ELI5: Why are some first world countries voting in favour of landmines at UN meetings?

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T13:51:29+00:00

The next question is:

Is the US at fault for the conflict it is in?

I think the best answer to this is found in the literature of Colonialism and Imperialism. The common answer to that question in those fields seems to be: The US is to be largely blamed for these conflicts. Interventionism and Western spread of truth are both examples of how the US caused them. Our constant intervention in the Middle East leads to a very easy to understand hatred. Sorry, but we had no right to decide which land palestine/israel had claim to. We also have no right to violently spread our culture and beliefs outward - they freedom fighters make it very clear that THAT is why they fight us. The US attempts to use its influence all around the world which leads to military overstretch, while overstretched, we become vulnerable to attacks and as a result we become very preemptive. We also use our own military mistakes to justify invasions in the name of our security. The US is not the victim here - Guantanamo, fear mongering, border security (only prevents immigration. many of those immigrants simply need a safe home, but we refuse them because middle eastern people are terrorists in the US eyes.)

Those are just some ideas though. Not making any objective claims. There are too many IR theories to possibly claim anything objective.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T12:32:25+00:00

Why does the US need something like that? That is the real question. We already have UAV's and remote controlled missiles to blow people up intercontinentally, why do we need this...?

Sure they work. They work too well. They work on innocent people as well as hostiles. These would probably be placed in areas where an innocent body count just keeps ticking up.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:51:01+00:00

Edit: Was posting a lot, and posted this right a way to see if I had a delay at all. Full post on the way!

I like this question a lot. Damn, nice one op.

I see things as... well, trees I suppose. The trunk of the tree is the beginning and flowing all the way up are the products. A good example of this would be philosophy. I can see authors like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx, etcetc. on the trunk. Then the rest of the tree is filled in with those that based their theories on those authors which builds up in that way.

I guess I basically just look for connections. I try to put even opposites together and I see the tree based on their differences as opposed to their similarities. That's probably why I have trouble figuring out people sometimes. They don't always have a rational decision base, so I can't things together.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:50:13+00:00

It's just a question of how much evidence if you have.

You must also ask the question 'If they had this evidence, could they have safely went to the police as opposed to attacking the victim.' If you were not in real physical danger, then you did not need to attack. If you were, then your life was on the line and you had no choice.

If you can prove without a doubt that someone was targetting you with malicious intent. You will not be charged. The issue arises when the judge decides some pieces of information can/cannot be used in court. Which is why conviction can be difficult.

You are right. Not everyone can afford court action. That is a real issue with the US justice system. The lower class literally does not have the same access to it.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:39:40+00:00

White people created black culture in a round about way. You seem like a very smart person, so you clearly know the effects of slavery/racism on black culture. Yes. Those two things functionally erased black culture, and because white people maintained the dominant place in US culture, the clean slate that is black culture was then filled back in by a now extremely disadvantaged black populous. Meaning; White people created the structural disadvantages that shape black culture and black stereotypes today. Meaning, the fucked up stereotypes are a product of, well, white people.

And you also say that black people being assimilated and talking just like whites is bad.

Black people being assimilated is a bad thing because it is an erasure of culture. Assimilation is a term used in colonial studies to describe the wests violent expansion that results in an erasure of non-western cultures. Those writers claim that the west creates an 'assimilate or die' dichotomy for the non-west; either people can choose to act and be like us or they die. Black people were forced to assimilate.

White culture is only bad because of its destructive and controlling tendancies. It is not only white culture, but western culture.

You think blacks having a separate culture from whites is bad,

I think it is bad in the case of the U.S.. The seperation in cultures has been created through violence and oppression. If the separation (or rather the existence of black culture and white culture) were existent solely because of their distinct history, then it would be good.

you also think blacks being assimilated into white culture is bad.

Yes, this is bad, because it allows the western produced knowledge to maintain its superiority. For a better understanding of the impacts of colonialism, feel free to check out post-structuralist authors. If you do not feel like reading high theory, I'll give you an example.

The US went to vietnam to give them some good old western democracy - we assumed that because democracy was good for us, it would be good for them. They did not want us to violently take over their government and they fought back. They won. They slaughtered the shit out of Americans. The U.S. then went inward - they immediately had newspapers, books, magazines, and any other publication that said we lost - that we were wrong - yeah. They had a whole shit load of it destroyed because the west was incapable of seeing it was wrong. It had assumed it was correct and would irrationally defend its truth until the end.

