Jump to content
vmanAA738

Neg strat against hydrofem?

Recommended Posts

Ok hints : 

a) They talk about fluid identity : ( links to Wilderson- not everyone has that fluidity ,)i.e the slave 

b)Friere : Honestly use him for  a praxis arguement to counter their framework reading up on his praxis and cut a praxis like framework arguement , and use different parts as case takeout .

c)This aff honestly just run wilderson or framework + cede the political (just add some 1nc state good to prevent patriachy ) id recommend looking at Walter Peyton BC neg wiki

Edited by JaredCroitoru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steinberg (ocean materiality)/OOO

Edited by MartyP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some solid ev. about how this form of hydrofem erases identity.

 

Squo colonialist education and capitalist society also probably tanks any Becoming argued by the aff because it causes individuals to revert to malevolent models of growth and development
 

Edited by MCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there?

Water as ontology demands that we DETACH from normative notions of identity – this ethical relation is founded in INTERSUBJECTIVITY – water allows for multi-layered subjectivity 

Chandler and Niemanis 13

Thinking With Water

Mielle Chandler, Professor At York University, Humanities.

Her collaboration here with Neimanis also demonstrates how thinking with water can bring together innovative contributions that arise from divergent yet complementary perspectives-a key scholarly objective of the workshop.

Astrida Neimanis (BA McGill, MSc London School of Economics, PhD York) Chair of the Editorial Board of PhaenEx: Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture, Affiliated Researcher, Posthumanities Hub (TEMA Gender), Linkoping University, SE.

 

Recall that we live as watery bodies in a watery world. Our milieu in the ocean, in the water-drenched soil, in the water-saturated air is always more or less watery. We are not only of water, but in water. A key aspect of watery gestationality is thus this notion of milieu. Milieu, however, is not only an indeterminate environment we inhabit. This environment is ingested and incorporated both by our individualized selves and by our evolutionary lineages. Our watery milieux are enfolded into our bodies, repeating our ancestors differently. By considering the watery milieux that all living bodies not only inhabit but also ingest, become, and pass on, we come to see the virtual as a mode of sociality and responsiveness to others. Becoming milieu for an other demands a radical reorientation of oneself as existing in part for the purpose of what is beyond oneself, and thus a (partial) dissolution of oneself as a sovereign subject. The aqueous virtuality that we enfold within our own actualized bodies is the gift we offer to unknowable futures; our virtuality thus becomes a material milieu that facilitates the becoming of others. Again, this concept fundamentally challenges the idea that future potentiality is an immaterial cloud, and also the idea that material entities must be necessarily self-preserving. And again, while this self-dissolving subjectivity is certainly evidenced in maternity, we all carry this water with us, a well of unknown futurity enfolded in our flesh; we all have the possibility of reorienting toward bathing other lives into existence. Seen in this way, gestationality is fundamentally expanded beyond female reprosexual bodies. We might be milieu as womb - but we are also milieu as symbiote, milieu as host, and milieu as watery matter that can be bequeathed to all kinds of others, as our bodies fragment and dissolve back into water. At the same time, we can also be milieu as neighbour, milieu as interlocutor, milieu as voter, consumer, passerby on the street. In each of these interactions, we have the possibility of deprivileging our own self-preservation and instead creating the conditions for the flourishing of an other. We propose that this sociality is conditioned by a material mode of responsivity that flows beneath our sovereign subjectivity. In any of these interactions, it is not our “selves” that we are reproducing differently. Rather, in becoming milieu and the condition of possibilities beyond ourselves, we are, in part, undoing these “selves.” In the Gulf of Mexico, sailfish becomes dolphin and larval crab becomes turtle. Once upon a time, perhaps plesiosaur became sea snake, or swan. But water becomes them all. Such a view of watery milieu clearly challenges common views of sociality. “Milieu” is usually read as separate from the entities that dwell or interact therein.37 “Milieu” in this sense is but the passive backdrop upon which actants play out their social dramas.38 Yet, water teaches us that milieu is both of us (as part of our material virtuality) and also that which responds to the call of the “not yet,” providing the conditions for its emergence. Water, here, is neither active nor passive, and yet it is both active and passive, self as a mode of sociality that is transformative, facilitative, responsive. In the previous section, water, as both actual and intensive, was shown to blur any discrete separation between what becomes (an “actual”) and how one becomes (an “intensive” process). Thinking with water also challenges a conception of the virtual as necessarily immaterial - for water constitutes virtual materiality. Finally, here, we see that milieu is both a subject and a “backdrop,” an entity and a potential response. Watery milieu thus embodies a sociality in which one can be bounded, intentional, and animated while at the same time partially dissolving oneself and being oriented in one's capacity as milieu for an other. This orientation flows beneath our sovereign subjectivity, but it is suppressed in self-protection when generosity is exploited, gifts are stolen, and self-interest is the modus operandi encoded into political and economic structures. Becoming-milieu does not entail total desubjectification (as Deleuze notes, to desubjectivize oneself completely only results in annihilation39), but it does require that we loosen our commitments to our own sovereign instantiations. In being both an actual entity and also a responsive milieu, forged out of a material virtual potential, water reveals that such nuanced and multi-layered modes of subjectivity are possible. In fact, not only are they possible, but they are the very condition of possibility - of life - in the material world.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity 

