Jump to content
jmeza111401

best k aff for next year

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

it is literally the attempt to assert that one way of doing things is correct, and the other is wrong

That's the same thing. Why is this necessarily anti-queer in any specific way? Certainly it's against certain forms of vagueness or inspecificity, but why is this violent? Pls link me to a source that says all attempts at defining correct ways of doing things is anti-queer, or at least address my counter examples. It's not a logical fallacy to say that this is unlikely to be correct if no credible source agrees.

16 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

Framework is the idea that there is no space in the debate space except for that which [can] be contextualized through a single, "correct" lens.

The neg/switch side? Also TVAs? Like I'm not saying I think these are necessarily true, but I highly doubt that correct procedure generates violence in a way that always uniquely localizes violence to queer people, and I'm not sure it's legitimate to say it is. This is pretty unclear unless you want to divorce queerness from actual people who could be described as queer.

21 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

Hablas inglés

"Definitions are always violent" is an oversimplified version of postmodernist, identity based, or Marxist arguments that is often used by right-wing pundits to discredit the fields as inherently ridiculous. They're right that it would be ridiculous, they're not right b/c no credible author says these things w/o heavy caveats.

25 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

This is trying to equate the debate space to a binary "correct" and "incorrect" where everything except for the framework itself is false.

Yeah this is my point. that maybe the debate space is different but that you have to specifically explain why it is. It's distinct from other binaries of correct/not correct, but your explanation hasn't gone beyond this level. You need to make the point about why procedures in debate implicates queerness, with an author like Edelman. 

29 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

after it defines these words, it posits that the debate space would be BETTER if these words were used in the plan text, and that EVERY other example should be voted down if they do not meet these definitions.

This is the whole premise of limits standards. Not that there shouldn't be flexibility, but that there should be common features that make research generalizable. See MBA GB's aff as an example of a fairly radical T plan. I think there are other problems like research equity with this model, but that it limits is not itself really the issue.

34 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

1. Nobody is gonna prepare an entire plan to avoid a single counterplan argument

2. This is not topical. I don't want to have a T debate, but this is most certainly not topical.

The point is you could to have a TVA to access args about why native decisions are important. Most TVAs are not precisely topical, but there's no outstanding reason something like this could not be T. I'm not going to work out the wording, but the premise seems fair.

36 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

1. Taking one Native person's opinion and trying to make it count for the opinions of ALL of the diverse different Native tribes is probably bullshit

Yeah I'm saying that you don't premise the plan on a specific policy. It's about accessing the args for why natives should be the ones to decide. The idea is purely that natives should have control over immigration policy to solve xyz set col impacts to them not having control. Distinct from the earlier idea about just reading a plan with a natives consent card.

39 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

altogether irrelevant to this debate.

See I'm mostly making the args beyond the TVA about the theory, not it's pure debate application.

40 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

1. You lost me at Marxist

2. "Good" and "Marxist" are oxymoronic

3. If a good Marxist is some old ass white man trying to say that that Natives shouldn't at least have more control over the system of their oppressors because of his ivory tower political theory, then I'm not sure i want to meet a good Marxist

a) It's dumb to just exclude a whole literature base out of hand, especially considering its radical credentials for improving lives materially.

b) Setting aside the obvi bad faith in this statement, a "good marxist" is not a moral judgement it's about knowing marxist theory well.

c) This is pretty oversimplifying. The point is that the state is the thing that perpetuates oppression against natives. By destroying the state, it's possible to destroy the oppression. Taking over the system maintains a fundamentally violent system of territorial control and confinement. Natives shouldn't be subjugated, but they shouldn't become new subjugators. If you've heard the "more woman war criminals" meme, it's a similar premise.

51 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

At worst, we are replacing a system with an equally as oppressive system, just giving Natives the right to choose the people on the land.

Setting aside that I'm arguing about the theory, not the uniqueness arg, why does this mean anything? If it is equally oppressive, with different oppressors, why would it be better? Example: the Tamils were an oppressed ethnic group in Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers were formed to liberate the Tamil people and create a new Tamil state. They ended up using the same tactics as the Sri Lankan army, raping and pillaging, killing civilians, etc. Why is it any better for this to happen if a movement doesn't hold itself to a higher standard than its oppressors?

55 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

Idk, ask the Government

My point is that all govs are bad lol.

56 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

Tell that to the map of reservations. There are reservations in every part of the US, even if they dont physically inhabit EVERY possible space

Yeah but you're saying the natives should control all land in the US. Self determination for natives is one thing, you're advocating giving natives determination of others. Totalitarianism isn't good if natives do it. Maybe it's good for natives, but it just subjugates millions more.

 

58 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

2. You're going into the assumptions again. How do we know that they aren't completely united in their viewpoints? We have no idea. We also have no right to speak for them, and tell other people how they think.

3. Why is this a bad thing?

Unity in this case is just referring to the consolidation of control over the continental US. My point is that such control is bad b/c it goes beyond self determination. If you're just arguing that tribes should do their own thing where they are, that's chill. We have no disagreement. I'm just saying creating a new system of authority that can in some way exclude or confine people from/to the continental US as a whole is wrong. I'm not arguing for the topic here, the USFG shouldn't have that power. My point is just that no one does. It's nonsensical to elevate natives to absolute epistemological authority - "we have no right to speak for them" only makes sense so far as I can't speak to the individual experience of natives. I can make fairly objective structural claims with adequate information, and I can speak on an issue if it has objective implications as serious as something like decolonization.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

Just because they are extremely diverse doesn't mean they aren't all Natives. They all have a say, no matter how culturally diverse they are.

You said ""no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body."  "All hav[ing] a say" is not functionally different from what I'm disputing - no one should have absolute control over a territory, even if that someone is a bunch of diverse someones. The US is fairly diverse. Doesn't mean it should control all that land. 

