Jump to content
ACubeHas4Sides

Education Topic New Aff

Recommended Posts

Just a couple of things from skimming the off, haven't really looked into it much:

1. Maybe specify which Chinese language being taught? Is it Mandarin, Cantonese, or some obscure dialect

2. I don't really know how teaching a Chinese language in the US is going to solve orientalism, in fact I'd probably turn that argument and say that white people teaching mandarin, which is prob what would happen esp since you don't specify who would be the teacher, only enforces orientalism as like white people would probably teach the way they learned mandarin and i doubt they'll have the perfect accents etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of an Orientalism case, but I think that this case in particular is fighting internally about what it really wants to be. On the one hand, you're telling me that the USFG sucks at understanding China both as an international actor and as a cultural entity. On the other hand, you're also telling me that we can totally use China to influence the international community to our benefit. Here are some paired quotations from your case that illustrate this problem:

  • "US foreign policy towards China is rooted in instrumental economic rationality. Chinese growth is treated as both an opportunity and a threat.  Either mode constructs the US national interest the source of global security."
    • "China’s top central banker is approaching retirement and the nation’s leaders are struggling to manage a shift to a new growth model."
      • You claim to indict this rationale, but you literally use it as a justification for your case.
  • "China is imagined to endanger economic, environmental, social, and cultural development worldwide."
    • "US-China relations are a conflict dampener and solve all global problems – specifically key in the context of solving climate change because we are the top 2 emitters."
      • Does China play a large role in, "all global problems," or does it not?
  • "Pursuit of national security guarantees warfare.  National security justifies the sacrifice of millions."
    • "Strong US-China relations solve North Korean proliferation – prevents war and broad prolif."

      • If securitization, offensive realism, and Mearsheimer's general idiocy (shout-out to AQuackDebater) are wrong, how can you claim to both predict and preempt this war scenario - and if China is ideologically rational, why wouldn't they just talk to North Korea of their own accord if/when they judge them to be a legitimate threat?

Speaking as someone who has been kicking this can down the road in some form for a couple of years now, Orientalism doesn't mix well with traditional big stick impacts unless approached very strictly from the perspective of American fault - and even that is a careful line to toe.

 

If you'd like to chat, I'd be happy to discuss this further either here or in a PM.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things from skimming the off, haven't really looked into it much:

1. Maybe specify which Chinese language being taught? Is it Mandarin, Cantonese, or some obscure dialect

I think the plantext specifies Mandarin, but you are right - I should clarify...

2. I don't really know how teaching a Chinese language in the US is going to solve orientalism, in fact I'd probably turn that argument and say that white people teaching mandarin, which is prob what would happen esp since you don't specify who would be the teacher, only enforces orientalism as like white people would probably teach the way they learned mandarin and i doubt they'll have the perfect accents etc.

So... clarify who teaches? I am taking Chinese right now in highschool and my chinese teacher Heidi老师 is probably one of the best teachers in the nation – she goes to international conferences all the time, she goes to china every year for the past 30 years, she takes students to china every other year, she has perfect tones, she partners with the college board and the Confucious Institute – and she is white. That's just my expirience though... but Im not sure that the white people turn makes sense in the context of the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of an Orientalism case, but I think that this case in particular is fighting internally about what it really wants to be. On the one hand, you're telling me that the USFG sucks at understanding China both as an international actor and as a cultural entity. On the other hand, you're also telling me that we can totally use China to influence the international community to our benefit. Here are some paired quotations from your case that illustrate this problem:

  • "US foreign policy towards China is rooted in instrumental economic rationality. Chinese growth is treated as both an opportunity and a threat.  Either mode constructs the US national interest the source of global security."
    • "China’s top central banker is approaching retirement and the nation’s leaders are struggling to manage a shift to a new growth model."
      • You claim to indict this rationale, but you literally use it as a justification for your case.
  • "China is imagined to endanger economic, environmental, social, and cultural development worldwide."
    • "US-China relations are a conflict dampener and solve all global problems – specifically key in the context of solving climate change because we are the top 2 emitters."
      • Does China play a large role in, "all global problems," or does it not?
  • "Pursuit of national security guarantees warfare.  National security justifies the sacrifice of millions."
    • "Strong US-China relations solve North Korean proliferation – prevents war and broad prolif."

