Jump to content
ItAintRalphTho

Responsibly/ethically debating against identity and rage args

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I've been questioning some strategies for quite some time now, and I've realized that the standard cap/FW/no spillover strat against identity-based arguments can be pretty invalidating and sometimes violent, so I'm trying to find alternative ways of engaging them. I have a relatively developed strategy vs queer and fem ID args, but confronting race arguments is a different story. Any ideas?

Edited by ItAintRalphTho
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

I've been questioning some strategies for quite some time now, and I've realized that the standard cap/FW/no spillover strat against identity-based arguments can be pretty invalidating and sometimes violent, so I'm trying to find alternative ways of engaging them. I have a relatively developed strategy vs queer and fem ID args, but confronting race arguments is a different story. Any ideas?

As a heads up, you titled this "rage args" not "race args."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a heads up, you titled this "rage args" not "race args."

people read identity rage args, i.e. trans rage, black rage, queer rage, etc.

 

@OP, I struggled with this too, it's why I got into some postmodern literature, (baudrillard has a really good criticism of race, check walter payton bc's wiki or little rock central ww's) there is also stuff like whiteness, counter methods, or reading literature from what you identify as. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read baudrillard apoc rhet and shadowboxing a lot, but doesn't baudrillard often invalidate experiences of oppression in the academy?

I don't necessarily think so, look into his stuff about radical Otherness vs. Difference, lots of teams are pretty successful reading this. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to read an anti-blackness K centered around Moten for identity affs that deal with things such as trans rage and feminism.  I basically say that an intersectional approach beginning with the starting point of black optimism is the only way to create effective change.

 

I also agree with Miro, I think cap's fine.

Edited by CMuney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

I've been questioning some strategies for quite some time now, and I've realized that the standard cap/FW/no spillover strat against identity-based arguments can be pretty invalidating and sometimes violent, so I'm trying to find alternative ways of engaging them. I have a relatively developed strategy vs queer and fem ID args, but confronting race arguments is a different story. Any ideas?

 

I think saying cap/fw strat against identity is invalidating and violent is a mischaracterization. I am hundred percent with you, that it doesn't necessarily make for good debates, but the fact that you don't know what to say against these kinds of affirmatives probably means they aren't within substantial bounds of the resolution - aka, their framework is not fair-.

 

If you are not ready to read up on specific literature from your subject position, or indicts to the affirmative methodology, framework is definitely an option. Framework only becomes policing if you exclude their content. Don't posit framework as "get the fuck out of debate" but more as a request for engagement. You agree with the 1ac (probably), but disagree where it sidesteps the boundaries of fairness and education obstructing you from truly engaging the aff. If the negative team does not have sufficient ground to engage, it means the aff probably shouldn't get the ballot, because their case is not debatable --- because teams always resort to the same cap/anthro strats which makes for bad, linear, repetitive debates - it's all in how you present your framework.

 

As for cap, like I said, it's not the most exciting argument, more to the generic side many times, but it's definitely a decent argument to make. There's nothing invalidating about presenting a class conscious outlook on the affirmative as a competitive counter-methodology.

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like arguments that criticize the notion of "identity" within identity politics. Deleuze and Guatarri are one obvious choice of literature, here. Generally, people will respond to arguments such as this by portraying them as a form of color-blindness or whiteness, because whiteness is invisible, malleable, and hides in the default or implicit aspects of social relationships. However, I think that these responses are more popular than they deserve to be. There is some good literature out there that criticizes the idea of identity as modern and alienating, rather than intrinsically important and useful, so you could turn their whiteness claims. For example, I just came across this essay yesterday, and enjoyed it a lot: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/01/08/ritual-and-the-consciousness-monoculture/.

I am not sure whether or not the title has a typo. If not, then maybe you would want to look into cutting a Buddhism K. It would allow you to criticize the notion of identity, the feeling of rage, the deployment of both those things for the sake of a political struggle, and probably many other things as well about such cases. One reason reading Buddhism appeals to me is that it would let you criticize identity politics while making the predictable accusations of whiteness seem generic and irrelevant, oversimplified, and arguably even an anti-Asian form of racist erasure.

The Buddhism K has a few prominent flaws you would need to deal with.

First, there isn't a lot of good evidence on it. This is the biggest difficulty, and IMO it would be insurmountable normally, but it can potentially be managed by appealing to lots of outside literature, like Deleuze and Guatarri, while using Buddhism specific ideas or terminology for decoration and for structural support, giving the Kritik an easy to understand theme and narrative. This eclectic approach can be a dangerous decision if you don't know what you're doing, because it's easy to appeal to ideas that superficially appear compatible that actually have conflicting hidden assumptions. For example, Deleuze's treatment of desire is very different than any Buddhist's, so if you used both you would need to be very clear which pieces of various philosophies you do or don't endorse. You would need to be very careful, and it would be a lot of work. However, if finding something other than the typical responses to race teams is important to you, then bringing this Frankensteinish argument to life might be worth the steep time investment it requires.

