Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So my partner and I read a K Aff that defended state action, as we typically endorse the state as being the only way to produce macropolitical change, but we hit a lot of state bad offense in outrounds, and some of the judges said it would have been easier to vote aff absent us using the state. My dilemma is, what do you do if you hit a K you don't have prepped, and have to read generics vs. it? We have a generic frontline, but most of it is like institutions are key to widespread change, or it would double turn the way we now frame our aff. If anyone has some advice/comments/suggestions that'd be awesome. 

 

EDIT: That probably doesn't clarify anything, we are deciding on whether or not to defend the state based on our ability to defend it vs. K's.

Edited by DonaldTrump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my partner and I read a K Aff that defended state action, as we typically endorse the state as being the only way to produce macropolitical change, but we hit a lot of state bad offense in outrounds, and some of the judges said it would have been easier to vote aff absent us using the state. My dilemma is, what do you do if you hit a K you don't have prepped, and have to read generics vs. it? We have a generic frontline, but most of it is like institutions are key to widespread change, or it would double turn the way we now frame our aff. If anyone has some advice/comments/suggestions that'd be awesome. 

First, what's the aff about?

 

Second, pref judges that are more reasonable. 

 

Anyways, so you know how on framework you read cards that support your topical version of the aff that basically go like 'the law is good for X group/philosophy/etc.?' You read those as reasons why the perm works (and if they're good, why the alt fails). Then you find a bunch of examples of stuff as close to the aff as possible for why this is true. Even in college, this is the thing that K teams are really, really bad at (funny how when you get down to the nuts and bolts, most things aren't *actually* set in stone). For instance, if your aff is about one of the many varieties of feminism, you should point out that even though reforms haven't solved all of patriarchal violence, certain things, like laws banning forced sterilization and whatnot were probably good ideas. You need to remember that you don't have to win the law is *always* good, but that in the specific context of your aff, the law is a useful tool. (Note, you should try to find examples that are out of the mainstream. Teams are usually prepped to answer things like the 13th amendment, so hit the history books). 

 

Also, you might consider having 2 versions of your aff. If you're hitting a team that will absolutely not read framework, then consider having a version without a fiated plan text. This can be risky and backfire though, so you need to be sure so you don't get smacked with T. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, what's the aff about?

 

Second, pref judges that are more reasonable. 

 

Anyways, so you know how on framework you read cards that support your topical version of the aff that basically go like 'the law is good for X group/philosophy/etc.?' You read those as reasons why the perm works (and if they're good, why the alt fails). Then you find a bunch of examples of stuff as close to the aff as possible for why this is true. Even in college, this is the thing that K teams are really, really bad at (funny how when you get down to the nuts and bolts, most things aren't *actually* set in stone). For instance, if your aff is about one of the many varieties of feminism, you should point out that even though reforms haven't solved all of patriarchal violence, certain things, like laws banning forced sterilization and whatnot were probably good ideas. You need to remember that you don't have to win the law is *always* good, but that in the specific context of your aff, the law is a useful tool. (Note, you should try to find examples that are out of the mainstream. Teams are usually prepped to answer things like the 13th amendment, so hit the history books). 

 

Also, you might consider having 2 versions of your aff. If you're hitting a team that will absolutely not read framework, then consider having a version without a fiated plan text. This can be risky and backfire though, so you need to be sure so you don't get smacked with T. 

The aff talks about embracing the pedagogy of the migrant, which is essentially their perspective of border surveillance. We argue that since the state is the only way to access macropolitical change, the education produced by the aff creates a form of citizens that would actually be able to reform the state, rather than have it circumvented again. We talk a lot about changing the epistemology within squo politics into a more liberatory form of politics that can combat militarization at the border and read Giroux 8 there. (If you don't know which one it is, it talks about grassroot movements being influential in creating a new form of engagement with the political system in which we create politically aware citizens and seize back real democracy via pedagogical revolutions, specifically in the context of militarism of the university) 

 

