Jump to content
DiamondLouisXIV

Islamophobia K-affs

Recommended Posts

I've been trying to work out how to respond to the islamophobia affirmative, but can't find any good ground. It seems like the only ground is 'islamophobia good' or 'this isn't really islamophobia', which makes for a pretty bad argument. One particular Kaff I've run into has a securitization advantage and a racism advantage, the former I simply have no idea how to respond to. Does anyone have any advice here?

 

(here is one islamophobia Kaff I've run into for reference)

1AC.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't solve securitization through implementing a single policy. At best they just address a symptom of securitization. General security K defense applies to that advantage as well (discourse doesn't shape reality, realism inevitable, threats are real). As far as neg ground, you've got plenty of options. You can say the terror da, the politics da, process CPs, circumvention, kritiks of the state, other identity kritiks, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with the linked case, they give 3 specific plan planks, but no solvency.  I'd go after them on solvency, and probably force competition for a CP with a spec argument or just by PICing out of something you can turn case on.  I might also consider T-USFG or its - most of the things they list are primarily local and state police agency activities, not federal activities.  (For example, their first Racism card which is the one that ties the specific measures to racism is based on an NYPD paper and NYPD activities).

 

On the one hand, they're asking us to believe that the listed steps would meaningfully impact racism or securitization without giving us any solvency evidence to that effect.  Combine that with some alternate causality arguments.  It's not even clear that these activities contribute to racism.  The racism may (and likely does) come first and leads to policies like these: this kind of mis-diagnosis sets the stage for serial policy failures which think they're combatting the problem when in reality they're just addressing effects of the problem.

 

On the other hand, is it really racism if these communities are the likely sources of terrorists?  Something like 57 of the last 69 attempted terrorist attacks in the US were 'islamist'.  The conclusion that radicalized islamic terrorists come from islamic communities is unavoidable, so of course police effort is directed at these communities.  That's no more racist than mob investigations being primarily directed at italian-american communities. 

 

Further, things like informants and community engagement are part of routine police work in all communities.  There might be more effort exerted in particular communities, generally because the rewards for that effort are commensurately higher.  

 

Their authors seem to be living in a dystopian fantasy land where people who are aware of someone about to commit a serious crime shouldn't report it to the police, and the police shouldn't be engaging communities to keep lines of communication open so that they do get those reports.  Not only do they have to basically concede links to things like the Terrorism DA, so all you really have to argue is threats are real, but you have a real opportunity to critique their idea of what policing is supposed to look like, and how much of a failure that is.  The very idea that a cooperative dialogue between police and the community they're policing is a problem is not only ridiculous, its deep in tinfoil hat territory.

 

And there's a world of difference between the FBI activities properly excoriated in the Kundani card and the actual police practices he's talking about, even based on his own telling.

 

Admittedly I'm skimming, but i don't see a single piece of evidence about charitable giving criminalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually thnking about it making a multiplank PIC out of this - where its a 50 states CP firstly - then you go in a keep the part about community presence and go like thats hella better than the alternative which is the hella shitty things about survaillance 

T- it's  - like using this - helps outs on the CP because either the Permutation will show how the its not only the Federal Goverment doing the action to the plan , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with the linked case, they give 3 specific plan planks, but no solvency.  I'd go after them on solvency, and probably force competition for a CP with a spec argument or just by PICing out of something you can turn case on.  I might also consider T-USFG or its - most of the things they list are primarily local and state police agency activities, not federal activities.  (For example, their first Racism card which is the one that ties the specific measures to racism is based on an NYPD paper and NYPD activities).

 

On the one hand, they're asking us to believe that the listed steps would meaningfully impact racism or securitization without giving us any solvency evidence to that effect.  Combine that with some alternate causality arguments.  It's not even clear that these activities contribute to racism.  The racism may (and likely does) come first and leads to policies like these: this kind of mis-diagnosis sets the stage for serial policy failures which think they're combatting the problem when in reality they're just addressing effects of the problem.

