Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Something a lot of these K teams miss is that you can have your K and have a plan text too. My K aff's on the v debate sections are the proof. I can talk about everything from Deleuzian war machines to Derridean Hauntology and back it up with a plan text. On the legalization topic last year we read a K aff talking about the impact of criminalization on the poor and women of color who get picked up even when they're not prostitutes and about how prohibitions of sex help stigmatize women and queer folk.

 

While there are some topics that make it difficult, there's almost always a way to make your K aff topical if you're willing to put the work in.

 

Edit: let's make this relevant to the surveillance topic.

 

You're really telling me that it couldn't be defended to have a decrease in surveillance of certain populations now? Heck, if you really want to think outside the box, you can do stuff like writing a counterfactuals aff about the black panther party or communists or whatnot. There's stuff about racist TSA policies, border policies, and more. There's surveillance like COINTELPRO being used against protesters like after the Brown verdict. There are a million ways to be topical if we abandon the dogma and put in a little bit of work on the Googles.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not joking.  I would call myself a cheater, I just don't think that it's as derogatory a term as you seem to think it is.  I'll explain that later. 

 

Also, way to go, asking the Nietzschean where his morals are.  I would have to say: beyond.

 

Is it the spreading that you take issue with? I can slow it down if you really want.  Is it the nuke war that offends you? I didn't read terminal impacts in that aquaculture aff.  What really offends you is that you can't talk about how racist/sexist status quo politics is, but what you forget is that forecloses actually reading good policies.  I think a really good articulation of that idea can be found here

where Northwestern critiques Trinity's Satire Aff because all they did was rant about teams reading islamophobic impacts rather than making an Aff themselves that was better.  What I'm trying to say is that these K's have an end goal.  In the instance of the Satire aff, it could be to have policies that aren't built on racist premises.  SO MAKE A POLICY THAT ISN'T RACIST!

 

First thing:

Looking over what I said earlier, it was probably not the best way to phrase what I was trying to articulate. I am trying to say that K's have a reference point, i.e. the 1AC. Lets say that the 1AC says something racist.  In their speech the 1NC can stand up, call them racist, and if the neg wins that the Aff is racist then they win.  That makes sense to me, and that's how policies are improved over time, because people realize they are racist and so they come up with a policy for the next round/tournament that is not racist.  With K affs, there is no referent.  You go out of your way to find some type of inequality and then you decide to talk about that instead of that really cool, not racist aquaculture aff that you just wrote. Graham Harman puts it really well when he calls this the "sneer from nowhere." What happens when there isn't an in-round referent for critique is that you end up intoxicated by it, and you proceed to tear down everything you see until you are convinced that there is nothing that can be good out there because there IS nothing good out there.  But how can you say that when you never even bothered to try to fix anything.  Your focus on non-topical aff's is always destructive rather than productive; it can tear down existing systems [maybe, probably not, but at least it can do so theoretically], but it can never build new, better one.  That's why topical aff's are important.  Now I want to be very clear here: I am not saying that things like structural violence are not important; I am not even saying that structural violence is not the MOST important issue.  However, in a setting in which we are supposed to talk about policy, we should talk about policy.  That can include things like philosophy and structural violence, but it needs to be both referential and productive, and that cannot happen without being topical (or at least affirming a policy, I can be pretty lenient on what exactly constitutes a topical plan).

 

Second thing:

Great, I'll concede that.  Have political engagement then.  Kritiks are the catalyst, good, topical aff's are the result.

 

Third thing:

Then why are you here? What are we supposed to do? I'm Mexican sure, but I'm still definitely a part of white Civil Society. Wilderson would agree. So, if you want me to accept such a Manichean view of the world, if it's really true that there is a structural antagonism between me and my friend KJ, then what am I supposed to do? That's what I mean when I say that your philosophy isn't productive.  It cannot be productive.  It illustrates a problem, but no way to get out of it. That's why political engagement is so crucial: maybe it's not perfect, but to me it seems like the only way to consistently produce positive change.  History is a pretty good indicator in regards to this.

 

 

Do you know that the politics DA was born after the creation of policy debate.  And when that happened, people were like "Woah, you can't talk about stuff that happens BEFORE the plan up in here!" and then they read intrinsicness.  No one reads intrinsicness anymore. A whole bunch of different CP's around now didn't exist not so long ago. When they would pop up, various theory arguments were created as a backlash against them, e.g. international fiat bad, 50 states fiat bad, etc.  Then the Kritik arrived, and people created framework (the original framework) which was all like "Woah, you can't talk about PHILOSOPHY up in here!" No one reads framework against K's anymore.  Then the Kritkal Aff arrived...

