Jump to content
Nonegfiat

How does this biopower 1ac look?

Recommended Posts

So about a week ago I posted on this forum that I was interested in writing a biopower K aff. I've now finished the 1ac and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Can you all help me make this good?

[file removed because i've gotten the feedback I need and no longer want it to be public]

Here are the main things that appear to me as problems

1) The card about interdependence increasing the legitimacy of the state was ripped from a Chinese Politics DA. I did it because I had a hard time finding a good scholarly IR article to say what I wanted it to say. I think the evidence for that argument could be a lot better, so maybe i just need to spend more time looking

2) I think i need to do a better job explaining the impact of biopolitics, particularly on the Uyghur part. I also need to learn how to explain biopower more fully, instead of just repeating things like "controlling the population" or "subjugating bodies". Like I need to explain why those things are bad. Maybe throw in an impact card from one of last year's kritiks

3) The poem in the beginning doesn't serve any real purpose. I just added it because lots of K affs have poetry and I wanted to be edgy

4) I'm not sure if my arguments about American biopower serve any real purpose, especially since our advocacy is specific to china. I meant it as an illustration of legitimization, but I'm not sure if it really functions as such

5) I need a better card for framework at the end

6) a handful of cards come from people's masters theses. Im not sure how much of a problem that is

Like I said on my first post, I've never written a kritik before (actually, that's not true. I did once when I was a sophomore in public forum and it was awful), so I am grateful for any and all feedback.

Thanks!

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the poem does serve the purpose of humanizing the problem- if you want that then keep it

this countermemory card at the end is not really a framework card so much as solvency for your method/aff in round- also its underhighlighted

if you want to read America specific cards changes your advocacy text to say something like USFG and CCP should end biopolitical practices before USFG engagement with PRC

I think the agamben evidence can function as an answer to why biopower is bad- just utilize it more- also maybe 1 more impact card

masters theses are not a problem

and you are correct about first problem- spend more time looking- although what's in the aff is enough to get by- but better cards are always better

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) yousheng means eugenics if asked in cx, it was the method of making children superior. 

2.) edit the agamben 95 card for gendered language (it only refers to "man" and "him").

3.) block out answers to ableism (your poem has some ableist language), and block out answers to pan (you explicitly state that the resolution is legitimizing china's rise which is bad). 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if this is applicable at all, but there's this thing called Sesame Credits. Its like a Chinese rating system for how "good" of a citizen you are. It's very biopolitical. I don't know if you could use it, but there's a fun fact.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if this is applicable at all, but there's this thing called Sesame Credits. Its like a Chinese rating system for how "good" of a citizen you are. It's very biopolitical. I don't know if you could use it, but there's a fun fact.

Idk if this is the same or different but it's a 2016 article good for cards.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3330%26context%3Disp_collection&ved=0ahUKEwi1rtTYicfQAhUEiVQKHQ0LCtQQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGLja96nJbVtEWuMtEND4oO-eGY4g&sig2=tdgrL5tA-8Ke8XqRvBddGA

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Arbitrary to admit one of your authors doesn't go into detail.

- Taglines too long - make them more concise so that they're easier to flow

- You should track down the sources your cards cite

- The card that starts with "To China, GDP" has a source highlighted and idk if you wanted that

- Some cards just overhighlighted

- I would make it more structured: "<Poem> First we present the problem <card about bio-p k2 China rise> specifically A. <population cards> B. <health cards> C. <Uyghurs> D. <U.S. Surveillance>."

 

That way it's easy to understand/flow and super easy to extend a subpoint rather than wasting time extending each individual card.

 

- Advocacy doesn't deal with U.S. NSA stuff.

 

- I think the last card is addressed in previous replies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the poem does serve the purpose of humanizing the problem- if you want that then keep it

this countermemory card at the end is not really a framework card so much as solvency for your method/aff in round- also its underhighlighted

if you want to read America specific cards changes your advocacy text to say something like USFG and CCP should end biopolitical practices before USFG engagement with PRC

I think the agamben evidence can function as an answer to why biopower is bad- just utilize it more- also maybe 1 more impact card

masters theses are not a problem

and you are correct about first problem- spend more time looking- although what's in the aff is enough to get by- but better cards are always better

 

1. Well that was what i was thinking. I'm glad it functions that way. I'll keep it then!

2. I see. there's a difference between discourse first (framework) and our critique is good and productive (solvency). I'll definitely work on that part

3. Yeah that's a pretty commonsense thing to do. I was just worried I didn't spend enough time talking about US biopower to make it part of the advocacy, but that doesn't really make sense. If I raise the issue, i should advocate against it.

