Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by seanarchy

  1. 2 hours ago, OwenK said:

    its not terrible its just saying facts that stand alone (cards) are bad because they have no context

    cards have context though - other cards. that's why you read other cards - to give context.

    that aside this card says something different than what you think. it's literally just saying that trivial statistical data (like how many people in a room) is useless without a story, which even before you get to other cards, is usually implicit in a single card. most cards tell a small story of their own described in the tag.

    • Confused 1

  2. There's a lot wrong about this, but I'll just point out a few things.

    1) util is not "preventing bad consequences in general" - it's promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, or in it's negative version, preventing the greatest harm for the greatest number. Util is consequentialist, consequentialism is not util.

    2) your description of Nietzsche is a description of stoicism. Nietzsche is not concerned with happiness, but with nobility or greatness as an operative way of being - one which is explicitly indifferent to pain and pleasure as guiding principals. Also, what you've described as afropessimist fatalism is actually Warren's black nihilism, which is distinct and is only a call for political fatalism.

    3) at the point where you consider "having goals" to be consequentialism, you sort of smush together multiple philosophical perspectives in a way that isn't very helpful - for example, Kant wants everyone to act in accordance with duty (it is his goal to convince people of this), not because it has "good consequences" but because it is critically justified.

    4) I have no idea why you think Derrida is not a part of "modernism, post-structuralism, or postmodernism," or why these are even remotely equivalent terms - "everything past humanism is essentially util" is super not true. Like not even a little. Util is a humanism. Kant (not a utilitarian) is a modern philosopher. Bentham (the OG utilitarian) is a modern philosopher and humanist. Nietzsche (not a utilitarian) is a proto-postmodern and proto-poststrucuturalist philosopher - not a humanist. Deleuze (not a utilitarian) is a postmodern and post-structuralist philosopher - not a humanist. Derrida is a postmodern, at first structuralist and later post-structuralist literary critic who commented on philosophy - not a humanist. Wilderson does not fit neatly within these categories but is certainly anti-humanist, anti-utilitarian, and anti-consequentialist in a conventional sense (since genocide exceeds a rational empiricist register).

    5) very confused as to why you think it's a logical leap to apply explicitly prescriptive ethical theories (philosophical ones, sometime postmodern or non-utilitarian ones) to situations calling for ethical prescriptions. This is basic applied ethics. It's an entire field which is definitely not pure consequentialism.

  3. 2 minutes ago, warpathianwrath said:

    Also K's are not phil. Almost all of them are utilitarian in nature. Even theories like AnB, Marxism and cap K's, and security K premise themselves off of the deadly impacts of a system that outweigh and turn normative policy commandments. 

    Death as an impact does not equate to utill (as in the case of afropess), and particular death - e.g. prioritize genocide before nuclear war - is a fairly common impact. Many Ks (especially French, post-Nietzsche "pomo" style Ks) are explicitly philosophical interrogations of concepts like meaning, the self, metaphysics, etc.

  4. No one here is going to be able to explain Kant to you outright since he has a fairly complex and sizable body of work. He's also not read too much in policy, although I understand his categorical imperative is referenced to some extent in LD. You;ll get more here than you probably will in a single post.

    • Like 1

  5. Generics are always your friend. I went to a small school in debate, and by the end of senior year most of our 2nrs were extremely similar combinations of psychoanalysis, charity cannibalism, and a number of technocracy critiques on case that we were quite good at contextualizing. That said, the solution to your problem will inevitably involve a degree of research. If you're going to run with D&G, for example, you should have very generic links which impact something like microfascism (focus on the molar violence trades off with focus on molecular violence) as well as 1 or 2 links to each common sort of aff - links to security discourse, links to international law, links to intersectionality, etc. The point is that you need to do research, and you need to be efficient about it so that your research covers the most ground in the least time.

  6. 4 hours ago, CanIGetAFavor said:

    when it comes to Kritiks, this seems much harder to do, because you're dealing with much bigger problems than just fairness and education.