 

My point is that debate is not static. You have all of these "rules" that you so desperately cling to, but really its just reactionary.  You hate stuff that's new and so you try to reject it. The bad part is that you pretend like your rules are THE rules, like they have existed for eternity.  My little genealogy of debate up there proves that such a notion is just false.  That's why I call myself a cheater.  Your rules do exist, and I definitely don't try to follow them.  But rather than the death of debate, I think that this is the birth of debate.

 

Now, you're totally right that there's a bit of a contradiction here.  If it makes you feel any better, all my aff's next year will be topical.  If it doesn't make you feel any better, I don't particularly care.  #iconoclasm

 

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

 

I think both sides of the aisle hate you for saying that.

Ahhh I understand; but I think that you're over-exageratting on the idea that people start to think that the entirety of the status quo is messed up. I understand what you mean by K's on the negative have reference points (i.e. the Aff), and that the reference point for K Affs is the squo; but that doesn't mean everybody becomes, like Rorty '97 explains, becomes convinced that society is itself messed up and that they themselves are the only ones who know otherwise. I think the idea that one could read a "pretty cool Aquaculture Aff" justifies the idea that somebody can read a K aff. The only difference is that one isn't playing by the ARBITRARY RULES, which you even concede to.

 

I think the major problem here is that we both have different perspectives on the ability of debate to produce change. The idea that K affs never change anything, is also true of regular old Policy Affs; and the idea that regular old Policy Affs are better for education, is also true for K affs. Like I'm not saying they shouldn't be topical, K affs can and should be topical with a plan text, what I'm saying is that the idea that because they're a K aff means we don't learn as much is bad because it ignores the stuff we can learn from debating those K affs. It's not like anything we ever do in debate actually has tangible consequences, other than a ballot. It's more of what debate directs our potential towards; somebody looking into critical race theory for debate, is probably going to get more involved in that area; but it doesn't mean that they became involved because they won a lot of rounds in it; for instance, I had no idea there was queer theory, queer pessimism, intersectionality, etc. prior to joining debate, I thought it was only the feminist movement that was talking about gender rights, I didn't even know what LGBQT represented; until I joined debate. I think there's some education to be learned from debate that is relational to those K affs and I don't think we should be writing them of simply because they're not a policy aff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh I understand; but I think that you're over-exageratting on the idea that people start to think that the entirety of the status quo is messed up. I understand what you mean by K's on the negative have reference points (i.e. the Aff), and that the reference point for K Affs is the squo; but that doesn't mean everybody becomes, like Rorty '97 explains, becomes convinced that society is itself messed up and that they themselves are the only ones who know otherwise. I think the idea that one could read a "pretty cool Aquaculture Aff" justifies the idea that somebody can read a K aff. The only difference is that one isn't playing by the ARBITRARY RULES, which you even concede to.

 

I think the major problem here is that we both have different perspectives on the ability of debate to produce change. The idea that K affs never change anything, is also true of regular old Policy Affs; and the idea that regular old Policy Affs are better for education, is also true for K affs. Like I'm not saying they shouldn't be topical, K affs can and should be topical with a plan text, what I'm saying is that the idea that because they're a K aff means we don't learn as much is bad because it ignores the stuff we can learn from debating those K affs. It's not like anything we ever do in debate actually has tangible consequences, other than a ballot. It's more of what debate directs our potential towards; somebody looking into critical race theory for debate, is probably going to get more involved in that area; but it doesn't mean that they became involved because they won a lot of rounds in it; for instance, I had no idea there was queer theory, queer pessimism, intersectionality, etc. prior to joining debate, I thought it was only the feminist movement that was talking about gender rights, I didn't even know what LGBQT represented; until I joined debate. I think there's some education to be learned from debate that is relational to those K affs and I don't think we should be writing them of simply because they're not a policy aff. 