4. Makes sense

5. Awesome! that's a relief. I would hate to have to scrap those cards

6. Yeah I was thinking the same. I'll just find some time to do more thorough research for that argument

 

1.) yousheng means eugenics if asked in cx, it was the method of making children superior. 

2.) edit the agamben 95 card for gendered language (it only refers to "man" and "him").

3.) block out answers to ableism (your poem has some ableist language), and block out answers to pan (you explicitly state that the resolution is legitimizing china's rise which is bad). 

 

1. Thanks! I see you run something related to eugenics in China. I may end up looking up some of your cards, since eugenics is extremely biopolitical and I only talk about it as part of this broader "population control" issue

2. Yup. good looking out

3. I didn't notice the ableist language in the poem, so thanks. And yeah, it links pretty hard to Pan. That was something i was thinking about as wrote it

 

Them uyghur cards are fire

 

hah thanks!

 

I dunno if this is applicable at all, but there's this thing called Sesame Credits. Its like a Chinese rating system for how "good" of a citizen you are. It's very biopolitical. I don't know if you could use it, but there's a fun fact.

 

I will definitely look that up. The more specific i can be about the CCP's biopolitics, the better

 

- Arbitrary to admit one of your authors doesn't go into detail.

- Taglines too long - make them more concise so that they're easier to flow

- You should track down the sources your cards cite

- The card that starts with "To China, GDP" has a source highlighted and idk if you wanted that

- Some cards just overhighlighted

- I would make it more structured: "<Poem> First we present the problem <card about bio-p k2 China rise> specifically A. <population cards> B. <health cards> C. <Uyghurs> D. <U.S. Surveillance>."

 

That way it's easy to understand/flow and super easy to extend a subpoint rather than wasting time extending each individual card.

 

- Advocacy doesn't deal with U.S. NSA stuff.

 

- I think the last card is addressed in previous replies.

 

1. Yeah I'll rephrase that

2. That was purposeful. Another one of those "lots of K affs I've seen do this, so I'll do it too" things. But just because lots of people do it doesn't mean it's good. I'll cut down on those tags

3. Good idea. more sources is always better

4. Good catch

5. Yeah I sort of rushed through the highlighting. I'll definitely redo that

6. good idea. I'll consider that kind of structure

7. Yeah, the adocacy's being changed

8. Yup, I'm gonna redo the framework stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't as good as I was hoping to find, but maybe useful as a thesis card or answer to something.

it's way better than the one i have. Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Aff is the poem; I don't think there's a real defense of why there needs to be some kind of narrative at the beginning of the 1AC other than "it humanizes the Uyghurs". It just opens you up to critiques of sentimentality or PIKs out of narratives that are starting to become more popular on the national circuit.

I also don't know why the poem is key to genealogical investigation or subject-formation. It actually seems like the narrative contradicts your Clifford evidence, which says 

Foucault’s counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness” (aktive Vergesslichkeit).21 Counter-memory consists of essentially forgetting who we are. It is a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of the moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity. There is freedom in forgetfulness. Counter-memory holds us at a remove, a distance, from ourselves; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of wrenching the self—this identity—apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference. 

In other words, the creation of new political subjectivities can only be done through a forgetting or rewriting of the past, but the poem is a sentimental construct that reinforces the position of the Uyghur as bare life. It is part of the same knowledge/power nexus that your Clifford stuff criticizes and prevents the Uyghurs from disassociating themselves from political oppression through an insistence of historical essentialism and identity politics.

 

TLDR: Your method is counter-memory and forgetfulness, but the poem is a kind of "remembrance" that binds Uyghurs to their position as bare life

Edited by NeXxet
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Aff is the poem; I don't think there's a real defense of why there needs to be some kind of narrative at the beginning of the 1AC other than "it humanizes the Uyghurs". It just opens you up to critiques of sentimentality or PIKs out of narratives that are starting to become more popular on the national circuit.

I also don't know why the poem is key to genealogical investigation or subject-formation. It actually seems like the narrative contradicts your Clifford evidence, which says 

Foucault’s counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness” (aktive Vergesslichkeit).21 Counter-memory consists of essentially forgetting who we are. It is a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of the moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity. There is freedom in forgetfulness. Counter-memory holds us at a remove, a distance, from ourselves; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of wrenching the self—this identity—apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference. 

In other words, the creation of new political subjectivities can only be done through a forgetting or rewriting of the past, but the poem is a sentimental construct that reinforces the position of the Uyghur as bare life. It is part of the same knowledge/power nexus that your Clifford stuff criticizes and prevents the Uyghurs from disassociating themselves from political oppression through an insistence of historical essentialism and identity politics.

