Jump to content
alixmath12

Answering the Geneaology Aff

Recommended Posts

Can you all sort of elaborate? This is my first year, sorry. Like, what is a micro-movements DA? 

Edited by alixmath12
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colonialism K- the notion that the US became imperial only after saltwater expansion whitewashes colonization of land- Byrd is great here. History books try to say expansionism (consumption of contiguous territory) and imperialism (control of people via econ/militarism) are radically different, but this only proves a link. Things like the Trail of Tears were still a mass example of biopolitical control ON LAND.

 

You just have to prove that your starting point is competitive. If they defend geneological praxis then they hella severe out of their own starting point as per annexing the Phillipines with any perm.

Edited by NativeWarlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, OP is my partner and we already run set col k, do you think if we can prove that the surveillance state started in the control of the natives not the phillipenes so the aff is masking that suffering etc. we can win the round?

 

Colonialism K- the notion that the US became imperial only after saltwater expansion whitewashes colonization of land- Byrd is great here. History books try to say expansionism (consumption of contiguous territory) and imperialism (control of people via econ/militarism) are radically different, but this only proves a link. Things like the Trail of Tears was still a mass example of biopolitical control ON LAND.

You just have to prove that your starting point is competitive. If they defend geneological praxis then they hella severe out of their own starting point as per annexing the Phillipines with any perm.

Edited by arealguru
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge i/l gap in the case between where they're talking about military surveillance to where they jump to a card about welfare surveillance.  Arguably 9/10 of their evidence isn't about domestic surveillance at all.  (And as Theparanoiacmachine says, it's really about Sovereign power).  And an i/l problem this serious actually turns their solvency - it means their genealogy is bad scholarship and not even a real genealogy.  They've failed to meet the burden of their own solvency.

 

(I would argue that a topic as expansive as *all domestic surveillance* is far too broad to do a genealogy in 8 minutes, or even 2h, and thus they can never meet the burden of their solvency evidence).

 

Their plan text is terrible.  Which surveillance? Curtail how? With which actors? 

 

If their solvency was true, they would solve after the 1AC.  Obviously they didn't.

 

Also, their 1AC has already happened by the time of the 1NC.  That makes their (terrible) genealogy part of the status quo, and thus negative ground.  This is one reason why affirmatives have to actually advocate *doing something* beyond just giving the 1AC.

 

Yeah, OP is my partner and we already run set col k, do you think if we can prove that the surveillance state started in the control of the natives not the phillipenes so the aff is masking that suffering etc. we can win the round?

 

Eh, wrong starting point?

 

The modern state surveillance apparatus gets its start in the ongoing economic (and occasionally open) warfare between France and England at least as early as the Elizabethan era.

 

You'd certainly be hardpressed to find any evidence of systematic native surveillance that predates, say, the Alien and Sedition Acts (which are clearly part of the US's surveillance and domestic security program, and one of which, the Alien Enemies Act, is directly involved in such misdeeds as Japanese Internment camps during WW2 and other problematic US decisions, and indeed remains part of US law).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, OP is my partner and we already run set col k, do you think if we can prove that the surveillance state started in the control of the natives not the phillipenes so the aff is masking that suffering etc. we can win the round?

While there's lots of starting points you could argue, I think surveillance of indigenous peoples is a big one and it certaintly sparked the idea of "domestic" surveillance as the natives were deemed savage. Anyways, I think you can win that debate- I have the 2 times I've hit geneology.

 

As long as the aff sticks to its guns regarding one geneology, I think you can win the perm debate via:

-severs starting point, impossible to negate the AFF in a world where it doesnt have to defend the only stasis point it said was important (given that the aff really only says phillipine surveillance bad, they should have to defend it the whole round)

-perm is a mode of assimilation (Agathangelou prolly)

-and its all a matter of sequencing which is maybe Churchill, just tha in the face of colonialism, we must decolonize north america thru proper prioritization or else imperial co-option. Paul Street says control of phillipines resulted from land colonization, only a risk you solve the aff through a better historical sequence.

 

And if all that is still too defensive read a link about historical examinations and how they get appropriated by american exceptionalism maybe

Edited by NativeWarlock
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk how people can say biopower bad with a straight face in a debate round when all of their evidence is speaking directly to Sovereign Power 

But aren't they claiming that the sovereign power comes from the domestic surveillance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if yall are interested, but the UTNIF psych file has some pretty great links to foucault imo.

 

Most UTNIF neg files at camp were designed with foucault in mind, so I'd start from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...