Jump to content
Tharealschoob

Aff Biopower K of T

Recommended Posts

We have a biopower advantage to our aff and are looking for a K of topicality, however I do not know where to start or where to find such arguments. If anyone could post some cards that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality is an exercise of biopower par excellence- the notion that all subjects should fit into a singular model of debate within the topic is an example of the forced confinement and regulation of populations (insert rant about why that's bad, if that doesn't seem like enough). 

 

something like that 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality is an exercise of biopower par excellence- the notion that all subjects should fit into a singular model of debate within the topic is an example of the forced confinement and regulation of populations (insert rant about why that's bad, if that doesn't seem like enough). 

 

something like that 

The problem with these "K's of T" is that they're missing an internal link. There's a pretty damn big gap between topicality and the 'logic of the camp' or whatever. Foucault is rolling over in his grave (also, Agamben is a hack, but that's for another time). Not all biopower is bad. Traffic regulations, like stop signs, could be considered biopower (internalized state regulation) but it's probably a good idea to have stop lights and stuff. Making everyone drive on the right side of the road saves a lot of lives even though it constrains freedom. You need to show why "biopower" (and it's arguable that T isn't biopower) is bad in the context of the T debate, so there's a bit more work to be done.

 

Also, part of the idea of biopower/biopolitics is that it has to be self-regulation in accordance with the laws of the land, if someone is reading T against you, you clearly haven't internalized those norms.

 

Furthermore, for biopolitics to exist there have to be clearly established laws. T is a debate about what debate should be, not how it is. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with these "K's of T" is that they're missing an internal link. There's a pretty damn big gap between topicality and the 'logic of the camp' or whatever. Foucault is rolling over in his grave (also, Agamben is a hack, but that's for another time). Not all biopower is bad. Traffic regulations, like stop signs, could be considered biopower (internalized state regulation) but it's probably a good idea to have stop lights and stuff. Making everyone drive on the right side of the road saves a lot of lives even though it constrains freedom. You need to show why "biopower" (and it's arguable that T isn't biopower) is bad in the context of the T debate, so there's a bit more work to be done.

 

Also, part of the idea of biopower/biopolitics is that it has to be self-regulation in accordance with the laws of the land, if someone is reading T against you, you clearly haven't internalized those norms.

 

Furthermore, for biopolitics to exist there have to be clearly established laws. T is a debate about what debate should be, not how it is. 

 

I might also add that in the Foucauldian K of biopower, the problem isn't biopower itself, it's the joining of biopower and sovereign power in one entity that create racism and endless conflict.  As your opponents in a debate round have no sovereign power, there is literally no impact, even if T is a manifestation of biopower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the intro to "the queer art of failure" halberstam writes about the policing of academia via enforcing disciplinarity, i.e. a monolithic standard by which all teams should conform to tried and true form of knowledge production which prevents real solutions via non-state based activism.

 

The evidence is more specific to academia, and probably a lot easier to win than they are biopolitical -> extinction/genocide/dehum/etc. 

 

Also, comaroff and comaroff 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the intro to "the queer art of failure" halberstam writes about the policing of academia via enforcing disciplinarity, i.e. a monolithic standard by which all teams should conform to tried and true form of knowledge production which prevents real solutions via non-state based activism.

Why does defending a plan text prevent non-state based activism? Just because you read a plan text doesn't mean you sign a contract to only work for congress, forever. There aren't too many social justice issues who think there should be more surveillance, let alone something based in biopower (cough, panopticon, cough). 

 

I'm also skeptical that T is the kind of discipline that's being talked about, but I wasn't going to put more than 45 seconds into trying to find a copy online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does defending a plan text prevent non-state based activism? Just because you read a plan text doesn't mean you sign a contract to only work for congress, forever. There aren't too many social justice issues who think there should be more surveillance, let alone something based in biopower (cough, panopticon, cough). 

 

I'm also skeptical that T is the kind of discipline that's being talked about, but I wasn't going to put more than 45 seconds into trying to find a copy online.

It's about universally enforcing that one necessarily defends a plan text. The comaroff and comaroff evidence everyone reads talks about creating an affective attachment to the state, and how even in resistant attempt you necessarily retain this investment in the state, which causes "everything to exist here in the shadow of the law". 

