game. Preparation, basically predictability can be mitigated by a number of defensive args and when compared to any probability whatsoever of solving some sort of identity based violence should lose every time.

 

Then smarmy motherfucker in Rostrum sez "Go get on the topic selection committee", but the fix is in if you didn't already fucking know. Only people on the inside keeping others out sez: "accessibility is perfect, just participate!"

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

"My partner and I advocate that the United States federal government should actively disengage with the Earth's Oceans."

 

"Vote AFF to endorse a critical exploration of Islamophobic US oceanic policies."

 

"We Affirm the Exploration of the Middle Passage."

 

"My Partner and I recognize and advocate for the eradication of the current Hegemonic thought institutions."

 

Then, I don't know what method you're advocating, and I can't even argue methodology with you.  It's exactly the same complaint I would have against a policy Aff that says "The USFG should establish a policy to combat climate change."  What policy?  Stop defining your plan by its goals!

 

 

First of all some of these look like potentially very promising debates and others look like bad affs that are pretty easily beaten. Secondly I think its very important to know that you aren't going to get a feel for what they do/be/are by just reading their advocacy or RoB or whatever. How is that any different from policy affs? You still have to figure out their advantages: internal links and impacts. Their solvency for their advantages. The research level required to prepare is comparable and hopefully they have wikis. If not thats their loss of a defensive arg. You can prep for some of these just off the advocacy. While prepping to beat these teams do you think your debaters will learn MORE or LESS about these critical(in both senses of crucial and kritikal) issues than they would in normal schooling?

 

So in my opinion it is not a trade off between two frameworks of "good" education. Its a question of rewarding laziness(i.e. not prepping) vs. rewarding dissident education(i.e. not towing the line for the dominant paradigm) when it come to args like the one you're making. The genie is out of the bottle, so stop playing dumb and just debate it out.

Edited by freewayrickyross
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WY debater Here! (team that disclosed Islamophobia)

Although an interesting concept, there are too many logical flaws in the method of this in order to be any more successful than FW or a Ballot K.

 

1) I think there is a misrepresentation of how CX on the method debate works. I'm not going to spill a ton out on that but if you look at the evidence and other cards on the wiki the solvency mechanism is more nuanced than that.

 

2) There are parts of debate that are inherently valuable to the aff that things like speeches in front of disinterested teenagers eager to get out of class just doesn't access. Debate is an intellectually driven forced dialouge that's competitive. A speech simply doesn't have that to offer, and is a reason why none of those teenagers would quantifiably be able or want to be able to do anything about Islamophobia or anything for that matter.

 

3) This seems like a commodification of the school's structure and its students in order to steal a ballot from two people with their own original idea. Who gives the speech? How long is it? Who goes? Who listens? all of those questions are unresolved by the negative, but the judge can visually see the debate, and the judge obviously cannot see what happens in that speech (or if it happens for that matter) before the ballot gets signed.

 

4) perm solves. There's pretty much no reason that we can't have the dialouge in round and also give a speech in your school as well. Unless you win the debate that we shouldn't have any discussions about race in debate, which is just the FW pretty much.

 

All in all, an interesting concept but it doesn't get you any farther than the Ballot K, FW or the Cap K, all of which we are more than happy to deliberate about.

I'll bring my lawyer just in case ;)

Edited by jj414
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Dumb idea. The contract isn't enforceable since they're minors, the required consideration is questionable (the conceding debaters didn't have a certain claim to the round to cede so there's no definite exchange), there's no way to measure damages for breach even assuming the contract was valid, and even if all of the previous concerns could be solved, the cost of suing is almost certainly prohibitive (hiring a lawyer, filing an action, prosecuting the action, enforcing any judgment). 

 

2) If you think racism good is the only answer to...any...aff, then you haven't read. I have a solution: type in the aff's author name on scholar.google.com. Find the work. Find the people that cite it critically by clicking "things that cite this". Cut those cites. Boom! Free answers! You're welcome. All it took was basic literacy! Who'd have thought. 

 

3) Likely impractical - how on earth are these students going to compel their school to call an assembly? Even if they could, how could they get away with reading whatever they wanted, since the aff had the unqualified ability to write the content of the speech? The offer itself is nonsensical. 

 

4) The argument is about depth of engagement. The argument not "voting aff magics racism away", it's "learning about the tools of critical race analysis and developing familiarity with using those tools provides a skillset and knowledge base that carry over into the rest of people's lives generally". For example, I'm much more conscious about the way I flirt after reading feminist takes on microaggression. Behaviors I thought were harmless - like greeting people with a hug - might actually have consequences for people who aren't comfortable with that. Same with race - I learned about checking my privilege when engaging with people of color, and it's drastically shaped and improved my relationships (with people of all races, tbh). All the "debating the topic good" arguments about specific policy education also apply to critical race or feminist advocacies. None of those things happen if teams lose to "let us regurgitate something you write". 

 

That's why it's stupid.

  • 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...