Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'case turn'.
Found 2 results
I recently made a card, I'd love to get feedback on it, such as about the tag, evidence, and also whether this argument is even a good idea. If you want to take a look at the card and want to figure out what the card is saying on your own, then read no further, because I'm now going to give a rundown of it. Also, I intend for it to go against k affs and certain policy affs, depending on if their plan mentions a particular group of people. The link to the card is at the bottom of this post. Thank in advance :)))) This card is basically a "representing/speaking for others bad" card. I'm aware that I would have to ensure that the opponent is speaking for others, and not about experiences similar to theirs, because then it wouldn't make sense running this card. Anyways, the card is about a painting of Emmitt Till, a black boy who was murdered during the Jim Crow Era, is in his casket, and has sparked backlash because the artist who created this painting is white. From this card, I can make two arguments. 1: Creating a world for the betterment of a certain oppressed group won't work because in order to create an oppression-free world for that group, the suffering of this group must have been endured by the creator, aka the aff proposing their plan/advocacy 2: The type of plan/advocacy applied to this card would create backlash by the community of the group that the aff is solving for. for example, if an aff plan were about blood quantum laws in the US, because these laws are about Canadian/American natives, if the aff aren't natives, then the native community would publicly protest against it, because the ones behind all this just aren't native so it isn't their place to advocate for the natives. It isn't really speculation or assumption that the natives would protest, it's more a prediction based off of the situation revolving the painting. This argument works because I can compare the painting of Emmitt Till to the aff proposal, and the backlash from the black community to backlash from (insert whatever group the aff wants to help). If there are any misunderstandings or confusion, I'd be happy to clear up anything. https://docs.google.com/document/d/16crUOllT2jgA_3uwjIOGv5fLKrPXkrltWAkyvJB9k_I/edit?usp=sharing Edit: I'm constantly editing the card to my liking, so if any older comments are made about something that has already been changed, it is most likely because I have changed the card.
So in one of my coaches files he shared with me, there's a very interesting kritik that is meant to be read against affs of personal experience. There is no alternative for it, but it's meant to be read as a case turn. I read it on case against an aff of legalizing undocumented migrants that talked about forced harm and internalized racism. There's only two cards, but in cross-ex, I stumbled a little bit because I didn't quite understand it well enough. My understanding was that the 1AC was simply a forced confession of a story in exchange for the ballot which ultimately trivialized the violence they truly faced. Their answers were that we don't give a sh** about your guilt. The judges said that their answers were good and that we shouldn't be reading those authors if we didn't understand them, but we won on a procedural so it didn't end up mattering. Can someone help explain the argument made by Foucault and Zizek in these cards? I don't want to put the whole thing in the event that someone takes our evidence and I am blamed, but I'll put some excerpts and if anyone could help me understand them, I would greatly appreciate it. First card- Aff is a process of confessional-their demand is an exchange of truth of experience as the price of redemption. Foucault Excerpt 1: The mad would be cured if one managed to show them that their delirium is without any relation to reality. Excerpt 2: Leuret wishes to obtain a precise act the explicit affirmation, “I am mad.” Excerpt 3: To declare aloud and intelligible the truth about oneself – I mean, to confess-has been considered for be a long time in the western world either a condition for redemption for one sins or a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty. Second Card- Their confessional is tantamount to a Stalinist show-trial that locks us all into an unproductive forced choice – their criticism deploys guilt as a means of avoiding a full questioning of privilege. Their argument enforces a kind of metaguilt, implicated by individuals who participate in their own oppression-their project doesn’t allow for the possibility of escape, meaning there is no alternative Zizek Excerpt 1: the subject experiences guilt before the big Other, while anxiety is a sign that the Other itself is lacking, impotent – in short, guilt masks anxiety. Excerpt 2: The more they proclaim their innocence, the more guilty they are!’) therefore contains a grain of truth; the ex-Party cadres wrongfully condemned as ‘traitors’ were guilty in a way, although not, of course, of the crimes of which they were explicitly accused – their true guilt was a kind of metaguilt: that is, it lay in the way they themselves participated in the creation of the system which rejected them Excerpt 3: their condemnation meant that they got from the system their own message in its inverted-true form. Can someone help me understand these cards better? I would really appreciate it, because I think the literature is very interesting but I only understand a small fraction of it. Some key things I don't understand include-"a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty" "Stalinist show-trial" "metaguilt" "their own message in its inverted-true form". Thanks!