    As a general aside, tons of people do argue that the debate should be strictly about the consequences of the plan. The impact evaluation is usually similar to framework arguments against kritikal affs: fairness is a prerequisite to evaluation, procedural issues come first etc. just like you couldn't argue that a nuclear war impact outweighs a T violation. That's why links to the framework itself are necessary. That said,

    I usually think of kritiks of micro-aggressions (gendered language, trigger warnings, etc.) as being distinct from other Ks. I don't think it's especially controversial to say that these are often not complaints about the substance of the 1AC. The "don't drop the team" argument is relevant in these cases.  The OP's kritik would basically outline issues with the other team's presentation in or out of the debate. In a vacuum, it is easier to argue that this is not a productive or relevant issue to vote on than it is to argue the same about an argument like afropessimism or the cap kritik. There are numerous issues like the debatability of the links, the intentionality of the links, or the actual size of the impact that are not as easy to raise against larger Ks. I think this is basically what @OutKTheK was suggesting in the 2nd point. When you make these links and impacts in the context of a larger kritik, it becomes a more compelling argument because it isn't a isolated incident, and instead it can become evidence of a pattern that a K like afropessimism highlights. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, musicotic said:

    Edelman is essentially transphobic & biphobic, so never run that. 

    It's hardly straightforward enough that you should just never run Edelman. There's a reasonably strong argument to be made that he's describing the symbolic figure of the queer in civil society, not queer people as such. It's a debate to be had.

  8. Regardless of which author is "better" or more accessible in general, you should probably think about what's literally relevant to the topic (i.e. has links). I'm not aware of any extensive writings by Butler about immigration that are also "queer theory" proper. Edelman is typically a strong K on any topic because it lets you more or less impact turn extinction scenarios, similar situation with baedan. That said, I'm still not sure there's any topic links that would help make an aff in that ballpark. I'm inclined to think that the strongest queer K this year is Puar-style homonationalism or possibly queer toxicity. Read Terrorist Assemblages for Puar.

  9. Afro pess and set col both dispute the idea that semiotics can explain the world, fyi. Gratuitous violence is literally violence not captured within the symbolic. 

    TVAs rarely have to be anything special. Especially in the case of those two fields though, specific TVAs are probably impossible. The theories are diametrically opposed to reformism, so the best a TVA could do is discuss racism generally. Your time is better spent attacking the theory. If you prove reform is good and/or black people/natives aren't ontologically dead or whatever you should win with or without the tva.

  10. Based on some of the other posts you've made and my assumption that this refers to the same debate, your should really just attack why DREAM isn't all that. Like there are alt causes to deportation or that or only applies to a certain age range If they're smart at all they won't be predicating solvency off of ending all racism, and if they do just say they solve all racism just say they don't and list unrelated forms of racism DREAM doesn't stop. You shouldn't need a card for that. School segregation, police brutality, ICE, structural poverty, mass incarceration, and microagressions are all examples of racism they definitely shouldn't be able to solve.

  11. Generally the neg is always non topical? haven't familiarized myself with this year's teams too much but North Broward MR is quit good. Not sure they're a performance team per say but they've done some this year and they're the best hs K team this year, so you should see some topic related args.

    What you're asking is kinda word since lots of teams don't actually put their performances on the wiki, and barely anyone performs on the neg bc it's difficult to prep. That said, McDonough JN and Rutgers NM were teams from two years ago that won the TOC and NDT/CEDA respectively and made performances on birth aff and neg. Just search them on YouTube and rounds should come up.

  12. On 9/24/2018 at 12:02 PM, NickDB8 said:

    "is meaning static?"

    "of course not"

    "so does that mean no means no?"

    I mean, this is a massive oversimplification of the theory but ok. "Meaning isn't static" is more complicated than "we literally can't understand anything whatsoever." No one says that. Its about how meaning shifts depending on historical, social, and literary context. It's also not the same as the "all communication is impossible" stuff, which is a simplified, hyperbolic way to say that we can't totally communicate our lived experience through the medium of language. 

    No competent team would answer in that way either, bc there's almost certainly not a shared meaning of that question for both teams, which actually demonstrates the point you're trying to disprove.

  13. Settler colonialism has the most direct links I've seen. Baudrillard relies heavily on "radical alterity" or "Otherness" in his theories, which almost always is symbolized by ingenious groups. There are a bunch of cards by Li that explain this, and it attacks the heart of the theory. You could also do antiblackness and try to win that gratuitous violence can't be explained by semiotics, which is very doable but there's less direct comparison. 