 

Also, it means disciplinary in the sense of limiting and non-interdisciplinary scholarship, i.e. coercing people into singular paths for solutions via the inculcation of the state. 

 

Furthermore, I wasn't necessarily saying that any of this is particularly true, just that it is probably BETTER than saying the neg is the sovereign. 

Edited by DonaldTrump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about universally enforcing that one necessarily defends a plan text. The comaroff and comaroff evidence everyone reads talks about creating an affective attachment to the state, and how even in resistant attempt you necessarily retain this investment in the state, which causes "everything to exist here in the shadow of the law". 

 

Also, it means disciplinary in the sense of limiting and non-interdisciplinary scholarship, i.e. coercing people into singular paths for solutions via the inculcation of the state. 

 

Furthermore, I wasn't necessarily saying that any of this is particularly true, just that it is probably BETTER than saying the neg is the sovereign. 

I'm not disputing that your suggestions are better, but I am saying that K debaters can do better still. These arguments are underdeveloped. 

 

I'm not sure how these apply to T. Why does reading a plan text create this "affective attachment?" Why isn't the state just a tool to be used, like a hammer or a screwdriver? A debate round isn't exactly real activism. Why do placing limits on the structure of the game create these damaging addictions? It's not like there's an affective attachment to the referee when they blow the whistle during a football game. 

Furthermore, there's not really an impact to this. What's bad about people turning to the law first to try and achieve social change? This argument is incomplete. 

 

Again, I'm not sure how reading a plan text restricts "interdisciplinary" scholarship. Even policy aff's are pretty sharing of scholarship -- you can delve into economics in one advantage and climatology in another. If you mean what Halberstam refers to as the 'silly academy' or whatever, you can still read a plan text and cards from pixar movies. I'm missing the link. Again, just because you read a plan text doesn't mean you have to only write letters to senators outside of debate so I'm not sure where this "inculcation of the state" comes into play. Furthermore, there isn't an impact to this presented. 

 

All of this is even more tenuous in the context of the more 'progressive' interpretation of T which is that you can call for a reduction in government surveillance even without endorsing legislative action (basically spotting them Effects-T). Why does calling for a reduction in surveillance create an "affective attachment" to the state? Seems like you're saying the state is bad which would imply the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing that your suggestions are better, but I am saying that K debaters can do better still. These arguments are underdeveloped. 

 

I'm not sure how these apply to T. Why does reading a plan text create this "affective attachment?" Why isn't the state just a tool to be used, like a hammer or a screwdriver? A debate round isn't exactly real activism. Why do placing limits on the structure of the game create these damaging addictions? It's not like there's an affective attachment to the referee when they blow the whistle during a football game. 

Furthermore, there's not really an impact to this. What's bad about people turning to the law first to try and achieve social change? This argument is incomplete. 

 

Again, I'm not sure how reading a plan text restricts "interdisciplinary" scholarship. Even policy aff's are pretty sharing of scholarship -- you can delve into economics in one advantage and climatology in another. If you mean what Halberstam refers to as the 'silly academy' or whatever, you can still read a plan text and cards from pixar movies. I'm missing the link. Again, just because you read a plan text doesn't mean you have to only write letters to senators outside of debate so I'm not sure where this "inculcation of the state" comes into play. Furthermore, there isn't an impact to this presented. 

 

All of this is even more tenuous in the context of the more 'progressive' interpretation of T which is that you can call for a reduction in government surveillance even without endorsing legislative action (basically spotting them Effects-T). Why does calling for a reduction in surveillance create an "affective attachment" to the state? Seems like you're saying the state is bad which would imply the opposite. 

Well, the comaroff evidence speaks to the question of how we embed the state in places where they don't necessarily have to be, also its application assumes you're winning the state bad debate meaning that most of your assumptions about why the state can be used are already impact turned on the case debate/wherever that is. The way that it is typically framed is that there are alternative political solutions that don't have to rely on the state, or even include it, especially considering that you concede debate has no potential for activism, I think debate becomes a game about competing methodologies, and considering there is no risk of spill up/actual state action, I'm not so sure why it necessarily invalidates methods outside of the state.

 

Halberstam and comaroff argue that precluding action outside of endorsing the state, you understand the world in a preconceived way of purely the state, which is arguably a bad thing. (again assumes there is external offense to state bad which a lot of affs should already have if they plan on winning against framework). 

