Jump to content
TheTrashDebater

ODF Round 3 Preeves22(aff) versus TheTrashDebater(neg)//vmanAA738

Recommended Posts

Not really debating in the ODT anymore, but if you want to debate this round for fun/practice and Peyton doesn't show up I can pick this round up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really debating in the ODT anymore, but if you want to debate this round for fun/practice and Peyton doesn't show up I can pick this round up

Sure anything for the learning experience, do you just wanna assume aff to maintain side stasis? Or would you rather be neg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can be aff if you want, although I don't have policy blocks for this topic so it'll probably be a K round. If you're cool with that then I can post a 1AC whenever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye go ahead, but just clarifying, does this round count officially for the ODT record or is this just gonna be a learning experience (either way im cool with it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh I'm not really in it anymore so I don't really think it would be fair to make this round count for the ODT. You should probably just get a win for your opponent not showing up and then this can be for fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh I'm not really in it anymore so I don't really think it would be fair to make this round count for the ODT. You should probably just get a win for your opponent not showing up and then this can be for fun

Aight sounds cool, post the 1AC whenever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nvm here’s CX-

 

vote aff?

 

Why is the ballot key?

 

How does the 1AC define modern schooling processes?

 

Dillon talks about intimate abolition as a method of like spheres of resistance to combat the prison regime, how and where does that take place?

 

How does the 1AC do anything outside of this round?

 

How does abolition as per the 1AC actually resolve the impacts of the aff?

 

Does the 1AC take a stance that state engagement 100% of the time is bad?

 

Probably follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nvm here’s CX-

 

vote aff?

 

You should lol. Assuming this was originally "why vote aff" you should vote aff because our model of scholarship and affective disruption are good. Vote aff to refuse to continue remaking prisons within debate

Why is the ballot key?

 

The ballot is always an endorsement of certain pedagogies, we think the pedagogy of the aff is good so you should vote aff

How does the 1AC define modern schooling processes?

 

Basically, the operation of schools. We'll defend that SQ schools work to categorize students along hierarchical lines of race, class, etc. and invest in and teach that safety and success is a product of criminalization

Dillon talks about intimate abolition as a method of like spheres of resistance to combat the prison regime, how and where does that take place?

 

Everywhere? I'm a little confused by the question. Like all social relations are implicated in imprisonment, so disrupting the affects and processes which mark certain groups as criminal is resistance

How does the 1AC do anything outside of this round?

 

I mean that's an unreasonable burden right off the bat. The aff is a model of pedagogy and scholarship, and we'll defend that it's good in and out of round

How does abolition as per the 1AC actually resolve the impacts of the aff?

 

Not sure what you mean? Our argument is that the PIC structures civil society, and that abolition as a material and affective praxis works towards creating a world without that violence

Does the 1AC take a stance that state engagement 100% of the time is bad?

 

That would be an extreme stance to take with 0 context. Legal engagement absent the aff is probably bad

Probably follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does the 1AC define modern schooling processes?

 

Basically, the operation of schools. We'll defend that SQ schools work to categorize students along hierarchical lines of race, class, etc. and invest in and teach that safety and success is a product of criminalization

 

     Does school exist after a vote aff?

 

Dillon talks about intimate abolition as a method of like spheres of resistance to combat the prison regime, how and where does that take place?

 

Everywhere? I'm a little confused by the question. Like all social relations are implicated in imprisonment, so disrupting the affects and processes which mark certain groups as criminal is resistance

 

    How does the abolition access and solve for those examples of resistance?

 

How does the 1AC do anything outside of this round?

 

I mean that's an unreasonable burden right off the bat. The aff is a model of pedagogy and scholarship, and we'll defend that it's good in and out of round

 

    Basically aside from you, the judge and I, how does the aff actualize its politics?

 

How does abolition as per the 1AC actually resolve the impacts of the aff?

 

Not sure what you mean? Our argument is that the PIC structures civil society, and that abolition as a material and affective praxis works towards creating a world without that violence

 

     Ok I get the idea of what abolition is, but how does it function to resolve the PIC

 

Does the 1AC take a stance that state engagement 100% of the time is bad?

 

That would be an extreme stance to take with 0 context. Legal engagement absent the aff is probably bad

 

     Why does reformism fail in the context of the aff tho?

 

Probably follow ups

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How does the 1AC define modern schooling processes?

 

Basically, the operation of schools. We'll defend that SQ schools work to categorize students along hierarchical lines of race, class, etc. and invest in and teach that safety and success is a product of criminalization

 

     Does school exist after a vote aff?

 

Probably

 

Dillon talks about intimate abolition as a method of like spheres of resistance to combat the prison regime, how and where does that take place?

 

Everywhere? I'm a little confused by the question. Like all social relations are implicated in imprisonment, so disrupting the affects and processes which mark certain groups as criminal is resistance

 

    How does the abolition access and solve for those examples of resistance?