can't tell if sarcasm or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity 

1. Topicality isnt a brightline issue 

2. Telling teams to leave the community because you somehow lose education because you can't read your beloved politics disad is absurd -- if anything, having to come up with a new strategy, or having to think and extrapolate on a link story is what makes you a better thinker/debater

3. Typically, specific strats are what beat teams that are good at debating the kritik or kritik aff. 

4. Go ahead and say this against my and my partner's black feminist cartography of the ocean aff. That'll be reeeeallllyyyy interesting 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity 

Y'know I was ok with this post at first...I thought it was a bit strongly worded but it wasn't like abhorrent...then I got to you telling people to get out of the activity and that ain't cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity

 

Putin approves.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams aren't topical, they deserve to have framework read against them. Read Historical materialism with that. You don't need specific strats to beat teams. if you have a good T version of the aff and maybe one or two link cards tops to marx. you should be ready to tell them to get out of the activity 

This post is garbage. There's obviously no T version of this aff, so you just won't win that from a strategic view. From a less-strategic view, crowding ID teams out of debate is a shitty thing to do for myriad reasons.

 

As for an actual strategy, I think that your best bet would be Wilderson IF you are familiar with the literature. The idea of a fluid identity, especially when it's related to ontology (as it is heavily in the Shiva 88 evidence) is directly contradictory to the static idea of the Slave, especially considering they're looking at the feminine before race, which is NOT a signifier as clearly as race is. I'm not a Wildy debater myself, but the links seem pretty clear. If you're NOT familiar with Wilderson, I'd run queer theory. The idea that identity is fluid is still an attempt to codify gender, which flies in the face of non-binarism that queer theory champions w/r/t gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water as ontology demands that we DETACH from normative notions of identity – this ethical relation is founded in INTERSUBJECTIVITY – water allows for multi-layered subjectivity 

Chandler and Niemanis 13

Thinking With Water

Mielle Chandler, Professor At York University, Humanities.

Her collaboration here with Neimanis also demonstrates how thinking with water can bring together innovative contributions that arise from divergent yet complementary perspectives-a key scholarly objective of the workshop.

Astrida Neimanis (BA McGill, MSc London School of Economics, PhD York) Chair of the Editorial Board of PhaenEx: Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture, Affiliated Researcher, Posthumanities Hub (TEMA Gender), Linkoping University, SE.

 

