Jump to content
TheSnowball

Daily Card

Recommended Posts

For the former, I'd look into a Supreme Court ruling called Ingraham v Wright - this document has a bit on it that might make a good solvency card for a Supreme Court Affirmative to overturn that decision. If you want I can cut it for you tomorrow.

 

http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=luclj

 

For the latter, I posted some education key to hegemony cards earlier in the thread when someone provided cites to cut, but here are those again.

If you could cut for me you have my thanks, I am having trouble getting through the thick legalese on this one.

 

I would use those heg cards but I already used them for a link chain in my harms cards for the case I am putting together.

Edited by DogeDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could cut for me you have my thanks, I am having trouble getting through the thick legalese on this one.

 

I would use those heg cards but I already used them for a link chain in my harms cards for the case I am putting together.

Okay. Here's the Supreme Court stuff and I'll look for more hegemony cards tomorrow if you still want them.

Ingraham Cards.docx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Here's the Supreme Court stuff and I'll look for more hegemony cards tomorrow if you still want them.

Thank you so much, I will try to look for heg stuff in the meantime but I am struggling to find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5-22-17 regular update: a giant deregulation counterplan!! (more school choice, more vouchers, more privatization of schools, more charter schools)

This post sponsored by Betsy DeVos.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a card since I missed yesterday about privatization and one for today about public backlash to the dominant education regime. I'll work on those requests best I can, but I'm just catching up for the time being.

5-26-17.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody cut a card about how not having a specific agent of action is bad?

This is the closest I could find, which is basically just "agency matters in education."

 

This is a card to make up for not doing one yesterday, I'll do another later today.

 

By the way you should look into Richard Elmore for the actor specification stuff. He writes about educational policy implementation, but I couldn't find anything in his work that quite fit what you were looking for.

5-29-17.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how far into the lit you wanna go, but if you wanna find some topic links to queer theory, that'd be pretty cool 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have a debate bad k in terms of education?

 

Maybe some Reid-Brinkley if possible.

Reid-Brinkley seems to be focusing mainly on performance and the exclusion of Black people from debate. Are you looking for that, or are you looking for a debate bad K more broadly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how far into the lit you wanna go, but if you wanna find some topic links to queer theory, that'd be pretty cool 

This is more of a material link than a subjectivity/identity link, but it's a place to start.

5-30-17.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reid-Brinkley seems to be focusing mainly on performance and the exclusion of Black people from debate. Are you looking for that, or are you looking for a debate bad K more broadly?

Now that you say that, I think most people would prefer the debate bad K more broadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an all-male team in my circuit who run fem. Can someone get a cards that says it's bad for men to represent women's issues because they don't experience them themselves or something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you say that, I think most people would prefer the debate bad K more broadly. 

I get and understand the reasonings of most Debate Exclusion K's like Fem, Race, Ableism, etc. (I'm not trying to homogenize different forms of opression, just those are the ones that come off the top of my head). I think that Reid-Brinkley and other authors are spot on when it comes to their criticisms.

 

But if the arg is like Debate as an activity is bad external to the exclusions it contains, it seems to just be a massive double turn. I get SSD, but arguing that the activity of a debate is bad while partaking in the very essences of that activity including negation theory and switch side debating just seems like a PerfCon. The only args I can see coming out of that logic is Michigan KM type "Trap of Debate" stuff, but even that just doesn't seem that persuasive.

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...