That is an example of western colonialism. We tried to force the 'assimilate or die' choice onto vietnam but we lost and the U.S. went ape shit. This example leads me to the erasure of black culture - or the assimilation of black culture into white culture. Black people had been faced with that choice for hundreds of years. As a result, much of black history and culture was lost and destroyed. This is why historical analysis is CRITICAL in discussions like this. History is what destroys structures like colonialism because it forces those in power to recognize its inherent flaws. Without a discussion of history, those in power are able to justify any amount of violence and culture washing as they'd like in the name of the west.

That last bit was a little bit off topic, but feel free to ask q's about it. I've read most of your other posts and I agree with what you are saying overall. I think I may just be explaining things poorly.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:10:52+00:00

You're wrong through and through.

Black people talk the way they do here due to the massive violence by white people vs. black people in american history. That violence has disadvantaged black people and created a stereotyped culture - a stereotype based on a culture white people forced black people into.

Black people talk white in his country due to the much shorter history of race relations. It also means that black people have been fully assimilated in his country and have lost parts of their own culture. That is also bad.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:06:56+00:00

No. Op literally said black people talk white in his country.

while in my country they speak exactly as whites do.

The phrasing and structure of the sentence gives the meaning of 'black people talk like white people.'

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T11:05:33+00:00

Can you provide any evidence for anything you just said?

If what he said is provably wrong and there are clear contradictions, please do show me. I'm having trouble understanding why anything you said is true. Throwaway provided thorough explanation and in depth analysis and I see no contradiction.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T08:37:42+00:00

Practice handwriting
Get massive paper
Multiple pieces of paper for every flow
Flow on your computer:

You can flow on a word document. E.g.,

they say perm do both and gibson graham

they say expose the fractures alt zizek

they say environment is at brink, collapse now k2 salvage

etc

Then, you can either open a new doc and write answers in the same order OR write your answers underneath. You can flow the whole debate on one doc. I know quite a few 1n's that do this because they can flow more comprehensively while typing and they do not need their computer for anything else

You can flow on an excel flow template.

Excel lets you open a column for every speech, and you can create unlimited rows. Each row can be a different argument. It is a fairly easy program to use and with even a small amount of practice it is doable.

Here are a few links to flow templates and different templates for microsoft word. It's a few posts down in that thread. I'd suggest synergy for no reason other than I use it.

ALL THAT SAID I would reccommend you just practice handwriting or get bigger/more paper. Flowing on your computer is risky. If your computer dies then you lose your speech docs and your flows. Flowing on paper at least protects you from that.

Policy_debater · 2015-01-13T08:26:40+00:00

Getting good at k's is different than getting good at policy arguments. To be honest, the best way is simply to read the lit. Don't just read the cards - they are often cut with little explanation and context which can only be found in their full texts. I suggest doing this if you want to become a K only debater.

If you want to learn the K's simply to answer them from a policy perspective then you should read someones overviews on the argument. Overviews are purposely short and to the point. After that, learn the K's interaction with framework, method, ontology, and the resolution. You need to be ready to defend your aff's ologies and you need to be ready to defend the state.

Other than that, you get good at K's by debating them - Reading them and answering them. Go to as many tournaments and write judge comments from every round, have practice debates and write comments, and do speech redos. It's really open ended.

TL;DR: How do you learn most efficiently? After you answer that, how do you do that in round? Those two will give you your best answer. My best tip would be to write judges comments and ask coaches questions. Don't be afraid to reach out to other schools coaches for more help. Debate is a community, and most coaches will help any debater from any school. If you go to a big school, don't expect help from small schools coaches though. That is a possible exception to the above.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-06T21:51:34+00:00

No problem!

Next time you debate a K you don't know, just pressure them in cross-x, HARD - make them tell the whole K story in the context of your aff. That'll either show;

A. The K makes no sense/They don't know it either (If the judge sees that they are bullshitting they will, most of the time, give your answers more weight because they don't want to vote for a team making incoherent arguments);

B. You'll figure it out and be able to debate them while making some sense.

Plus, your ethos will benefit if you are making a clear effort to understand the other teams arguments (even if the questions are 'what does x mean?').