Second, when reading the Buddhism K you'll potentially be vulnerable to accusations that you've ceded the public sphere in order to focus on abstract meditation. Since real Buddhists exist who live normal lives rather than just staring at their navels all day long, I think you can deal with this argument provided that you choose the flavor of Buddhism or pseudo-Buddhism that you endorse with caution, and avoid the more generic arguments about how all desires or goals or actions are bad. Finding explicit evidence on this compatibility would be helpful, though, since the trope that Buddhists are apolitical monks disinterested in social problems will be compelling to many judges.

Third, because Buddhism is not as obviously political as race, its literature will have a difficult time accessing large impacts on the societal or global scale, at least directly. Consequently, I think the best way to access such large impacts will be through case turns. Argue that identity and rage are ineffective forms of political struggle, while Buddhism is transformative and make activism much more effective. In addition to this, you should be able to wrangle a value to life claim. More speculatively, you could appeal to ecoBuddhism to let you access environmental destruction impacts. That impact scenario would seem somewhat gimmicky and irrelevant if done improperly, but remember that you will have the option to steal arguments from other literature bases too, such as Deleuze and Guatarri or the Anthropocentrism K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a judging perspective.

 

Honestly, K affs are getting too good these days, especially idenity based ones. Case cards are better to find than link cards because the aff is trying to defend as little as possible. The aff is going to lie in CX. If you're neg accept it and move on, most affs won't defend against a topic DA. The aff is going to become the perm/no link/your alt. The neg ground either will not exist or is terrible in quality in comparison to the aff, and 9/10 times your stuff won't be "specific" enough for the aff.

 

That being said, the aff usually doesn't explain their aff in a way that people who didn't read their lit/heard their aff before would understand. they will undercover case args, they will lie/try to spin out of case turns/your offense. Their framework offense will be the same 3-4 cards, A single card from their main author that is different, and the generic take your pick terminal impact of (silencing/exclusion/violence/bad education - pick 1 or more) that if you read framework you can have blocked out and since the link is never fully explained you just have to beat back their analysis and the aff. Just win T version of the aff, go for limits/fairness/whatever impact the 1AR may or may not drop/is most true and just do that in the 2NR

 

Point is, K affs are strategically based on making reading critiques, DA's or counterplans pointless. DA's/CP's will never link even if the aff tries to play along, if you give them an inch your DA will go away. and unless you are literally cutting a countermethod from a book that says their aff's thesis/their author is a piece of shit they will be the perm.

 

Unless they read the lit and/or are really into that kind of arg, most judges will only get more annoyed at the neg than the aff if the response is some shit like D&G, Baudrillard, Buddhism, etc. If you gotta read a K, keep it simple and or specific. Most judges are gonna be middle of the road so the super out-there stuff may not be the best choice unless you've had the judge and know they'd be ok with it.

 

 

Also conditionality isn't a thing if the 1NC was a K and T/Framework.

The neg should go for presumption/case args because the aff will mess them up.

The neg should not let the aff get a permutation on the coutnermethod/critique.

The perm on framework makes no sense

Answering "T version of the aff" with "there is no T version of the aff" is literally the silliest, most ridiculous answer to that argument that could exist and if the aff makes it the neg should win the debate (overall debate dependent)

The neg should go for limits/ground/fairness arguments- the aff's offense can literally be thrown into 2 sentences with some sort of case specific spin. Also the neg is just functionally true on whether or not -let's be honest. either the lit from the aff is so old that no one writes about it because no one in academia thinks about it, or it's so new/recent that no one has had the time/gotten their critizisms of that theory published yet. And not even going to get into why reading critical affs like this is absolutely terrible for novice debate.

Portable skill based arguments are not really good versus K teams.

People should also not reccommend people read idenity arguments versus other idenity teams unless you can identify with whatever your countermethod is. Aka. you shouldn't read antiblackness if you aren't a POC versus a different idenity team.

 

 

Tl;DR- K teams are outsmarting policy teams and doing what they can't- reading authors/arguments where the neg ground doens't exist because no one who's written qualified neg work has been published yet and or no one cares about the aff's lit in academia/it's too old. Reading framework/T is not violent unless the neg makes it so. K's are useless because the specific lit doesn't exist and aff teams lie (doesn't apply to only K teams obviously). 

 

 

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...