Jump to content

alwayinherent

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About alwayinherent

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Elyse Pham
  • School
    CK McClatchy
  • Biography
    macarons are not the same as macaroons!!

Recent Profile Visitors

2053 profile views
  1. Someone to look into is Sara Ahmed; she's one of the most common authors used for fem rage arguments. Her blog is at http://feministkilljoys.com and a good article, "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willfull Subjects," can be found here: http://sfonline.barnard.edu/polyphonic/ahmed_01.htm
  2. I've seen it run both ways, though usually in my experience teams that say "we demand the usfg should..." are willing to defend the material/fiat based actions of their plan as well as reasons why their in round epistemology is good, which will still give you room for a CP/DA. And there's no reason why they should call on the USFG to do something & base the majority of the 1ac off of why the USFG doing that thing is good yet refuse to defend it later on in the debate. If the neg wins that the affs demand on the USFG is ultimately bad/causes the DA, & can be solved better by the CP, then it's a more than viable strat. But it's probably a good idea to throw a short framework shell or a T violation into the 1nc if you're worried about that; that way, if they try to no-link out of DA's & claim epistemology deficits to the CP you have a fallback & in round evidence that they made debate impossible for the neg. Side note: I honestly don't understand the strategic value of a so-called K aff or aff that wants to solely focus on pedagogy yet still relies on the USFG...it leaves you open to attack on literally all fronts i.e. both framework args & any K's that link to the state & CP/DA strats. Also probably still links to some of common role playing type args like Antonio 95, because you're still abdicating your agency to the state to carry out the demands & are still imagining a fiated world in which the USFG does the action of the demand. So by all means go for it but I wouldn't recommend expecting to win all CP/DA rounds vs decent teams by being shifty on whether you defend USFG action & then going for "in round politics good" in the 2ar.
  3. I don't know why you couldn't run a CP, seems like if you simply altered your CP text to make it "My partner and I demand that the USFG should...", it'd function no different a regular one. You'd still have to prove why the action you demand that the USFG does is better than theirs & that there's a net benefit that precludes the perm.
  4. Not sure if its is what your looking for, but this card I cut a while ago talks about the War on Drugs and how, in that context, incarceration functions as part of the state of exception. Maybe with a retag it could work for your purposes. The War on Drugs justifies a constant state of exception in which all drug users that are not deemed legitimate participants in the political order can be easily locked away and managed -- this is accomplished by its criminalization of drugs and its strategy of mass incarceration.Arrigo 13 (Bruce Arrigo, The Routledge Handbook of International Crime and Justice Studies, 2013, pg. 574, EDP) Then-President Nixon, in his declaration of war against increasing drug use in the United States, unveiled a two-pronged strategy, which entailed a much greater federal and state role in the prosecution of illegal drugs and an expansion of the availability of treatment options for those in need of such services (Polizzi in press). However, the main focus of this new war strategy seemed to be inclined towards constructing the issue of drug use and addiction as a criminal justice issue, rather than a mental health concern. Once the treatment prong of this new war strategy was removed or at the very least only marginally recognized, the subsequent practice of mass incarceration gained further "legitimacy." Once the strategy for the criminalization of drug use and addiction was in place, the subsequent practice of increasing rates of incarceration became an almost forgone conclusion. What this state of exception reveals is the way in which the criminalization of drug use and the strategy of incarceration used to address this necessity, helped to solve the political dilemma concerning this group of citizens "who for some reason could not be integrated in the political system" (Agamben 2005: 2). The incarceration machine, which became central to this strategy, helped to pave the way for the legitimate removal of large numbers of citizens who were no longer deemed as necessary to the existing political system. Though perhaps not comparable to the Camps in any literal way, the act of mass incarceration does unmistakably target a group of individuals who are not viewed as legitimate participants within the political order, and are often viewed as a threat to that system. Such an observation is reflected in the current number of incarcerated individuals, the creation of the rehabilitation machine, which seeks to fabricate these social "corpses" into a more marginal quasi-legal entity, the loss of voter rights upon the return to the community and the unchanged status of ex-offender (see Chapter 11 in this volume). Though a few of these stated conditions are being addressed, and their debilitating effect somewhat lessened, it does not appear unreasonable to conclude that a majority of these citizens have been placed in a near ongoing state of exception that evokes a zone of indifference that envelops those who have been so confined. As bleak as such observations can be, it is important to note that the state of exception may also be used to connote an emerging space within this zone of indifference that seeks to reclaim that which necessity has taken away. Seen from this vantage point, the state of exception is transformed or inverted into a type of unclaimed and unarticulated potential