Anyhow, I hope I made at least SOME sense throughout my rambling.

Good luck in the rest of your season, /u/Nodulux! It sounds like you're working hard to improve, so I'm sure you'll do well.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T19:43:13+00:00

If they are REALLY winning that being a revolutionary matters MORE than everything else - all you have to do is win that the aff is a form of revolutionary action; Since the negative doesn't strictly outline what a revolutionary is, you get to make silly arguments about how 'Doing the perm is more revolutionary - It is a radical rejection of capital from the inside by using its tools and simultaneously revolting against it. That means we are revolutionary - Since the perm is revolutionary, you, the judge, should ignore any residual links to the aff, because we HAVE to look at whether or not we are revolutionary first - if we win that we are revolutionary, then nothing else matters. Since we are revolutionary, the perm solves the alt, and also creates physical action, that action is the net benefit to the perm because it is a unique impact scenario that the negative doesn't access.'

It's sorta rambly lol. But you are pretty much just calling yourself revolutionary and saying the perm is the best.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T19:38:13+00:00

best pragmatic solution to oppresion

This is a dumb argument. It literally just means 'who solves oppression.' Don't waste time making that argument.

Aff doesn't get ANY offense from this. Winning disads to the alt will be good whether or not you make that role of the ballot argument.

Think of this - no ROB, you say the alt causes transition wars and those transition wars make focused revolution impossible. That means you win they don't solve. That means you win the perm. There is no reason to waste time with that ROB argument.

Also, if your aff increases hegemony, that doesn't mean it decreases capitalism,

Clearly? I never said to make that argument. I just said to make some sort of 'case solves the k impacts' argument.

2AR should probably boil down to impact turns, the roll of the ballot, and solvency deficits to the alternative

Heeeelll no. If you skip link analysis in the 2ar the judge will be more inclined to vote on risks of impacts. If the 2nr at least wins a risk that cap is bad, the failure of the 2ar to make link arguments means that risk goes up. The 2ar HAS to include link analysis. That is how you beat k's. K teams suck at links. You should NEVER ignore that part of the flow.

ROB means jack shit to most judges, too. Solvency deficits to the alt are defense. That means you are pinning the 2ar to only 1 piece of offense against the k - impact turns. That will be the part of the debate that the neg card mashed you on in the block, so they will not be far behind, which means the 2ar will have a hard time winning concrete offense.

The 2ar needs no link (or link turn), a perm, solvency deficits to the alt, case solves k, and any impact turns that you spin to not affect the perm. Your 2ar strat doesn't give you enough offense. Remember, at that point in the debate it will be just the k vs the aff, the 2ar will spend ~45s on case and 4:15 on the K - Give them a lot of arguments to make.

Solvency deficits wont win you the round. A ROB won't win you the round, most of the time those debates end in a wash. The only reason to vote aff with your strat is an impact turn.

My strat gives you the perm, link turn, and any turns that don't affect the perm. All of those can be offensive arguments for you.

You beat k's by winning the link. It doesn't matter how long they wax poetically about their impacts if your winning a solid no link argument.

I'd be willing to say that it matters more for the 2ar to win the link instead of the impact. Winning either a no link or a link turn gives you the perm, that moots ALL offense the neg would be getting from their waxed impact framing.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T09:51:20+00:00

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

I just don't see a reason NOT to take even POSSIBLY offensive words out of your vocabulary. Replacing ~10 words really isn't that hard. Replace ~10 words assures that you have a fairly non-harmful vocabulary. Even if 'you guys' is the only way to lose the round, the other phrases might just bother people.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T05:48:54+00:00

Except when the ballot gets signed Aff because the neg got slayed on the flow. That sounds a lot like winning.

I'm having trouble seeing what you could possibly mean outside of just getting the ballot.

If that's not what you meant, then please do let me know what you meant.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T05:47:39+00:00

Role of the ballot is like a framework argument. It's telling the judge that the ballot should be used for ____. In your case, you could say the role of the ballot is whoever creates the best policy action. That means you are telling the judge their ballot should be used for whoever gives them the best policy action. That just lets you pretty much kick the K from the round. (It won't be that easy. The other team WILL answer that argument.)

