aprasad202

In No Future, Edelman dedicates like 5 pages to roasting Baudrillard so queerness might be the way to go as well

Lee Edelman – No Future Halberstam – Queer Art of Failure Jasbir Puar – Terrorist Assemblages Paul B. Preciado: Testo-Junkie Jose Esteban Muñoz – Cruising Utopia: the Then and There of Queer Futurity

Since we're all commenting on this before the round ends I'll just say a couple things I noticed skimming through the round thread 1. The aff had this the question as to who owns and governs the land and the neg answered the natives I think this is problematic. Although im no set col hack so maybe someone can correct me if im wrong but Natives did not have any conception of "property" or "land ownership" which was one of the justifications for settler colonialism (natives don't use the land properly so we'll just take it) so the idea that natives own the land isn't really adhering to what many indigineous authors would say as most of them are anti-sovereignty so i think a better answer to that question would be that NO ONE owns the land really rather that the US gives up its 'sovereign' control over the land. 2. something else that really irked me was that yall were both really passive aggressive in round like someone would answer a question and their opponent will be like "Again, this is just an fall back that the neg uses when they have nothing else to attack." or "It might be beneficial for you since your K and DA are literally holding on by a thread thinner than your links to my case." like just answer the questions lol I have some more stuff that i can add after the round

A K aff is just a kritikal aff which means that the thesis of the Aff is derived from a criticism but that doesn't mean that you have to work outside of the state for example MBA read this settlerism aff that had a plan text and it was VERY successful. K affs with a plan can actually be quite strategic because it no-links you out of framework. As for preempts, I would say that usually you should try using preempts as a sort of module depending on what you think the neg is going to be. For example, if you know that the team you're facing usually reads FW against K affs then you should put framework preempts in the 1AC but if say they read a K like antiblackness or settlerism you should have preemptive permutation or no link cards in the 1AC

sorry to necro this but does anyone have any introductory stuff/secondary sources for DnG specifically about nomadology, faciality, and BwO

do you read one cp that solves all advantages or read a cp for each advantage and if its the second do you go for all the cps you read in the 2nr?

maybe regulations are specific laws while regulation is used to be a more general term

are both hemanth and ayush seniors or just hemanth?

any live stream?

Wake AW? I thought it was AD?

That's probably subjective but to me its Harvard BS

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/University+of+Chicago+Lab/Hellie-Unni+Aff 06– Urban Debate Leagues to help start your search Edit*: Although I feel like finding a fed key warrant will be very difficult so you should find that before you cut your advantages to make sure the aff is a viable option

If your cutting a specific section of a bill, how would you cite the bill

If your wondering about like general structure of the link these are the parts of the link contextualization I was taught 1. A short name for the link usually has to do with the link IE assimilationism DA or cruel optimism DA 2. The general sort of logic that your link critiques: for example if you are reading antiblackness it could be something like the united states federal government creates policies in order to make black folk have hope in the political in order to sustain antiblack violence or something 3. How does the affirmative specifically use this logic 4. An impact to the link 5. How this impact/link turns the aff 6. How the alternative resolves the link Ideally you should have around 3 links that are well structured like this