 

TLDR: Your method is counter-memory and forgetfulness, but the poem is a kind of "remembrance" that binds Uyghurs to their position as bare life

 

Well, the poem is about the Tienanmen Square Massacre, which I don't say anywhere in the 1AC so I can't fault you for thinking it was about the Uyghurs. With that in mind, the poem is definitely not key to the aff, which is why I said initially that I don't think it serves any purpose. It does function as an emotional appeal, but again, that's not key to anything the aff tries to do other than convince the judge that biopower sucks. I'll be honest, I have a rather shallow understanding of subject-formation and countermemory. I didn't spend very long on that part of the aff, and I took that card from a different K file because it appeared to say that critical analysis of history was productive in breaking free from whatever harms we're analyzing. So I would say the biggest problem is the clifford card rather than the poem, because clearly I need to spend more time researching and thinking about my solvency mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Aff is the poem; I don't think there's a real defense of why there needs to be some kind of narrative at the beginning of the 1AC other than "it humanizes the Uyghurs". It just opens you up to critiques of sentimentality or PIKs out of narratives that are starting to become more popular on the national circuit.

I also don't know why the poem is key to genealogical investigation or subject-formation. It actually seems like the narrative contradicts your Clifford evidence, which says 

Foucault’s counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness” (aktive Vergesslichkeit).21 Counter-memory consists of essentially forgetting who we are. It is a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of the moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity. There is freedom in forgetfulness. Counter-memory holds us at a remove, a distance, from ourselves; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of wrenching the self—this identity—apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference. 

In other words, the creation of new political subjectivities can only be done through a forgetting or rewriting of the past, but the poem is a sentimental construct that reinforces the position of the Uyghur as bare life. It is part of the same knowledge/power nexus that your Clifford stuff criticizes and prevents the Uyghurs from disassociating themselves from political oppression through an insistence of historical essentialism and identity politics.

 

TLDR: Your method is counter-memory and forgetfulness, but the poem is a kind of "remembrance" that binds Uyghurs to their position as bare life

I disagree. Counter-memory is something that the Clifford evidence says operates by "opposing themselves to the discourses of truth". This would mean that the poem is a re-reading of how people (namely the PRC) interpret the  Uighurs. In fact, one could articulate it as embracing a new political subjectivity that actively defies the perception of the Uighurs as a threat. Their identity, as defined by the PRC, is stripped of humanity so the poem, by rehumanizing them, would meet the buden of that ev.

 

 

I think this aff would lose to framework very easily. It's not set up with a lot of offensive reasons as to why a TVA couldn't resolve the majority of your offense, other than a tautological assertion of the state being the root of evil. To resolve this, I think you need to lighten up on the carded specifics, and instead go into depth on what biopower is, and why fiating political advocacies can't do anything to stop it. I think focusing more on the poem and a counter-reading, combined with some other critique of externalizing agency would be good with some specific contextualization on how that operates in debate. 

 

 

edit: in light of me not seeing the previous comment by OP, it may be best to talk about Tienanmen Square in the aff, or find a poem about Tibet or the Uighurs. 

Edited by baudrillbabe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Counter-memory is something that the Clifford evidence says operates by "opposing themselves to the discourses of truth". This would mean that the poem is a re-reading of how people (namely the PRC) interpret the  Uighurs. In fact, one could articulate it as embracing a new political subjectivity that actively defies the perception of the Uighurs as a threat. Their identity, as defined by the PRC, is stripped of humanity so the poem, by rehumanizing them, would meet the buden of that ev.

 

 

I think this aff would lose to framework very easily. It's not set up with a lot of offensive reasons as to why a TVA couldn't resolve the majority of your offense, other than a tautological assertion of the state being the root of evil. To resolve this, I think you need to lighten up on the carded specifics, and instead go into depth on what biopower is, and why fiating political advocacies can't do anything to stop it. I think focusing more on the poem and a counter-reading, combined with some other critique of externalizing agency would be good with some specific contextualization on how that operates in debate. 

 

 

edit: in light of me not seeing the previous comment by OP, it may be best to talk about Tienanmen Square in the aff, or find a poem about Tibet or the Uighurs. 

I'm ashamed to ask this given that I put the clifford card in my aff, but can you explain politcal subjectivity and how it relates to the reading of a poem? And TVA stands for topical version of the affirmative, right?