    All of the links people think they have to fem are off Baudrillard's theory of seduction, which any competent team should be able to explain away. Cap is kinda doable but there's a lot more ev from the other side comparing warrants.

  14. 1 hour ago, BatailleLives said:

    There's a good chance you won't win the cap good debate in front of a lot of judges,

    I've never met a judge who wouldn't vote on cap good if it was argued well. It's hardly the same as death impact turns. Top teams go for cap good against K affs all the time, it's a viable strat provided you get get specific.

    1 hour ago, BatailleLives said:

    there's some pretty phenomenal cap bad evidence out there that has answers to most of the cap good,

    This is true but it's hardly an automatic win.

    • Like 1

  15. 90% chance you'll never hear about Kant in a policy debate round. If it's about LD, idk.

    There's some description of noumena and its consequences for moral philosophy here.

    Edit: I'm fairly certain this is relevant to transcendentalism but there's a more specific bit further up here and here

  16. 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.

  17. I'll post an extended answer later after I finish school work, but read the Moten ev. It's the main solvency ev for the research model the aff affirms. The last two De Silva cards look like framework preempts. Plans rely on causation and temporality, which is anti-black for whatever reason. A plan has a stable subject affirming it, which is not black. Traditional scenario analysis is anti-black b/c calculation. The topic is based on anti-black categories of citizenship and borders. Look for these sorts of args in the cards and you should have a better understanding.

  18. 25 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    1. I don't think you understand. A kritikal debate is a clash of epistemologies; a clash of viewpoints. When kritikal debaters attempt to win through a k aff, it is often because they believe the World is contextualized by a certain relationship.

    Lol I know what a K aff is. This is btw a very narrow view of a K aff. Things like "burn it down" or "give back the land" are not just epistemological standpoints

    25 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    When debaters run framework, they attempt to tell the other team the correct way of procedure - this act of violently enforcing the choice of submission or be rendered unlegible, untopical is inherently anti-queer, specifically because it doesn't allow for discourse outside of the boundaries that they create.

    "Defining correct procedures" is obvi not always anti-queer. There is basically no-one who says this, just like there is almost no-one who says norms are always bad. These are just straw-persons of postmodernism mirrored back. The correct way of procedure for removing a bullet or administering a vaccine is fairly objective unless we're taking the "harm good" route, which I doubt. Defining that procedure, by the way, doesn't have to touch on queerness at all. The whole "stop defining queerness" debate is irrelevant unless you can prove why defining the words "legal immigration," "reduce," or "restrictions" is defining queerness. You have to prove why the procedure in question is problematic and relevant, which I've suggested reasons for. There is very little chance you will get away with the "all binaries = bad" claim against a competent team. 

    36 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    this is exactly the type of thing a christian missionary would say to justify forcing christianity and a view of western superiority on Natives

    The phrase "natives want it" isn't western lmao. The reason the missionaries were bad was because the natives didn't want it, weren't fully informed about what they were requesting, or were misinformed and the outcome was bad, not because they said the natives wanted it. I still fail to see why a plan that says something like "the USFG should engage in binding consultation with native tribes on the question of legal immigration and implement the results of that consultation as decided by native tribes" wouldn't solve the args about natives deciding who inhabits the land. I have no idea why any of this would be a disad to implementing decisions made by natives if they want it. The topic not being able to go far enough isn't a disad, it's a solvency deficit, which is why perms exist.

    45 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    You are misusing the phrase "liberal property" 

    I'm not sure you've ever read Marx, or for that matter any author who speaks about primitive accumulation or enclosure. Private property is the foreclosure of unowned resources or land from public use or availability. I suppose this can exist without liberalism, as it does in purely sovereign systems (king appropriates the land from the peasants), but that doesn't mean it's not bad for the same reasons.

    52 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    nations that certainly were sovereign nations. Take the Aztecs. Both secular and religious aspects of society were controlled by an emperor.

    This is literally the thing I'm arguing against. A sovereign nation being native does not make sovereign violence any less palatable. Nation-states are bad, western or not.

    54 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    The difference between that and liberalism is liberalism attempts to establish control over foreign nations under the guise of assistance

    You're referencing a very narrow component of liberalism and the literature on intervention. There's a lot more to liberal violence, like what I've described.

    57 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

    they want to perform acts of ideological imperialism - out with the old, and in with the Western.