 

On the other hand, is it really racism if these communities are the likely sources of terrorists?  Something like 57 of the last 69 attempted terrorist attacks in the US were 'islamist'.  The conclusion that radicalized islamic terrorists come from islamic communities is unavoidable, so of course police effort is directed at these communities.  That's no more racist than mob investigations being primarily directed at italian-american communities. 

 

Further, things like informants and community engagement are part of routine police work in all communities.  There might be more effort exerted in particular communities, generally because the rewards for that effort are commensurately higher.  

 

Their authors seem to be living in a dystopian fantasy land where people who are aware of someone about to commit a serious crime shouldn't report it to the police, and the police shouldn't be engaging communities to keep lines of communication open so that they do get those reports.  Not only do they have to basically concede links to things like the Terrorism DA, so all you really have to argue is threats are real, but you have a real opportunity to critique their idea of what policing is supposed to look like, and how much of a failure that is.  The very idea that a cooperative dialogue between police and the community they're policing is a problem is not only ridiculous, its deep in tinfoil hat territory.

 

And there's a world of difference between the FBI activities properly excoriated in the Kundani card and the actual police practices he's talking about, even based on his own telling.

 

Admittedly I'm skimming, but i don't see a single piece of evidence about charitable giving criminalization.

 

1) So with the solvency argument, would it go something like this: 'they have BOP, means they need to give solvency, means your voting neg on presumption that case doesn't work'?

 

2) How do I substantiate the claim that most of these activities are local? I've been having a very hard time finding evidence that most of this surveillance is state based or mostly federal based. So would I just make it an analyt. "hey, this surveillance only happens on local scales, believe us until they provide evidence otherwise"

 

3) when can I find the evidence for the "serial policy failure argument, because that is a good argument.

 

4) I've never understood alt cause arguments. Even if we can't solve racism or securitization as a whole, isn't it still good to stop this instance? If I see a bully picking on a kid for being black, I stop it bc racism bad not becasue I want to solve racism. Im guessing you make it as an argument to tame down their impacts.

 

5) so if they don't have a part specify for charitable giving, how does that turn into offense against them?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually thnking about it making a multiplank PIC out of this - where its a 50 states CP firstly - then you go in a keep the part about community presence and go like thats hella better than the alternative which is the hella shitty things about survaillance 

T- it's  - like using this - helps outs on the CP because either the Permutation will show how the its not only the Federal Goverment doing the action to the plan , 

 

so you're saying fed AND 50 states do plan right. then force them to show how not a lot of this surveillance is from fed taking away solvency?

 

what about the CP above but you pick out of one or two of the plan planks making the perm impossible?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) So with the solvency argument, would it go something like this: 'they have BOP, means they need to give solvency, means your voting neg on presumption that case doesn't work'?

 

You should certainly make that argument.  (If for no other reason, it's an easy win if they drop it).  But the bigger solvency stuff is going to be the alt cause story (below) and, depending on what kind of CP you have, what your CP solvency looks like.  There are non-PIC CPs you could certainly run that you could read solvency evidence on in a way that doesn't give them an out.  (Don't read anything that'd provide them solvency).

 

2) How do I substantiate the claim that most of these activities are local? I've been having a very hard time finding evidence that most of this surveillance is state based or mostly federal based. So would I just make it an analyt. "hey, this surveillance only happens on local scales, believe us until they provide evidence otherwise"

 

Definitely point out they have no evidence this stuff is federal, and make a theory argument that introducing evidence for it in the 2AC is abusive.

 

But more importantly, the first Kudani card on racism is evidence its local.  It talks about NYPD policy on informants and community outreach, which is a city police department.  That's literally their only card which provides a link to anything in plan, and it supports your T violation.  When all else fails, use their evidence.

 

3) when can I find the evidence for the "serial policy failure argument, because that is a good argument.