      • If securitization, offensive realism, and Mearsheimer's general idiocy (shout-out to AQuackDebater) are wrong, how can you claim to both predict and preempt this war scenario - and if China is ideologically rational, why wouldn't they just talk to North Korea of their own accord if/when they judge them to be a legitimate threat?

Speaking as someone who has been kicking this can down the road in some form for a couple of years now, Orientalism doesn't mix well with traditional big stick impacts unless approached very strictly from the perspective of American fault - and even that is a careful line to toe.

 

If you'd like to chat, I'd be happy to discuss this further either here or in a PM.

Good points...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a couple of things from skimming the off, haven't really looked into it much:

1. Maybe specify which Chinese language being taught? Is it Mandarin, Cantonese, or some obscure dialect

I think the plantext specifies Mandarin, but you are right - I should clarify...

2. I don't really know how teaching a Chinese language in the US is going to solve orientalism, in fact I'd probably turn that argument and say that white people teaching mandarin, which is prob what would happen esp since you don't specify who would be the teacher, only enforces orientalism as like white people would probably teach the way they learned mandarin and i doubt they'll have the perfect accents etc.

So... clarify who teaches? I am taking Chinese right now in highschool and my chinese teacher Heidi老师 is probably one of the best teachers in the nation – she goes to international conferences all the time, she goes to china every year for the past 30 years, she takes students to china every other year, she has perfect tones, she partners with the college board and the Confucious Institute – and she is white. That's just my expirience though... but Im not sure that the white people turn makes sense in the context of the aff.

 

 

Well the idea of orientalism is that Western scholarship about the orient is flawed and racist right, but then for some reason if you have a westerner teaching an eastern language its not going to be orientalist? Said talks about how western ideas about the East are fundamentally rooted in this racist epistemology just something to think about. I'm not sure if I explained it well, I'm certainly no expert Maybe someone who understands what I'm going for can explain it better. 

Also just a clarification, so American Diplomats in China speak Mandarin do they not? If so, then where is the language barrier preventing relations? honest question cuz I'm not sure if diplomats speak mandarin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres what I thought when I first looked:

There is probably an argument to be made about students not wanting to do the class, and theres two impacts to that

1) This tanks your solvency. If kids don't want to do it they won't actually learn mandarin or the culture, they'll memorize enough to pass and forget about it once they're done, so there is no lasting effect.
2) Forcing them to take the class could foster resentment for the culture, which probably turns the aff
 
If you're not going to force them, you can't guarantee enough students will take the class to solve the aff. You either need to force them to take it, which brings about the previously mentioned problems, or you need to prove enough people are willing to do it to satisfy the internal links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the idea of orientalism is that Western scholarship about the orient is flawed and racist right, but then for some reason if you have a westerner teaching an eastern language its not going to be orientalist? Said talks about how western ideas about the East are fundamentally rooted in this racist epistemology just something to think about. I'm not sure if I explained it well, I'm certainly no expert Maybe someone who understands what I'm going for can explain it better.

 

I see what you're saying, but all the plan text really proposes is the USFG, "increasing the number of K-12 students learning Mandarin through its academic exchanges with the People’s Republic of China." I could be misinterpreting something, but that seems to indicate that either Chinese teachers would be brought to the US to teach or that American students would be brought to China to learn. (Although, the fact that we have drawn significantly different conclusions about what the plan actually does probably indicates a need for more specificity.)

 

Perhaps ACubeHas4Sides could clarify their intent?

Edited by CynicClinic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heres what I thought when I first looked:

There is probably an argument to be made about students not wanting to do the class, and theres two impacts to that

1) This tanks your solvency. If kids don't want to do it they won't actually learn mandarin or the culture, they'll memorize enough to pass and forget about it once they're done, so there is no lasting effect.
2) Forcing them to take the class could foster resentment for the culture, which probably turns the aff
 
If you're not going to force them, you can't guarantee enough students will take the class to solve the aff. You either need to force them to take it, which brings about the previously mentioned problems, or you need to prove enough people are willing to do it to satisfy the internal links.