 

I guess I'm still confused. I guess to answer the question, those acts are already resistance but are often not conceptualized as abolitionist work, so the aff works towards building collective understanding of prisons as ubiquitous and disrupting carceral affects as abolitionist. Abolition solves by refusing intimate and affective reiterations of incarceration, which is key to societal trasformation

 

How does the 1AC do anything outside of this round?

 

I mean that's an unreasonable burden right off the bat. The aff is a model of pedagogy and scholarship, and we'll defend that it's good in and out of round

 

    Basically aside from you, the judge and I, how does the aff actualize its politics?

 

I think Rodriguez and Dillon are pretty clear that abolition involves three things: a. pedagogy which emphasizes that prisons structure relationality and civil society broadly b. internal refusal to participate in carceral logics and c. external disruption of carceral investments wherever they appear, including material moves towards abolitioning prisons. All we have to win is that this model of activism is desirable to win the debate

 

How does abolition as per the 1AC actually resolve the impacts of the aff?

 

Not sure what you mean? Our argument is that the PIC structures civil society, and that abolition as a material and affective praxis works towards creating a world without that violence

 

     Ok I get the idea of what abolition is, but how does it function to resolve the PIC

 

See our answer to the last question. Like we'll defend that abolition is the process not just of destroying prisons themselves, but of building a collective consciousness that refuses intimate imprisonment. Not sure what more you need

 

Does the 1AC take a stance that state engagement 100% of the time is bad?

 

That would be an extreme stance to take with 0 context. Legal engagement absent the aff is probably bad

 

     Why does reformism fail in the context of the aff tho?

 

Reform remains invested in prisons as a system in need of repair, which ignores that prisons are working exactly as intended (as per the Stanley evidence). Also reform externalizes the problems of incarceration which allows people to disavow their own relationships to imprisonment which is bad

 

Probably follow ups

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay, here’s CX

 

Status of the off?

 

1

What is “engaging in politics” per the interp?

What are some examples of affs that meet your interp?

What’s the warrant in the Brown evidence for the ballot being bad?

Is the “ballot bad” stuff distinct from the interp (like if you kick the interp can you still go for ballot bad?)

 

2

What’s the difference between the second and third off?

What does “a radical form of civic engagement” look like?

 

4

How is this off competitive?

Sounds silly, but is the CP fiated?

 

5

What’s the link to the Torrant evidence?

What is an “organization” and why is the state the only one that can solve?

I get that prison labor may incentive incarceration, but what’s the warrant for cap structuring all criminalization?

What makes the alt’s civic engagement distinct from the civic engagement of the 2nd off? Just that it’s for a communist purpose?

What guarantees that the political party formed by the alt is actually successful?

 

Case

What’s the warrant to McWhorter?

 

Maybe follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay, here’s CX

Status of the off?

1

What is “engaging in politics” per the interp?

 

Just engaging in system of power or resistance, just something that’s a core belief

 

What are some examples of affs that meet your interp?

 

Cap affs with a collectivity mechanism

 

USFG affs

 

What’s the warrant in the Brown evidence for the ballot being bad?

 

Like the idea of “voting aff is an establishment of scholarship” just further feeds into notion of domination of power

 

Is the “ballot bad” stuff distinct from the interp (like if you kick the interp can you still go for ballot bad?)

 

Yes, I thought flowed better in my opinion

 

2

What’s the difference between the second and third off?

 

One just a DA, the other is a K.

 

Also the link story is somewhat more complex via the K

 

What does “a radical form of civic engagement” look like?

 

Multiple forms, an example is a critical pedagogy within the classroom

 

4

How is this off competitive?

 

State engagement

 

Sounds silly, but is the CP fiated?

 

Fiat is fake but for the sake of debating the advocacy, we’ll say it is fiated

 

5

What’s the link to the Torrant evidence?

 

It’s a link off of survival strategies within the aff

 

What is an “organization” and why is the state the only one that can solve?

 

We’ll defend large scale movements and the state as an organization, we’ll go off of the idea that large scale movements are key to revolutionary momentum that ca overthrow system of capitalism, all of which point out that small scale politics such as the aff

 

I get that prison labor may incentive incarceration, but what’s the warrant for cap structuring all criminalization?

 

We’ll defend that systems of capitalism probably constructed the idea of the prison apparatus through ideas of policing the lower classes. Even then if I don’t win root cause cap is enough of a proximate cause that the K is a better warrant to resolve those impacts

 

What makes the alt’s civic engagement distinct from the civic engagement of the 2nd off? Just that it’s for a communist purpose?

 

We’ll say that the second off is engagement for the sake of learning processes and like pure civicism. The cap k functions as engagement for the sake of class deconstruction

 

What guarantees that the political party formed by the alt is actually successful?

 

We don’t have to win that the political party wins big, the alt serves as a pivoting point for class resistance. Even if it never wins anything it still serves as a focal point of organization

 

Case

What’s the warrant to McWhorter?