 

A good Security K will have evidence about serial policy failure, but you can make this argument analytically, and you see it plenty of other places too.  I was just reading a Krugman paper from 1994 about how competitiveness isn't a real issue, and he makes a serial policy failure argument.  Don't get hung up looking for those words specifically - if you understand the concept, you'll see the argument being made lots of places.

 

The way to make the argument analytically in this case only requires you persuade the judge that the things plan addresses aren't causing their harms, but are symptoms of their harms.  You might be able to do that analytically, but evidence would help (say, on the nature of racism, or the causes of racism).  From that, the serial policy failure argument is easy - if you're just treating symptoms, the racism and securitization remain.  The plan failed to do anything about them.  That's a policy failure.  And then by doing plan you've endorsed a mindset which goes after actions resulting from racism or securitization in the belief that it does something about the underlying problems.  That mindset traps you in a mode of thinking which will replicate the same policy failure - hence serial policy failure.

 

We can also call these kinds of policy failures 'band-aid solutions'.  They put a band-aid over the problem and pretend its all better.  But if you don't treat the cause, the band-aid doesn't solve anything at best, and can make the problem harder to deal with because you've made it harder to see and you think that you solved it. 

 

4) I've never understood alt cause arguments. Even if we can't solve racism or securitization as a whole, isn't it still good to stop this instance? If I see a bully picking on a kid for being black, I stop it bc racism bad not becasue I want to solve racism. Im guessing you make it as an argument to tame down their impacts.

 

In this case the alt cause arguments are supporting a narrative that what they address with plan aren't causes at all.  This all feeds into the serial policy failure story.

 

5) so if they don't have a part specify for charitable giving, how does that turn into offense against them?

 

Its not offense, per se.  It does take out any benefit from that plank of plan, but that plank is still something you can use as a vulnerability.  This makes the easiest CP against the plan one which PICs out of that plank (and does the other two, assuming you don't want to defend them), and then load up on offense against that plank.  Not only do they have to defend against your offense, but they've got no solvency benefits to weigh against that offense (since the CP captures whatever solvency there is on the other two planks).

 

----------------------

 

Bottom line, there's actually two divergent strategies that are worthwhile here.  

 

(1) PIC out of the charitable giving plank of plan, spend the other 7.5 minutes of the 1NC linking DAs specifically to it and running turns on it.  (Make sure the DAs can't be linked back to the other planks of plan - so terrorism DA isn't really going to work, but you might be able to come up with a money laundering DA or other specific scenario which doesn't).  But you don't want to go after them on the planks of plan the PIC keeps, in this case.  However, since there's zero benefit from the charitable giving plank, you only have to win any risk of a single turn or DA to win the round.

 

(2) Defend community engagement and informants, run stuff like a terrorism DA and argue threats are real, go after them for their lack of solvency on everything, and tell the alt cause and serial policy failure stories.  Possibly a CP which doesn't involve doing the planks of their plan at all or PICs out of the one that is insane (ie, don't curtail police community engagement ffs).

 

The 1st one has the advantage of being highly strategic on time use and really nailing the poor case construction.  The 2nd one will probably produce more evidence that'll see use in other situations, and will seem less 'cheap'.  Run T regardless, potential for easy wins are always nice.

 

Edit: Strategy 1 is actually one of the rare situations I'd put a short overview in the 1NC after the CP, although i'd probably just put it at the top on case and not call it an overview.  But taking 15s to outline why the judge votes negative after the 1NC will probably do a lot to shape the round for the judge. 

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

run wilderson i have found 4 links reading the aff 

1. the conceptionalization of how violence is conducted- what wilderson calls the ruse of the analogy 

2. humanism - their concept of how violence is conducted is within that view of the muslim as the place of humanhood - meanwhile the black has been stripped away from the postion of human

3. some type of agamben link 

4.anti-ethics/ society is inherently antiblack

the perm: 

a. the prisoner  slaver hegemony by wilderson in 2003 answers this 

  • 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...