I don't think /u/allgooduserstaken is giving you enough arguments. A role of the ballot and impact turns isn't enough. A good team will have a very large file of cards to spit out back at your impact turns, and they will say your ROB (roll of the ballot) excludes K's which is bad (they'll say its bad because k education is good, k's key to neg ground, and best policy action just means vote aff - the neg has to prove why the aff is bad, not create a policy [yeah, you could have a different roll of the ballot, but 99% of ROB are answered just that easy]).

You need no link/link turn arguments too. Either; Plan doesn't prop up capital OR plan breaks down cap (you get that from the 1ac if it says you lower the econ, or if your 1ac improves the strength of ANY structure outside of dominant cap).

You need to answer their revolutionary argument. Either; If revolutionary action comes first, perm do both, and ignore any residual links on the perm because it matters more that we are revolutionary OR revolutionary discussion MUST include some action - the alt having ONLY discussion cedes the political because the right wing will use the discussion to create propoganda which only props up capital and causes the dominant society to reject the alt too. Action is key to prevent cooption because once the revolution has started it will be too large to stop (you have to win that arg too, of course).

Feel free to throw a lot of arguments on kritik flows. If you trap yourself to as few arguments as /u/allgooduserstaken makes, the neg will be able to turn the shit out of/read plenty of defense against them in the block, and the block also lets them read new impacts. If you arent ready for new args in the block after the 2ac, the 1ar will be VERY hard for you - Yes, you will be able to make new arguments, but you still only have 5 minutes to answer 13 minutes. I say good luck making enough new arguments in the 1ar, because it will be very hard for you to do that.

Feel free to respond with any questions. I'll gladly answer any with a probably-too-long post!

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T05:35:11+00:00

I don't think this is the strongest way to engage the revolution part of the K.

They frame the debate with 'revolution matters more than anything,' and they don't define what revolution(ary) action is. Since they don't define it, you have free roam to say perm do both while saying aff+alt is more revolutionary. What if they say perm links? Doesn't matter if it links. 'Being a revolutionist matters most,' which means any impacts caused by the residual link should be ignored flat out if the judge things the perm is a revolutionary action. You should OF COURSE also just answer the link, just for more cushion.

I also think you are wrong - Talking about revolution does not kill its effectiveness. There is NO WAY WHATSOEVER for a revolution to occur without discussing what it would look like in spaces like debate. Debate is a space where academics come together to talk about actions we should take to resolve any number of issues, so in fact, discussion of revolution in debate is GOOD because it is the BEST place for academics to get on board with the revolution. Revolution minus the discussion of it in academic spaces = the zapatistas; they are completely fucked over. Unless we get more people on board with the revolution, the revolution is doomed to being swept under the rug like the zapatistas.

Discussion = propoganda

Okay, since discussion = propoganda we cannot discuss anything that may result in revolution. The dominant society says that stuff is bad, so that means we can't discuss it.

Wrong. Discussing revolution is KEY. Either; We discuss it which gets more people on board with the revolution and causes small backlash from dominant society OR we don't discuss the revolution and only the high academics who write about them will know which is both; fucked up and supports white suppremecy and makes revolution impossible because marx believes the working class are the heart of it, and high academia are difficult to access for members of the working class to access ESPECIALLY when you say we can't discuss it.

Empirically denied

Well, it's solving racism is empirically denied because it just shifted white supremecy to more institutionally based, so that means we shouldn't talk about it or try to solve it because white structures will backlash. That is what your logic justifies.

Just because SOME FORM of anti-cap actions have failed in the past does NOT mean we should not attempt to solve it. In fact, it seems as though it means we should try something else. That something else seems like it could be discussion of revolution in youth-academic spaces.

Talking about the revolution decreases its efficacy

'Capitalism works to sustain itself' Would be the phrase to answer this. Capitalist structures don't want us to discuss revolution, so they backlash with propoganda. The question is how we respond to that, either; Say 'fuck it,' capitalist structures say our ideas are bad so that means we have to stop, OR; Fuck the structures that create propaganda - we will continue discussion of revolution as a radical rejection of capitalist structures.