 

 

To add on to that,

1. how does teaching kids Mandarin really help politics like not all high schoolers become politicians 

2. How do you ensure every student learns mandarin or even the majority like in my school Mandarin is offered but most people take spanish or french because mandarins hard af

3. How do you make sure these high schoolers who later become politicians or diplomats etc even remember Mandarin, like my parents took french but they don't remember any of it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying, but all the plan text really proposes is the USFG, "increasing the number of K-12 students learning Mandarin through its academic exchanges with the People’s Republic of China." I could be misinterpreting something, but that seems to indicate that either Chinese teachers would be brought to the US to teach or that American students would be brought to China to learn. (Although, the fact that we have drawn significantly different conclusions about what the plan actually does probably indicates a need for more specificity.)

 

Perhaps ACubeHas4Sides could clarify their intent?

Yeah i didn't see that stuff about academic exchange but even then I think the point still stands. For example, if Chinese people were the teachers, the language could still be corrupted by the orientalist mindset of these western students. IE when Western scholars came to places like India, even though it was indians who were fluent in sanskrit teaching them, the sanskrit translations to english were wrong and misinterpreted etc. 

Edited by aprasad202

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: this seems to be specific to Chinese students in America, not vis versa, which I missed at first.

 

Maybe this is helpful as suggestions to supplement language learning:

 

"However, being exposed to Chinese culture (e.g., at home and the CHL schools) and American mainstream culture (e.g., mainstream K-12 schools) does not automatically make Chinese American students interculturally competent. Both the teacher and the students need to understand the importance of cultural learning while acquiring the Chinese language. More importantly, developing intercultural competence for both CHL teachers and students should be intentionally addressed in class and linked to Chinese heritage language and literacy development, so as to facilitate CHL learning. As a result, CHL students can acknowledge the cultural differences that emerge in class, and then choose the way to appropriately act. In order to develop intercultural competence, both CHL teachers and students need to develop three key attitudes (i.e., openness, respect, and curiosity), knowledge, and skills (Deardorff, 2006). They need to develop cultural self-awareness and reflect on their intercultural experience in order to understand the impact of underlying culturally conditioned norms, values, and beliefs on student classroom behaviors, interactions among students and the teacher, and teacher expectations. They also need to develop skills to observe, analyze, and relate to both cultures. For example, the following sample questions modified from Deardorff’s study (2009) can be used to help develop intercultural competence: 1. Do I know how students/the teacher want(s) to be treated in both CHL and American mainstream classrooms? 2. What are culturally appropriate behaviors and communication style in CHL classrooms and American mainstream classrooms? How are they different? 3. Am I able to adapt my behavior and communication style to accommodate students/the teacher to avoid cultural conflicts in class? In addition, Sercu (2005) suggested that when teachers compare cultures, they do so to familiarize their students with the target culture, as well as to help them reflect on their own cultural identity and develop deeper insights in their own culture. Such a cultural comparison method can also be used in CHL classrooms to help students reflect on their heritage culture and mainstream culture in order to build up intercultural competence. As Macías (1992) argued, “Students’ engagement in classroom activity is enhanced when communication about both instructional and social concerns is part of the classroom instructional plan” (p.22). Therefore, CHL teachers need to know both Chinese and American cultures well, which can help them to explain similarities and differences between cultures as well as to identify cultural stereotypes for CHL students to attain intercultural competence. As a result, raising both the teacher and students’ awareness of cultural dynamics and expectations can prepare for effective student-teacher interactions. Hence, intercultural competence helps students to go beyond objective culture (e.g., festival, food) and extend learning to develop subjective culture (e.g., values, beliefs) (Triandis, 1994)."