I was thinking about having 2 versions of the aff, but what happens if we have a team that we know will read state bad and not T, but they read super obscure K's that we may not have a block to. I'm specifically worried about DnG or Baudrillard, given the plethora of K's one could derive from their stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff talks about embracing the pedagogy of the migrant, which is essentially their perspective of border surveillance. We argue that since the state is the only way to access macropolitical change, the education produced by the aff creates a form of citizens that would actually be able to reform the state, rather than have it circumvented again. We talk a lot about changing the epistemology within squo politics into a more liberatory form of politics that can combat militarization at the border and read Giroux 8 there. (If you don't know which one it is, it talks about grassroot movements being influential in creating a new form of engagement with the political system in which we create politically aware citizens and seize back real democracy via pedagogical revolutions, specifically in the context of militarism of the university) 

 

I was thinking about having 2 versions of the aff, but what happens if we have a team that we know will read state bad and not T, but they read super obscure K's that we may not have a block to. I'm specifically worried about DnG or Baudrillard, given the plethora of K's one could derive from their stuff. 

Bolded first

In that case, you should probably stick with what you know. You can always leverage the state is good against those (and if you're not sure what to read, a combination of 'We should be able to weigh our impacts, state inevitable, law good for migrants, reality is real, material impacts first, VTL is subjective' is a good start and you can just try and figure it out before the 1AR.

 

So it seems like all of your defenses of the state, while decent in a flow-math sense, aren't specific enough. You should try and find cards that talk about why state reforms are good for migrants specifically. I think it'd be pretty easy to win that not having border patrol shoot people is better than whatever the alt talks about (especially if they're really bad and run overidentification, those are always..."interesting" debates). 

 

I wouldn't recommend defending 'debate spills up to us being political reformers.' That gets you in an awkward situation you really don't want to be in (both from a solvency perspective, because that's ridiculous, but also because it means you actually do link to K's of Roleplaying which is a terrible, terrible, mess to judge.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded first

In that case, you should probably stick with what you know. You can always leverage the state is good against those (and if you're not sure what to read, a combination of 'We should be able to weigh our impacts, state inevitable, law good for migrants, reality is real, material impacts first, VTL is subjective' is a good start and you can just try and figure it out before the 1AR.

 

So it seems like all of your defenses of the state, while decent in a flow-math sense, aren't specific enough. You should try and find cards that talk about why state reforms are good for migrants specifically. I think it'd be pretty easy to win that not having border patrol shoot people is better than whatever the alt talks about (especially if they're really bad and run overidentification, those are always..."interesting" debates). 

 

I wouldn't recommend defending 'debate spills up to us being political reformers.' That gets you in an awkward situation you really don't want to be in (both from a solvency perspective, because that's ridiculous, but also because it means you actually do link to K's of Roleplaying which is a terrible, terrible, mess to judge.)

The last portion was probably explained wrong, it's not necessarily that we would produce policymakers, rather that embracing the aff means engaging in a more liberating epistemology in which we produce better citizens, and people. I guess it isn't necessarily that we would alter the state, which you're probably right is bad, rather that we would alter the status quo view of the migrant within politics, or rather, debate itself. Thanks for the advice. 

 

What cards are good for material impacts 1st, and reality is real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for 'reality is real' you should literally just look for criticisms/book reviews of Baudrillard.

 

For stuff like 'we can interpret meaning' you should look up stuff about why linguistic determinism is wrong, criticisms of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, and stuff like Derrida (who's whole point is that even if language is autodeconstructive, you can still have meaning). Like, the fact that you and the other debaters can literally hold a basic conversation shows that meaning isn't impossible. You could also look for criticisms of Lacanian Psychoanalysis in the context of criticisms of the real/symbolic divide or of the idea of the 'alienation of the subject' since this is (partially) where Baudrillard got the idea from.

 

For 'materialism good,' this is stuff like the Bryant 12 card or stuff from Marxists and the like.

  • Upvote 1

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...