 

Also, that interp you mentioned on the bottom is just blatantly not true, if you can honestly believe that teams like St. Marks or Glenbrooks aren't going to read Politics, and FX T against your topical k aff you're poorly mistaken. You can look here at Quarters of MBA this year when McDonogh JN lost to Peninsula TW on T (I think) because they read a Black Lives Matters aff that called for curtailing surveillance of social movements without advocating the state and instead did basically what your interp requires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with these "K's of T" is that they're missing an internal link. There's a pretty damn big gap between topicality and the 'logic of the camp' or whatever. Foucault is rolling over in his grave (also, Agamben is a hack, but that's for another time). Not all biopower is bad. Traffic regulations, like stop signs, could be considered biopower (internalized state regulation) but it's probably a good idea to have stop lights and stuff. Making everyone drive on the right side of the road saves a lot of lives even though it constrains freedom. You need to show why "biopower" (and it's arguable that T isn't biopower) is bad in the context of the T debate, so there's a bit more work to be done.

 

Also, part of the idea of biopower/biopolitics is that it has to be self-regulation in accordance with the laws of the land, if someone is reading T against you, you clearly haven't internalized those norms.

 

Furthermore, for biopolitics to exist there have to be clearly established laws. T is a debate about what debate should be, not how it is. 

I agree, but that's how most debates end up lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the comaroff evidence speaks to the question of how we embed the state in places where they don't necessarily have to be, also its application assumes you're winning the state bad debate meaning that most of your assumptions about why the state can be used are already impact turned on the case debate/wherever that is.

T=/= framework, so there's two scenarios.

A) If you are already winning the state bad debate in a framework round it seems like the ev is extraneous at that point.

B) On the other hand, if it's T, then you just have to defend that there is a reduction in government surveillance, and not necessarily that it goes through legislative action, so I don't see why there's an impact at this point. 

 

The way that it is typically framed is that there are alternative political solutions that don't have to rely on the state, or even include it, especially considering that you concede debate has no potential for activism, I think debate becomes a game about competing methodologies, and considering there is no risk of spill up/actual state action, I'm not so sure why it necessarily invalidates methods outside of the state.

At the same time, the flipside is true. Since there's no potential for activism, how is this trade-off supposed to happen -- seems like it's terminal link defense to me.

 

Halberstam and comaroff argue that precluding action outside of endorsing the state, you understand the world in a preconceived way of purely the state, which is arguably a bad thing. (again assumes there is external offense to state bad which a lot of affs should already have if they plan on winning against framework). 

Again, this idea of 'precluding' action is where I'm missing you. You haven't told me why either

A) Defending a plan text makes it so you can't do anything else -- it seems like vacuous sweeping totalizations of the type these authors seem to think is bad

B) This doesn't work against T

 

Also, that interp you mentioned on the bottom is just blatantly not true, if you can honestly believe that teams like St. Marks or Glenbrooks aren't going to read Politics, and FX T against your topical k aff you're poorly mistaken. You can look here at Quarters of MBA this year when McDonogh JN lost to Peninsula TW on T (I think) because they read a Black Lives Matters aff that called for curtailing surveillance of social movements without advocating the state and instead did basically what your interp requires. 

What other teams do isn't relevant for either team.

It's not relevant for the aff because they'll be saying potential abuse isn't a voter (well...presumably anyways). 

It's not relevant for the neg because T is about who has a model for debate -- it's a floor, not a ceiling. The argument is that teams should at least defend an endpoint of the topic. The outcome of the ballot doesn't actually change debate -- teams lose to condo all the time but still endorse conditional advocacies in other rounds. Similarly, K teams don't stop being K teams just because they lost to T. That doesn't mean that T isn't a "valid" argument. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, the comaroff evidence speaks to the question of how we embed the state in places where they don't necessarily have to be, also its application assumes you're winning the state bad debate meaning that most of your assumptions about why the state can be used are already impact turned on the case debate/wherever that is.

T=/= framework, so there's two scenarios.

A) If you are already winning the state bad debate in a framework round it seems like the ev is extraneous at that point.

B) On the other hand, if it's T, then you just have to defend that there is a reduction in government surveillance, and not necessarily that it goes through legislative action, so I don't see why there's an impact at this point. 