 

http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/10XiaoshiLiChangPu.pdf

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, yes, the impressive connections that high school policy debaters can make between topics to justify keeping backfiles

 

 

 

 

its ok, i considered "build the ocean cleanup array w/ china", and "stop doing surveillance on china" as plans this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking more at the aff, if you want a critical advantage maybe instead of orientalism do a linguistic imperialism advantage about how sq forces the chinese to use english makes it the dominant language etc. You can look at umich K file from this year and adapt some cards or use it for a research base

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if someone has made these points already (im too lazy to read up)

 

With this aff, the biggest things that jump out at me are

 

1. What are academic exchanges with the PRC, how do they lead to more students taking Mandarin, and how do they constitute funding/regulation for education?

 

2. A lot of your solvency seems to hinge on the academic exchange portion of the plan text rather than the kids learning Mandarin portion. And even where you do talk about language I don't know why schools are key.

 

3. Running a standard relations advantage along with an orientalism advantage feels very perfconnish. I would just go for one or the other. If you wanna read a soft left impact about like cultural dialogue or something, that would be good but i think full blown orientalism puts you in a trap.

 

 

Still i really like this idea for an aff and i applaud you for writing your own aff on a topic that feels like it's so terrible for policy teams. I know if I were in high school next year, I would probably just run Foucault every round lol

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying, but all the plan text really proposes is the USFG, "increasing the number of K-12 students learning Mandarin through its academic exchanges with the People’s Republic of China." I could be misinterpreting something, but that seems to indicate that either Chinese teachers would be brought to the US to teach or that American students would be brought to China to learn. (Although, the fact that we have drawn significantly different conclusions about what the plan actually does probably indicates a need for more specificity.)

 

Perhaps ACubeHas4Sides could clarify his intent?

 

Ok, so what should the new plan text be to clarify better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add on to that,

1. how does teaching kids Mandarin really help politics like not all high schoolers become politicians

**Pulls out debate good blocks** 

I think the argument here is that garnering the skills is a prerqusite to becoming a diplomat, so at least by exposing students to Chinese culture that somehow solves...

 

2. How do you ensure every student learns mandarin or even the majority like in my school Mandarin is offered but most people take spanish or french because mandarins hard af

Good point...

 

3. How do you make sure these high schoolers who later become politicians or diplomats etc even remember Mandarin, like my parents took french but they don't remember any of it?

Well I think that if your parents were French diplomats then they would remember it. 

 

I think generally, the argument is saying that by exposing more kids to Mandarin (which is not the case rn ... #2) then we will have more intrest in chinese culture and/or language. the plan both increases the percent of students who want to become diplomats and it also increases the number of students who take chinese. I think that solves but tbh i dont really know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, yes, the impressive connections that high school policy debaters can make between topics to justify keeping backfiles

 

I try...  :flower: 

 

 

its ok, i considered "build the ocean cleanup array w/ china", and "stop doing surveillance on china" as plans this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if someone has made these points already (im too lazy to read up)

 

With this aff, the biggest things that jump out at me are

 

1. What are academic exchanges with the PRC, how do they lead to more students taking Mandarin, and how do they constitute funding/regulation for education?

我不知道。。。TBH I am not sure that an academic exchange meets the "in the United States" part of the rez. I think if I were to explain them, the I would say that they bring in Chinese students and show them America and then have the Americans go expirience Chinese culture? Something like that... RIght now I believe that it is either poorly funded, not funded, or funded by some Chinese multi-national corporation.

2. A lot of your solvency seems to hinge on the academic exchange portion of the plan text rather than the kids learning Mandarin portion. And even where you do talk about language I don't know why schools are key.

It's not just language, its language and culture which is probably why this aff isn't topical. How could you make it topical?

 

3. Running a standard relations advantage along with an orientalism advantage feels very perfconnish. I would just go for one or the other. If you wanna read a soft left impact about like cultural dialogue or something, that would be good but i think full blown orientalism puts you in a trap.

True. I wanted to see what could link with this aff and I would never run them together but I think there is definatley a policy version and a kritical version of this 1AC.

 

Still i really like this idea for an aff and i applaud you for writing your own aff on a topic that feels like it's so terrible for policy teams. I know if I were in high school next year, I would probably just run Foucault every round lol

Thanks Ben, have fun in college next year :)

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...