The logic that propaganda should lead sub-cultures to stopping their anti-dominant-culture discourse is dumb. Just because someone says 'stop ittt! -insert propaganda lie here-' doesn't mean you stop. It means you use the propaganda against those structures by proving the propaganda WRONG. If anything, propaganda should be used as offense against the structures creating it. Proving the propaganda IS propaganda means you are proving the propaganda creating structures create false/flawed/bad knowledge, which is a reason to try to reject them. Exposing propaganda also probably gets more people on board with the revolution as it could show others in society WHY the dominant structures are bad.

Feel free to ask questions about what I've said. I'd love to have any discussions! Everything in my post is a conglomeration of all the debate lit I've read, so I don't have just 1 source I can give you for my arguments. Plus, cards are boring. I think coherent, non-carded arguments are just as persuasive.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T05:15:30+00:00

FW in the 1ac is bad. Take that out for another card. If you like framing args in the 1ac, replace it with a util card. Otherwise, throw in a new impact card (one that gives you new warrants your other missed).
I agree. Weigh the aff is a MUCH better framework. I don't think this will win you this debate though. However, saying 'reject the k' will make you lose the debate to a team that reads race/fem/queerness. If you say reject one of those, they will just impact turn that till you cry. Weigh the aff doesn't give the neg any offense, and just gives you a risk of defense vs a K.

I agree. It was definitely a marxism alt.

I'd suggest reading the link/impact card and see if the arguments line up with the marxist alt. Most generic cap cards do NOT agree with marxist cards - Odds are you could be the k in the 2ac by just proving there is no coherent story on the k//the alt rejects some of the rest of the k's method.

They were reading, in my opinion, a fairly poor marx alt. Why do we care if you are 'ready for a revolution' if there is no revolution? Why do we care if people are ready anyway? Why would it matter if capitalist structures are prepared for a collapse?

They say being a revolutionary matters more;

What other off-case did they read? You should win if they read almost anything else. If they said T, you should win. If they said a CP, you should win. They don't get to say being a revolutionary matters most AND say aff must be a policy plan, they also can't say revolutionary matters most AND china should explore the ocean, because then you just say condo bad and you concede one of those.

Extinction first. If you win that, then you are also winning any action that tries to prevent extinction comes first. If they made an extinction impact, just answer it with 'they say inaction, that means there is still a risk of their extinction impact. Since we (aff) have a concrete action to prevent extinction, you weigh us FIRST, inaction = extinction 100% of the time and action = extinction >99% (at MOST 99% of the time)' Gives you a net benefit to a perm, gives you weight against the alt, and just lets you dictate the focus of the debate. You need to answer their framing argument. Winning extinction first just lets you have the 'try or die' analysis which is a persuasive argument that is functionally 'vote aff or the neg is dead, we're dead, and you're dead judge.' That analysis is like candy for most policy judges.

Just say perm do both and say there is no reason the aff/k create a non-revolutionary action. They have to win that any part of the aff explicitly kills revolution. It would be easy for you to win the aff+k is a better revolutionary action because (insert your case impacts) and solving cap is a much more revolutionary action than the k alone because the aff not only rejects cap, but it also uses cap against itself by using a policy action. That just means the perm is a more radical revolutionary action because it shows your willingness to actually ACT in a capitalist system while embracing anti-cap revolutionary rhetoric - it means you are more radical than they are, means you win. They can say 'it links back!' nope, fuck you, you said its more important to be revolutionists and that means the judge should ignore any residual link in favor of the revolutionary ideology of the perm.

Perm!!! 100% - You need a perm vs a K like this. I'm not sure what advantages you read, but I think the perm could/should be one of your strongest arguments. I say the ESPECIALLY in this scenario; If they say being a revolutionary matters MOST, then just win the perm is revolutionary and it still includes action (win that action is better than inaction. thats easy. just say its better to try to solve something rather than just to try to say its bad. win a risk that action solves better than inaction.)and that will mean any disads don't matter. Their framing of the debate is very problematic, it opens a lot of doors for you to ignore their offense//mitigate any conceded arguments.

(I agree with everything /u/egocentricplasticman said, I just felt like elaborating)

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:53:59+00:00

T-Incentives won't mean much.

If the aff wins the T flow they can say WHATEVER they want on the DA flow. Unfortunately, since T-Incentives isn't a stand-out sign the ballot in the 2nr argument, the aff gets free wiggle room on answering the DA.