Recall that we live as watery bodies in a watery world. Our milieu in the ocean, in the water-drenched soil, in the water-saturated air is always more or less watery. We are not only of water, but in water. A key aspect of watery gestationality is thus this notion of milieu. Milieu, however, is not only an indeterminate environment we inhabit. This environment is ingested and incorporated both by our individualized selves and by our evolutionary lineages. Our watery milieux are enfolded into our bodies, repeating our ancestors differently. By considering the watery milieux that all living bodies not only inhabit but also ingest, become, and pass on, we come to see the virtual as a mode of sociality and responsiveness to others. Becoming milieu for an other demands a radical reorientation of oneself as existing in part for the purpose of what is beyond oneself, and thus a (partial) dissolution of oneself as a sovereign subject. The aqueous virtuality that we enfold within our own actualized bodies is the gift we offer to unknowable futures; our virtuality thus becomes a material milieu that facilitates the becoming of others. Again, this concept fundamentally challenges the idea that future potentiality is an immaterial cloud, and also the idea that material entities must be necessarily self-preserving. And again, while this self-dissolving subjectivity is certainly evidenced in maternity, we all carry this water with us, a well of unknown futurity enfolded in our flesh; we all have the possibility of reorienting toward bathing other lives into existence. Seen in this way, gestationality is fundamentally expanded beyond female reprosexual bodies. We might be milieu as womb - but we are also milieu as symbiote, milieu as host, and milieu as watery matter that can be bequeathed to all kinds of others, as our bodies fragment and dissolve back into water. At the same time, we can also be milieu as neighbour, milieu as interlocutor, milieu as voter, consumer, passerby on the street. In each of these interactions, we have the possibility of deprivileging our own self-preservation and instead creating the conditions for the flourishing of an other. We propose that this sociality is conditioned by a material mode of responsivity that flows beneath our sovereign subjectivity. In any of these interactions, it is not our “selves” that we are reproducing differently. Rather, in becoming milieu and the condition of possibilities beyond ourselves, we are, in part, undoing these “selves.” In the Gulf of Mexico, sailfish becomes dolphin and larval crab becomes turtle. Once upon a time, perhaps plesiosaur became sea snake, or swan. But water becomes them all. Such a view of watery milieu clearly challenges common views of sociality. “Milieu” is usually read as separate from the entities that dwell or interact therein.37 “Milieu” in this sense is but the passive backdrop upon which actants play out their social dramas.38 Yet, water teaches us that milieu is both of us (as part of our material virtuality) and also that which responds to the call of the “not yet,” providing the conditions for its emergence. Water, here, is neither active nor passive, and yet it is both active and passive, self as a mode of sociality that is transformative, facilitative, responsive. In the previous section, water, as both actual and intensive, was shown to blur any discrete separation between what becomes (an “actual”) and how one becomes (an “intensive” process). Thinking with water also challenges a conception of the virtual as necessarily immaterial - for water constitutes virtual materiality. Finally, here, we see that milieu is both a subject and a “backdrop,” an entity and a potential response. Watery milieu thus embodies a sociality in which one can be bounded, intentional, and animated while at the same time partially dissolving oneself and being oriented in one's capacity as milieu for an other. This orientation flows beneath our sovereign subjectivity, but it is suppressed in self-protection when generosity is exploited, gifts are stolen, and self-interest is the modus operandi encoded into political and economic structures. Becoming-milieu does not entail total desubjectification (as Deleuze notes, to desubjectivize oneself completely only results in annihilation39), but it does require that we loosen our commitments to our own sovereign instantiations. In being both an actual entity and also a responsive milieu, forged out of a material virtual potential, water reveals that such nuanced and multi-layered modes of subjectivity are possible. In fact, not only are they possible, but they are the very condition of possibility - of life - in the material world.

 

That's definitely an aff card

 

 

I'd probably go one off queer theory. But I definitely see how running Wilderson could be strategic too.

That would be a bad idea. Their aff is all about fluid identity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not as rude, I'm also going to have to agree that Marx and FW is the best strat here. All of their impacts are based in commodification and subjugation based on productivity which pretty clearly gives you massive inroads to say, it's not some vacuous pomo watery BS but capitalism.

 

I don't see why FW wouldn't answer this aff. A lot of high school K teams seem to think they're much better at answering this than they really are. I don't see a reason the good old topical version of the aff, ssd, and truth testing triangulation can't resolve all of their offense. Figure out what of their impacts (I see patriarchy, colonialism, anthro, and Heidegger esque stuff) is the biggest threat and make it the topical version of the aff. All of their other offense just justifies SSD, because any reason the law is bad should be neg ground. All of their fluid ontology, watery gestational stuff can be negated through stasis point/truth testing arguments. After that, just pick and choose your offense (ground, limits, etc) and that should be that.

 

Everyone suggesting that they invest a lot of time in specific strats to beat specific teams are ignoring that you should work smarter not harder. You shouldn't be running to a new lit base every time some random K team pops up on the horizon because you're always going to be behind. The aff has hunkered down on their stuff, which means you need to be good enough at your stuff to beat them. Also, as someone who's been or talks to people who are in the back of the room, we don't want to hear the inevitable mess that will spawn as teams try to out K each other and the debate becomes a spiral of buzz words and confusion. Those debates always favor the aff because of the perm and aff presumption.