I never once said that philosophy is bad; in fact, I specifically said that it was good. And I have nothing against philosophy on the aff either.  My point, this being a discussion of framework, is that these K aff's should be paired with a topical policy proposal. This isn't some arbitrary rule such as I discussed above and you alluded to--it is the very difference between destructive and constructive philosophy/critical theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, it's pretty cool that we're having as deep a convo as this is lol

 

But Marty... debate DID start out as aff/neg. The affirmative's role is to affirm the resolution. The neg's role is to negate it. I know debate is evolving, but that hasn't changed. Quite frankly, I don't think it should. I'm totally fine to talk about non-policy issues, but I think there should be a new venue for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, it's pretty cool that we're having as deep a convo as this is lol

 

But Marty... debate DID start out as aff/neg. The affirmative's role is to affirm the resolution. The neg's role is to negate it. I know debate is evolving, but that hasn't changed. Quite frankly, I don't think it should. I'm totally fine to talk about non-policy issues, but I think there should be a new venue for that.

What is debate? What is policy? What does it mean to affirm the resolution? All of these questions must be answered, and there isn't one definitive right answer.  My point is that what constitutes affirming the resolution, and what constitutes negating it, have not always been the same.  There is no reason why your interpretation of debate is objectively any better than mine, Bobby's, or Pablo's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is debate? What is policy? What does it mean to affirm the resolution? All of these questions must be answered, and there isn't one definitive right answer.  My point is that what constitutes affirming the resolution, and what constitutes negating it, have not always been the same.  There is no reason why your interpretation of debate is objectively any better than mine, Bobby's, or Pablo's.

Ayyyy nobody ever calls me by my first name lol but yeah I see what you're getting at; I think we both have the same perspective with regards to FW and K affs, there was just a misunderstanding down the round on what constitutes a "Topical" affirmative. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is debate? What is policy? What does it mean to affirm the resolution? All of these questions must be answered, and there isn't one definitive right answer. My point is that what constitutes affirming the resolution, and what constitutes negating it, have not always been the same. There is no reason why your interpretation of debate is objectively any better than mine, Bobby's, or Pablo's.

Affirming the rez means to affirm that the USFG should enact a policy that falls within the rez for that year. I don't know what your interp is, so it would be nice if you explained it. My point is really, this is preferable because it is the most predictable (limits k2 clash etc) and is what debate was meant to be -- how policy debate started, how it's been for a long time. Everything you described so far has met the meta level model of "aff proposes a topical policy, neg argues against it / the resolution, 'negating' it". When the rules change this much, that the aff can propose whatever issue they want to talk about, it's not "Policy debate" anymore... similar to how the ancient Aztecs played Ullamaliztli with rubber balls, throwing them through a hoop to win, it shares lots of the similarities to basketball, but it has changed (in both style and meaning) that it's a totally different game. The style of debate you advocate for is probably beneficial, but I think it deserves its own venue since it crowds out the type of debate many of us in the debate community seek and want to experience.

Edited by deb8lover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirming the rez means to affirm that the USFG should enact a policy that falls within the rez for that year. 

"Affirming the rez is enacting a policy that affirms the rez." You do get how circular that definition is, right?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Affirming the rez is enacting a policy that affirms the rez." You do get how circular that definition is, right?

Well I didn't use those exact words -- a USFG policy to be implemented, specific to that year's resolution that answers "yes, and here's a plan" to the resolutional question.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I didn't use those exact words -- a USFG policy to be implemented, specific to that year's resolution that answers "yes, and here's a plan" to the resolutional question.

I think that the only aff's that would be definitively excluded by that definition would be those shitty K aff's that say that all interaction with the ocean is [insert -ism here], which I agree are just bad and deserve to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the only aff's that would be definitively excluded by that definition would be those shitty K aff's that say that all interaction with the ocean is [insert -ism here], which I agree are just bad and deserve to lose.

Well, all affs that don't use the USFG...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all affs that don't use the USFG...

Ummmm i think you havent meet those awkward Heidegger affirm the rez aff's those actually are alittle more annoying than the shit k affs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm i think you havent meet those awkward Heidegger affirm the rez aff's those actually are alittle more annoying than the shit k affs

 

My patented "1 off no solvency and vote neg on presumption" is currently 1-0 against Heidegger affs. 

 

at least in my old high-school shit district 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fight

fight

fight

fight

 

framework vdebate right here right now

 

are there any HS teams/schools that are notorious for going 1 off framework and winning often?

SME DW (3 bids) would usually go 1 off framework. They rarely lost.

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...