 

The way that it is typically framed is that there are alternative political solutions that don't have to rely on the state, or even include it, especially considering that you concede debate has no potential for activism, I think debate becomes a game about competing methodologies, and considering there is no risk of spill up/actual state action, I'm not so sure why it necessarily invalidates methods outside of the state.

At the same time, the flipside is true. Since there's no potential for activism, how is this trade-off supposed to happen -- seems like it's terminal link defense to me.

 

Halberstam and comaroff argue that precluding action outside of endorsing the state, you understand the world in a preconceived way of purely the state, which is arguably a bad thing. (again assumes there is external offense to state bad which a lot of affs should already have if they plan on winning against framework). 

Again, this idea of 'precluding' action is where I'm missing you. You haven't told me why either

A) Defending a plan text makes it so you can't do anything else -- it seems like vacuous sweeping totalizations of the type these authors seem to think is bad

B) This doesn't work against T

 

Also, that interp you mentioned on the bottom is just blatantly not true, if you can honestly believe that teams like St. Marks or Glenbrooks aren't going to read Politics, and FX T against your topical k aff you're poorly mistaken. You can look here at Quarters of MBA this year when McDonogh JN lost to Peninsula TW on T (I think) because they read a Black Lives Matters aff that called for curtailing surveillance of social movements without advocating the state and instead did basically what your interp requires. 

What other teams do isn't relevant for either team.

It's not relevant for the aff because they'll be saying potential abuse isn't a voter (well...presumably anyways). 

It's not relevant for the neg because T is about who has a model for debate -- it's a floor, not a ceiling. The argument is that teams should at least defend an endpoint of the topic. The outcome of the ballot doesn't actually change debate -- teams lose to condo all the time but still endorse conditional advocacies in other rounds. Similarly, K teams don't stop being K teams just because they lost to T. That doesn't mean that T isn't a "valid" argument. 

 

 

What AFFs do you think DON'T meet this T interpretation of "aff can curtail surveillance without using legislation"?

Moreover, what offense does the interpretation garner? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What AFFs do you think DON'T meet this T interpretation of "aff can curtail surveillance without using legislation"?

Moreover, what offense does the interpretation garner?

 

Well I don't exactly follow the HS circuit so I can't list teams, but in college debate there are definitely a lot of K teams that refuse to defend a reduction in military presence. I presume it's similar in the HS circuit. The brightline is they'll accept that a DA to curtailing surveillance links or not.

 

For instance, in CX I'll ask stuff along the lines of

'Do you defend a reduction in military presence'

'You talk about the military in the context of X, Y, Z. If we read a DA to reducing military presence in X, Y, Z, would you defend that it links?'

You can swap out Military Presence for Surveillance.

 

Most teams would rather debate T then the DA so they won't defend that their project would reduce military presence.

 

A good generic example is an aff that's just about the queer art of failure. The end result isn't a reduction in surveillance, it's endorsing the queer art of failure. Similarly with ableism aff's that don't talk about the topic.

 

The advantage is that you don't have to win that the law is good -- but you get your limits and ground offense, and the topical version of the aff doesn't link to most of their DA's to framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't exactly follow the HS circuit so I can't list teams, but in college debate there are definitely a lot of K teams that refuse to defend a reduction in military presence. I presume it's similar in the HS circuit. The brightline is they'll accept that a DA to curtailing surveillance links or not.

 

For instance, in CX I'll ask stuff along the lines of

'Do you defend a reduction in military presence'

'You talk about the military in the context of X, Y, Z. If we read a DA to reducing military presence in X, Y, Z, would you defend that it links?'

You can swap out Military Presence for Surveillance.

 

Most teams would rather debate T then the DA so they won't defend that their project would reduce military presence.

 

A good generic example is an aff that's just about the queer art of failure. The end result isn't a reduction in surveillance, it's endorsing the queer art of failure. Similarly with ableism aff's that don't talk about the topic.

 

The advantage is that you don't have to win that the law is good -- but you get your limits and ground offense, and the topical version of the aff doesn't link to most of their DA's to framework.

I agree with that, all the K affs we read defend a curtailment of domestic surveillance just from methods outside of the state, and we defend the aff vs. stuff like Cybersecurity DA's because our advocacy talks about technological jamming. I think that's definitely reasonable, but I don't necessarily believe one should always defend state or legislative action. 

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...