Never quite understood what either of these things are (I do know SSD stands for Switch Side debate but idk how that's impacted out or argued in the FW debate other than you need to switch sides, which doesn't really have much of an impact to me) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never quite understood what either of these things are (I do know SSD stands for Switch Side debate but idk how that's impacted out or argued in the FW debate other than you need to switch sides, which doesn't really have much of an impact to me) 

Switch side debate mitigates any offense about how framework excludes important arguments, because they can be read on the neg.  It is a defensive argument, not an offensive one.  Truth testing is just the argument that we need a limited topic of discussion in order to be be able to valuably contest the aff, and that if we aren't able to do so then the judge can never really be sure that the aff is correct about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ssd and truth testing are defense, ssd takes out any reason the law is bad. The impact specific to it is usually some deliberation card or an echo chamber/Cooption argument. Truth testing takes out the inevitable 'Counter hegemonic pedagogy' stuff. Ground/limits is an independent reason to reject. Topical version becomes basically a method pik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any particular book to start with cutting an Irigaray K?

 

And thanks to MartyP and Snark for answering my question :)

Look into An Ethics of Sexual Difference and Speculum of the Other Woman, both by Irigaray.  The Irigaray Reader by Margaret Whitford is also pretty good.

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not as rude, I'm also going to have to agree that Marx and FW is the best strat here. All of their impacts are based in commodification and subjugation based on productivity which pretty clearly gives you massive inroads to say, it's not some vacuous pomo watery BS but capitalism.

 

I don't see why FW wouldn't answer this aff. A lot of high school K teams seem to think they're much better at answering this than they really are. I don't see a reason the good old topical version of the aff, ssd, and truth testing triangulation can't resolve all of their offense. Figure out what of their impacts (I see patriarchy, colonialism, anthro, and Heidegger esque stuff) is the biggest threat and make it the topical version of the aff. All of their other offense just justifies SSD, because any reason the law is bad should be neg ground. All of their fluid ontology, watery gestational stuff can be negated through stasis point/truth testing arguments. After that, just pick and choose your offense (ground, limits, etc) and that should be that.

 

Everyone suggesting that they invest a lot of time in specific strats to beat specific teams are ignoring that you should work smarter not harder. You shouldn't be running to a new lit base every time some random K team pops up on the horizon because you're always going to be behind. The aff has hunkered down on their stuff, which means you need to be good enough at your stuff to beat them. Also, as someone who's been or talks to people who are in the back of the room, we don't want to hear the inevitable mess that will spawn as teams try to out K each other and the debate becomes a spiral of buzz words and confusion. Those debates always favor the aff because of the perm and aff presumption.

I'm gonna agree with Snark here, empirical evidence: One of our Junior teams beat PL (on this aff) at colleyville reading Framework, so it's not impossible and is probably not a bad strategy, considering it has won debates in the past. 

 

@ OP This is especially true if you are not reading into the kinds of kritiks that other users have suggested (e.g. wilderson), as those usually take more of an in depth knowledge base than framework to read. Obviously, any of these strategies require that you're good at whatever the strategy is, so I would pick the one you're most comfortable with.

 

T oceans might be a thing here, there might be a TVOA about how we relate to the oceans rather than how we relate to water generically. I haven't given much thought to this strategy against this aff, however, so this could backfire unless you're careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) They talk about fluid identity : ( links to Wilderson- not everyone has that fluidity ,)i.e the slave 

 

c)This aff honestly just run wilderson or framework + cede the political (just add some 1nc state good to prevent patriachy ) id recommend looking at Walter Peyton BC neg wiki

 

 

As for an actual strategy, I think that your best bet would be Wilderson IF you are familiar with the literature. The idea of a fluid identity, especially when it's related to ontology (as it is heavily in the Shiva 88 evidence) is directly contradictory to the static idea of the Slave, especially considering they're looking at the feminine before race, which is NOT a signifier as clearly as race is. I'm not a Wildy debater myself, but the links seem pretty clear. If you're NOT familiar with Wilderson, I'd run queer theory. The idea that identity is fluid is still an attempt to codify gender, which flies in the face of non-binarism that queer theory champions w/r/t gender.

 

 

be7.jpg

 

 

Running Wilderson and have your link being fluid identity bad will piss off everyone in the round.

  • Upvote 3

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...