that is always ready to inhabit these zones of indifference constructed by some type of juridico-political necessity. However, the one does not necessarily replace the other; rather, this one seeks to create within this existing zone of indifference an alternative necessity, a necessity that seeks to subvert the "rule," thereby evoking another type of exception: an exception of the exception perhaps. An example may be helpful to clarify this distinction. The state of exception reflected by the War on Drugs was motivated by the necessity of the increasing use of illegal substances, which in turn, justified the practice of mass incarceration. As such, penitentiary life and the culture that it constructs include within it a set of strategies and practices that are employed to manage and objectify those under its control. These practices help to define what has been called by some the paradigm of the extreme situation or the limit situation (Agamben 1999). The extreme situation or limit situation has been defined by Agamben as follows.
  5. Agreeing with Jared in that Irigaray is what you're looking for. She talks a lot about how in the phallocentric, male-dominant economy of the squo, feminine subjectivities are always occluded -- from critical theory, particularly, which is what Irigaray and a lot of Irigaray supporters critique most. Because of the lack of feminine subjectivity, she says that sexual difference has been suppressed and neutralized, which leads to a war on difference and genocide. Thus, she advocates for a theory of sexual difference -- in other words, to recognize that Being starts with at least two distinct subjectivities -- male and female. This solves because it prevents the constant assimilation of the feminine into the masculine and opens a space for female/other non-masculine subjectivities where they'd previously been excluded. Sorry this is an incredibly non detailed, surface level explanation (I'm typing on my phone which makes it difficult). If this sounds at all interesting to you, though, you should look into some of her books. I have pdfs I can send you, so just let me know!
  6. Last year, I had a round in which we were aff running bioprospecting, & the neg ran Cap K & a CP. I forget the specifics of the CP, but somehow it eventually resulted in our aff, only better & more efficient (as they put it) (also it wasn't a consult CP). But anyway, they ended up going for both in the 2NR, & we had said that they link to the Cap K harder than we do because they are our aff but better, meaning they result in net more medicine, net more exploration, etc. So in the 2AR we were able to cross apply their D-rule racism voter to their counter plan & won on it. Hope that made sense. Also, double binds are usually an argument made by the Aff against a K who's alternative is something like "an unflinching paradigmatic analysis" or "question security." The bind goes something like "permutation double bind: either the alt is strong enough to overcome the link to the K, which would justify the perm, or the alt can't solve anything, because there are like 1000x more policies/ideas in the real world that would also link to the K and the alt wouldn't be able to solve those if it can't even overcome this one aff plan that is pretty much a drop in the bucket" (that was a lot wordier than you would usually articulate it in round, but it was just for the purpose of explanation).
  7. - OSW - T exploration - every round having a biodiversity DA or warming advantage - TPA (even though this probably will not go away)
  8. I'm a freshman, to be sophomore, and am looking into camp for this summer. My partner and I have run USFG plan text policy affs all season, in JV/Novice, since this is our first year in policy, but we are hoping to run a K Aff next year and we do currently run Ks on the neg. So, I've been hearing a lot of mixed opinions on this, and am curious as to which one is better: GDI 5 week sophomores or 4 week varsity? Better as in lab leaders, content, expectations, lectures, competition, etc. My partner is going to 4 week, and I'll most likely go to that one as well since 5 week is probably filled up, but I'd still love to hear everyone's opinions. Thanks!!
  9. Hi everyone, I'm in need of at least one card or a set of linking cards regarding how conscienization, in the context of identity politics affs, is bad/ineffective/etc. Or, any advice on where I should look. I've heard that Tuck & Yang have some evidence that would be good but I've had a difficult time finding it. Any help on this would be great, thanks!!
  10. My partner (annabellelong08) and I are both freshmen and have been policy partners since debate camp at Gonzaga this past summer, after having competed against one another in middle school parli. She's a great 2N, and we've been pretty successful together, from (unexpectedly) winning the novice tournament at camp to being 1st JV seed at Berkley (though we dropped in octos)! As she said in the above post, we have similar opinions on most topics and are both extremely competitive, so we definitely work well. I'm so glad that we're partners and can't wait for the next three years together!
  11. I hit this version of aquaculture at Staford and the plan text mandates creating financial incentives, subsidies, permits, and regulations thru congress for multitrophic aquaculture to be done by other agents besides the USFG. This being said I read T violations and a K - the T violations were T - its (as the actual development was done by companies) and T - development (as the USFG in the direct action of the plan was just developing laws not directly the ocean & development must be extraction of resources). We also read a effects topicality standard within the development shell & ended up winning on T at the end. So that's something you could do, hope this helps though I'm not sure whether the plan text for your opponent will be the same.
×
×
  • Create New...