 

McWhorter talks about the need for material change among US power structures, we need actualized politics taht could translate to actual change

 

Maybe follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted finished questions for clarity
 

 

Sorry for the delay, here’s CX
Status of the off?

 

1
What is “engaging in politics” per the interp?
Just engaging in system of power or resistance, just something that’s a core belief

So is the interp just that you need to interact with others?

What’s the warrant in the Brown evidence for the ballot being bad?
Like the idea of “voting aff is an establishment of scholarship” just further feeds into notion of domination of power

How is that not an indict of the other off as well?

2

Also the link story is somewhat more complex via the K

What is the difference in the link story?

What does “a radical form of civic engagement” look like?
Multiple forms, an example is a critical pedagogy within the classroom

So what’s the difference between that and SQ political movements?

5
What is an “organization” and why is the state the only one that can solve?
We’ll defend large scale movements and the state as an organization, we’ll go off of the idea that large scale movements are key to revolutionary momentum that ca overthrow system of capitalism, all of which point out that small scale politics such as the aff

So it doesn’t have to be the state, just a mass political movement? Just wanna make sure I understand it

We don’t have to win that the political party wins big, the alt serves as a pivoting point for class resistance. Even if it never wins anything it still serves as a focal point of organization

Okay so how does a “focal point of organization” resolve the impacts without winning?
 

Edited by PailAmbrose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Condo, also the status quo is always a logical option

 

2.  Nah the interp is really just that you need to present a plan or method can be actualized outside of the debate round

 

3. Because that's not the sole purpose of voting negative, the ballot acts as a dogmatic check of a side or position. Even then Brown indicates a distinct difference between "empowerment" such as the aff and then methods that can be engaged in outside of the debate space

 

4. The Giroux K is more in the context of like the far right and the Trump regime and allowing them to take control and wreck any sort of political motives. Cap is contextualized more to the underlying notions of capitalism that are prevalent among the aff

 

5. The alt is further engagement in forms of radical democracy, enabling for the true ability of political movements to engage within state and governmental politics 

 

6. To best change the system and ensure solvency I'll defend that state engagement is necessary to change structures of power, sure a massive political movement is cool, but it doesn't fully achieve the same effect

 

7. Dean talks about the Party as a method of collective solidarity. It may not win an election but it does give empowerment to the lower class to rise up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's CX: 

 

I'm really confused, you say that the aff isn't anti-legalistic, which serves as the basis for one of the we meets. Yet the 1AC Bhattacharyya evidence says that we need to avoid legalisitc engagement, what does that aff defend then?

 

All your claims of abolishing prison within the context of the K, how does the aff achieve the material change of abolishing prisons?

 

What does the world of the perms to both K's look like?

 

Explain affect

 

Then explain how the aff is key to break affect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's CX: 

 

I'm really confused, you say that the aff isn't anti-legalistic, which serves as the basis for one of the we meets. Yet the 1AC Bhattacharyya evidence says that we need to avoid legalisitc engagement, what does that aff defend then?[/size]

 

I wouldn’t say the Bhattacharyya evidence says that we need to avoid legalistic engagement, just that legalism by itself can’t produce revolutionary subjects and thus isn’t sufficient for anti-racist work. I think this supports the sequencing argument we made - like legal reform might be important but our goals should be broader and more revolutionary than reform alone

 

All your claims of abolishing prison within the context of the K, how does the aff achieve the material change of abolishing prisons?

 

I think the explanation on case and in the W/M argument is pretty good. I think an abolitionist praxis motivates and endorses material actions to get people out of prison (including legal reform in an abolitionist context), but strives for broader, societal transfromation by unsettling white comfortability and affective investments in pushiment, which is key to creating a society in which people don’t desire prisons. We endorse that two-fold process

 

What does the world of the perms to both K's look like?

 

Since they’re both the same mechanism, the work similarly.

 

Engagement K - we build democratic capacities and disrupt affective attachments to prisons. That ensures people don’t use their newfound engagement to reentrech incarceration

 

Cap K - endorse a communist party and abolitionist pedagogy. Similar to the last one, except this time the party could probably also push for legal reforms too

 

Explain affect

 

Affect is a non-cognitive, emotional relationship to something.

 

Then explain how the aff is key to break affect

 

I mean it doesn’t elimate affect altogether. Our argument is that there’s an affective attachment to prisons (ie people feel uncomfortable around different, non-normative bodies and can only feel “safe” or “comfortable” as a result of imprisonment to remove/discipline those bodies). The Dilts evidence is pretty good on how the aff disrupts that affect - endorsing and insisting on the relevance of abolition acts as a killjoy, in that it forces people to come to terms with how their “good feelings” only come as a result of suffering others - the creation of that disconnect is how we create subjects who don’t rely on prisons to feel safe

 

 

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...