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

we don't realize a communist Utopia with our counterplan.

??? I'm pointing out flaws. Why is it ok for natives to have the power to confine, ghettoize and exclude? In a world where your vision is recognized, and the natives assume control over the US, would they be so subjugated at that point? Historically oppressed groups don't usually automatically make better rulers. See Tamil example, or J Cole's "high for hours." Asserting your own control rather breaking another's is similarly oppressive.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

please don't frame this with shitty marxist terms

Lol revolutions aren't marxist. See slave rebellions, the revolutionary war, the arab spring, or ghandi as examples of non-marxist revolutions.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

you basically just wanted to give a pointless lecture of how our counterplan isn't turning the US into a communist Utopia. Almost all of this is just carried over from the US

I thought I made this clear at the start, I'm interested in having a theoretical discussion about native "pro sovereignty" movements or ideas insofar as they demand absolute sovereignty over the territory of the continental US. Not just the debate arg, but I assumed we were discussing a K aff or K. There's obvi not such a clear cut uniqueness question in such debates, epistemology is often important as you yourself stated.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

This is NOT a cap K.

I don't expect it to be, I'm interested in the interaction between the two literature bases, b/c at many points they seem irreconcilable. I'm just exploring these intersections with the perspective that sovereignty is generally bad. I'd like to engage in a dialogue with you on these terms, tho I apologize if I didn't make this clear. I'm not arguing against native self determination. I just don't believe this determination extends to total control over entry or residence in(to) the US.

Btw, honest question, why the hostility towards Marxism? I'm not a very orthodox marxist, but I think it's hugely valuable in analyzing economic and political influences and effects. It's hard for me to get a bead on what your objection is, especially considering the exploitative effects of capitalist corporations and nation-states on native populations. Is it that Marx is a dead white guy? Do you think capitalism is good? Is socialism/anarchism insolvent for natives? If so, why? I'm more interested in having this discussion than calling everything bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overview on queerness:

I am not trying to divide gay folks from queerness. Instead, I am arguing queerness is MUCH broader than gayness. Queerness, I'd argue, is better defined by what it isn't than what it is. Queerness is deviance, and the only way you can find deviance is if you can find what is NOT normal. Therefore, when you regulate what is, in fact, normal, and make sure that only the normal can survive, deviance becomes impossible. At the end of the day, even if binaries were anti-queer, small binaries don't change queerness much. However, what does change queerness is when a mode of representation for queer people (aka debate) is regulate, and forces their acts of deviance to either lose and fail, or abandon deviance. The debate space becomes a fight for survival, a fight for their right to inject their discourse into the debate space. Now, this may seem grossly over exasperated, but is framework not very similar to what is being threatened with a now with Kavanaugh's possible election into the Supreme Court? Does this not threaten gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, and a number of other queer rights? Now, do you understand what I am talking about on the queerness point?

 

Also, neg is completely irrelevant, because the same teams that run framework on aff run it on neg, too, and TVAs are literally framework's attempt to assimilate deviance, and normalize it so it is "topical" through the lens of the framework.

 

I am also quite tired of the name dropping of certain philosophers, because apparently they must be correct because they are authors. There's a good reason why some of the best kritikal debates happen without any cards at all. I am not referencing an author to somehow make my point more credible. If I ever reference an author, it is because they make my point far better than I could ever make my point, like the line in the Ahmed evidence I put below. My opinions are informed by my reading, but they are NOT carbon copies that require authors to tell me what to think. This isn't a problem with you specifically, as much as it is a problem with the debate space's fetish for cards in kritikal debates. K debates are meant to be open minded conversations about discourse that matters to the debater - you won't find something like that by copying someone else's discourse. You can only find it when you compile ideas you have taken in from numerous sources to form your own opinion. These ideas are my own opinion, and I am fine with defending them. Just don't ask me to change what I believe so that it better fits someone else's model.

 

On Sovereignty:

I'm not particularly interested in having a conversation about sovereignty. It is, in my opinion, an outdated term that only has passing relevance to today's society. I believe that, instead of sovereignty, there are much more substantive political debates to be had about whiteness after/during colonialism, and its impact on the various peoples of the World.

 

With that being said,

 

Marxism stuff:

 

I'm not particularly hostile towards Marxists. Just about everything I said was a joke, but I'll respond anyway.

 

1. Marx is in fact a dead white guy, but that's not why I disagree with looking at the world through a Marxist lens

2. I don't think capitalism is good, but I also don't think there is any merit to discussing viable vs nonviable political/economic systems. I explain why more below.

3. Not 100% sure about what you mean here, but I would make the argument that as long as the world is contextualized through what is and isn't white, sovereignty is here to stay. I'm gonna copy and paste this from Sara Ahmed's article, Phenomenology of Whiteness, to help explain this statement:

"Spaces acquire the ‘skin’ of the bodies that inhabit them. What is important to note here is that it is not just bodies that are orientated. Spaces also take shape by being orientated around some bodies, more than others. We can also consider ‘institutions’ as orientation devices, which take the shape of ‘what’ resides within them."

 

What does this mean?

 

My interpretation of this as it relates to sovereignty is that socialism and anarchism are impossible, because spaces, like, perhaps, America, are oriented around whiteness. This is unchangeable unless colonialism and liberalism cease to dominate the belief systems of the people, which they likely won't, at least in the near future. Whiteness produces and perpetuates sovereignty and hierarchy in its very nature.

 

I'm not hugely interested in replying any longer to this thread, so I guess this will be the last post. Thanks for the debate, I guess. Feel free to respond, I might read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of cap,why aren't there more anarchist k affs, there's a wealth of material to use, and perming most Ks is possible depending on what particular ideology you start from

what are you all's thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×