 

Re: everything else, I completely agree. I think this aff falls victim to an argument that I frequently make against K affs, which is "we already know that x is bad, so why can't you endorse a pragmatic solution to x instead of just criticizing it?"

 

The aff spends a ton of time talking about the evils of the PRC and its biopolitics, and only minimally addresses the question of what the aff does in response to that, which begs the question of why the judge should vote affirmative. It has to be more than "you agree with us that biopolitics is bad and you endorse an end to it". And I think that needs to be the area that i focus my revisions on the most. Does that all sound reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Well that was what i was thinking. I'm glad it functions that way. I'll keep it then!

2. I see. there's a difference between discourse first (framework) and our critique is good and productive (solvency). I'll definitely work on that part

3. Yeah that's a pretty commonsense thing to do. I was just worried I didn't spend enough time talking about US biopower to make it part of the advocacy, but that doesn't really make sense. If I raise the issue, i should advocate against it.

4. Makes sense

5. Awesome! that's a relief. I would hate to have to scrap those cards

6. Yeah I was thinking the same. I'll just find some time to do more thorough research for that argument

 

 

1. Thanks! I see you run something related to eugenics in China. I may end up looking up some of your cards, since eugenics is extremely biopolitical and I only talk about it as part of this broader "population control" issue

2. Yup. good looking out

3. I didn't notice the ableist language in the poem, so thanks. And yeah, it links pretty hard to Pan. That was something i was thinking about as wrote it

 

 

hah thanks!

 

 

I will definitely look that up. The more specific i can be about the CCP's biopolitics, the better

 

 

1. Yeah I'll rephrase that

2. That was purposeful. Another one of those "lots of K affs I've seen do this, so I'll do it too" things. But just because lots of people do it doesn't mean it's good. I'll cut down on those tags

3. Good idea. more sources is always better

4. Good catch

5. Yeah I sort of rushed through the highlighting. I'll definitely redo that

6. good idea. I'll consider that kind of structure

7. Yeah, the adocacy's being changed

8. Yup, I'm gonna redo the framework stuff

if you want my cards email me. I messaged you my email

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ashamed to ask this given that I put the clifford card in my aff, but can you explain politcal subjectivity and how it relates to the reading of a poem? And TVA stands for topical version of the affirmative, right?

 

Re: everything else, I completely agree. I think this aff falls victim to an argument that I frequently make against K affs, which is "we already know that x is bad, so why can't you endorse a pragmatic solution to x instead of just criticizing it?"

 

The aff spends a ton of time talking about the evils of the PRC and its biopolitics, and only minimally addresses the question of what the aff does in response to that, which begs the question of why the judge should vote affirmative. It has to be more than "you agree with us that biopolitics is bad and you endorse an end to it". And I think that needs to be the area that i focus my revisions on the most. Does that all sound reasonable?

the poem (in the context I thought it described) would disarticulate current conclusions about Uighurs (ie their perception as security threats, as per the PRC) and provide a counter-memory for understanding how their identities are embedded in the history of china.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, in terms of intent, per se, is there anything that concludes that the author was thinking about uyghurs when he wrote this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, in terms of intent, per se, is there anything that concludes that the author was thinking about uyghurs when he wrote this?

If you're talking about the poem, it's about Tienanmen Square. I realize now I should have chosen a poem about something that the aff explicitly talks about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Im learning Ks on a circuit where many dont know they exist, how do I simplify this for judges in my circuit

To be quite honest, if that is the case, then jumping in with a kritikal affirmative might not be the best strategic move in your area.

 

However, if you really want to go that route, I recommend you start by organizing the case into terms that your circuit already understands - an approximation of its stock issues is probably a safe bet. Even kritkal cases have harms, significance, inherency, and solvency, and you can probably put together some justification of why you're topical. (After all, if this sort of case is unheard of where you are, then you can almost assuredly outprep whatever responses you expect to see on that front.)

 

Best of luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, if that is the case, then jumping in with a kritikal affirmative might not be the best strategic move in your area.

 

However, if you really want to go that route, I recommend you start by organizing the case into terms that your circuit already understands - an approximation of its stock issues is probably a safe bet. Even kritkal cases have harms, significance, inherency, and solvency, and you can probably put together some justification of why you're topical. (After all, if this sort of case is unheard of where you are, then you can almost assuredly outprep whatever responses you expect to see on that front.)

 

Best of luck!

I agree with everything here. I would caution against using my aff because as everyone pointed out, there are a lot of problems with it. And especially if your circuit is new to kritiks, this aff is not gonna help you that much against the inevitable framework attavk. You can find better k affs on open ev, but i agree you should probably start on the neg.

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...