    Any good Marxist will point out that there's more to imperialist ideology than western chauvinism. It's a part of it, and some of it is purely cultural, but that part is fueled by economic interests. European colonies in the Americas were formed as a result of mercantilism - the idea wealth is zero sum, it has to be captured for the nation.

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    They don't attack and destroy societies for various religious and cultural purposes like the Aztecs certainly did, 

    Why is this any better?

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    they assert their culture over others and force them to assimilate.

    The Aztecs did this lol. I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the sheer scale of violence practiced in the name of western imperialism and Aztec imperialism, but they were both imperialisms that subjugated other cultures and massacred their enemies. One was just more successful.

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    With liberalism comes the idea of making ideas more "comfortable" to you by making them more familiar

    Literally no idea what you're referring to from what I said.

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    I said nothing about a "Native government", merely that the Natives should choose who should and should not be in the US territory.

    I didn't say it would have to be a government, but for purposes of territorial control, it's no different. Why should there be any sort of unified control over where people get to live on such a large scale? Especially in cases like climate or war refugees, or victims of abuse or trafficking. If natives say no, should such people be expelled back to their former homes? I have no problem with individual tribes maintaining the land they live on and work, but they physically don't occupy the entire continent. There're no way for such a decision to be made that doesn't require a certain degree of unity. Also this makes no sense in light of your comment that 

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    "no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body

    Saying the natives should control who are in the US makes the exact same assumption, except it legitimizes that imagined control. Which is bad. That's just another nation-state. Fragment the US's  control, don't form a new system. The problem with the US is not just that it has a genocidal history, but that it presently ghettoizes and confines natives to specific geographical coordinates. Flipping the script and expelling everyone that isn't a native is bad, it still practices confinement and exclusion.

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    It wouldn't be one body that has control over the US (also not the entirety of NA, but this is mostly irrelevant)

    So the revolution stops at the border? How radical.

    1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

    it would be a number of incredibly diverse and different bodies

    Yes and they should control their own land that they live on, not the whole continental US or NA, which they do not. Nation-states appropriating land is bad.

  19. Yeah this aff is a bit more complex. The general thesis might be that blackness exists as an unknowability or nonknowledge outside rational humanism. It's analogous to how quantum physics is a realm of unknowability outside traditional physics - we can't trace it precisely b/c it already uses a lens which renders that thing we wish to observe non-existent. Humanism is incapable of registering blackness b/c trying to catalog it starts from the European human as the default. I would strongly caution against reading this aff unless know exactly what you're saying. It's full of Kant, Deleuze, math, and really deep references in black studies. Also, if you're in a stock area this is really not a good idea. This is tenuous from the perspective of the nat circuit. Honestly, if you're in a real stock circuit, like judges actually only care about stocks, then don't read a K aff. They are almost never topical unless the neg is totally incompetent, and rely on disads to topicality. They also usually don't "solve" so much as problematize or perform, unless you advocate a thing happening (which this aff doesn't. It's a research model that problematizes humanist metaphysics). A priori judge intervention for stocks being a voter is game over.

    That said, the framework answer might be a mash of the two things I mentioned earlier - predictability is an anti-black metaphysics, blackness is a slippage that can't be rationally cataloged under topical definitions, and plans presume a hopeful/progressive humanist view on time. Calvin Warren might be a good resource to start researching.

  20. In 99% of planless K affs, the usfg doesn't do anything. You have to have some reason that the model of debate reading a planless aff (or whatever you're doing more specifically) is more valuable than traditional debate, usually for some reason connected to the 1ac. Example: an afropessimism aff that advocates guerilla warfare and burning it all down. They might say plans invest hope and time in planning an always antiblack world, or that topical debate isn't fair for black people bc of biases about what a model debater looks like (rich, white, eloquent, moderate, etc.). It really depends on the aff. For any of the Deleuze affs I read, I might have said predictability is a part of reactionary metaphysics, or that topicality ignores the slippages in language. What is the aff you want to defend? Is there a file, advocacy, or summary?

  21. There are no theory objections to this. You could read them as separate planks to a collective states CP, or you could read them as separate CPs if there's enough debate about both to warrant a separate page. Although if you mean you want to combine their functionality thru this "directly connects to the naturalization" bit, you need specific ev, or else you basically just inventing a CP with no lit.