Jump to content
NativeWarlock

Best strat vs Queer Theory Affs?

Recommended Posts

the thing is more of a topic specfic education abuse on the framework debate- you run your generic topic DA and use it as a reason as a double bind either you get that link OR you get the abuse claims 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If their version of queer theory comes from a book read the mao k

People who rely on books don't change anything

Mao Tse-tung [Chairman of the Communist party of China 19431974, Revolutionary], May 1930, “OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP”, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume- 6/mswv6_11.htm //Skills

 

Whatever is written in a book is right such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it. The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation. How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation. 

 

 

Now THIS is how you productively engage an affirmative

Edited by micahw
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People who rely on books don't change anything

Mao Tse-tung [Chairman of the Communist party of China 19431974, Revolutionary], May 1930, “OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP”, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume- 6/mswv6_11.htm //Skills

 

Whatever is written in a book is right such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it. The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation. How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation. 

 

if the debaters are queer or have a queer identity then not only do they win the K and make you look like an A+ jerk but could probably use it to turn most of your arguments with the card that says they lose the right to speak sooo not a great strat

 

mao is generally looked down on by everyone ever so please don't read this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the debaters are queer or have a queer identity then not only do they win the K and make you look like an A+ jerk but could probably use it to turn most of your arguments with the card that says they lose the right to speak sooo not a great strat

 

And that's why it wasn't a serious post Edited by micahw
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People for the most part are being trolls- but overall there are 2 areas that actually make sense if this is a strategy for a variety of judges/certain styles, if you know the judging you'll get and that they'd be interested in the baudrillardesque bullshit, or Mao, or whatever shit people have mentioned then read it. if you want to read afro-pessimism and have the qualifications to do so, then do it.

 

Safest, most generic strategy is prob. T/Framework, Cap, and maybe a topic DA depending on how much of the topic they'll defend. If they defend none of it, then the DA is pointless/don't read. If they defend the direction of the res is a good idea (so reducing surveillance good) then still have a small link, and if you want to make it more than a ground standard it exists, but it does depend on what they want do defend. If you have the means to, a case specific K is always gonna be better than cap at any rate.

 

That being said, the biggest part of this would be case, which the best way to make sure that your generic queer theory neg actually applies is to read their authors to find out who they are using, if there's any tension, etc. Once you read it you might have the case neg/idea to throw out there.

 

But just remember the less they defend the resolution the more your 2NR should be T/Framework. Doesn't mean you don't go for T if they defend the topic w/o a plan text/advocacy statement, but it should be an option.

 

TL;DR - Generic is always ok, specific is better, don't read high theory weird shit unless you and the judge actually know what you're talking about, have a good case debate and just go for T or a specific K/Case turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'll second the sentiment of a good number of people in this thread. Framework and core generics will usually link, but if you want an actually good strategy you're going to need to dig a bit deeper into the specific claims of the affirmative. Queer theory as we know it today started with Foucault in the 70s and was focused primarily on sexuality, with arguments about the nature of gender coming later. Queer theory authors also generally have a background in literary or film criticism, anthropology, or any number of varied disciplines and so what they bring to the table in terms of their epistemology and what aspect of queer theory they're talking about will be totally different from author to author. If you try to read the same block against critiques of homonationalism, Edelman, and Butler you're probably going to have a rough time because their analysis of how the specifics of their arguments interact with your more general ones will always be better than trying to link an entire field of study to a particular argument. If you have more detailed information, or even a link to a wiki or something, I'd be a lot better equipped to help you. (As it happens, I'm pretty well-versed in queer theory, and as a queer person myself I have a vested interest in helping people come up with answers that are both responsive and ethically responsible.)

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...