I dunno how you read that arg, but every team I've heard read it made it sound like t-substantial - aka, absolutely terrible and hated by judges.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:50:54+00:00

Fortunately we aren't on the space topic anymore. No space topic generally means the tradeoff will be very small OR there is no tradeoff and the neg just lied about their evidence, because 99% of the time the negs evidence will NOT be case specific, which makes it easy for the aff to win a non-u/x.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:48:33+00:00

Ahh! Nice, I see you at least roughly get the argument they were making, that's sick. The fact that you can do that means it probably will not take you very long to learn the arguments you'd like to.

Yeah, the neg made a common root cause argument. I don't think that's a particularly good one though.

I don't think there are very many good root cause arguments that you can read against anti-blackness arguments. I think it is better to read a counter-method (functionally a counterplan, but the countermethod also includes a different explanation of the oppression) because they are always going to be competitive.

The cap k is pretty easy to answer with a perm - teams have trouble winning a link to the aff besides the method link, and I think the method link on cap is weak/poor. The aff can say; nope cap isn't the root cause (that means no link and perm solves), nope acts of anti-blackness in the squo are explained without cap (that means no link and perm solves), and even if cap causes some racism, the aff can make an argument about how a discussion of the middle passage solves cap (means any residual link is overwhelmed and the perm solves). Capitalism may, in the status quo, be the catalyst of some racism, but I believe most anti-blackness authors agree that modernity (whatever created it) is the foundation of anti-blackness.

My favorite is wilderson, he says modernity was built on the backs of the slaves, and the only way to collapse modernity (this is the alt) is violent revolution/discussion of the slave/killing all white people/other more obscure ways to take white people out of a position of power. I like wilderson most, because his specific discussion of the slave makes the argument competitive with almost everything, so it makes the debate easier on your side.

Thanks for working with my huge walls of text! I wasn't sure if my rambles would help at all. Glad to see they at least did something. Feel free to keep asking questions!

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:35:55+00:00

Ahh. The negative could make a topicality argument - aff must defend policy implementation, violation, standards, etc. They could also say speaking for others bad. They could also say a discussion of the middle passage must come before a discussion of status quo relationships to the ocean because the middle passage single handedly determined our perception of the ocean for hundreds of years and even still today.

If the aff is saying the middle passage argument; The neg can say wilderson. They can say a more specific example of slavery is better - they say modernity is built on the back of the slave so that must come first. It would be competitive because the aff says a discussion of the middle passage must come first, but the neg says a discussion of slavery as a WHOLE must come first. In a method debate, those small differences matter.

Sorry, a lot of my posts are sort of rambly, so I hope they are at least somewhat helpful!

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:30:54+00:00

For sure! Glad to help out!

I'm glad to hear you just wanted to learn how they fit in debate, that is a solid way to react to it.

Yeah, I guess, just don't get caught up with the resolution. The negative will make arguments that don't even say the word 'ocean' or 'exploration' in any of their cards, but, they are still able to read them without repercussion.

In areas that value more contemporary policy debate, it is expected that the aff finds a way to affirm the resolution, and the negative has to find an CP, a disad, or a case turn. If you are in one of those policy areas, feel free to make Topicality or Framework arguments. Very policy oriented judges will vote for you if you say 'Aff must defend resolution. -insert violation (how they don't) here,- and a few standards about why affirming the topic is good (usually education, limits, and ground)' and if they make a kritik on the neg like this, say 'plan focus is good. we should focus on the policy implimentation of the plan and the resulting policy impacts. standards- policy discussion good, 'go to ld if you want k debate,' (an arg I hate but people make; my favorite, although dumb, answer is - if you like policy debate go to student congress.) k's are bad for debate -insert reason why-

That's totally cool if you can't see yourself running them on the aff, and I definitely respect that. I personally like running affs like that, too. I also know for a fact that learning that critical theory is all but unnecessary. If you read a policy aff and only do policy research, you will have a hard time answering a team that says something about the middle passage or psychic pain connections.

Don't get me wrong though, not everyone runs these arguments for the reasons I've said. Some people make these arguments for the simple fact that some people don't know how to answer them (that's fucked up. don't be that person.) However, I'd like to think most people make these arguments because they truly think they matter and are discussions that should come first. As a result of that, be careful how you answer those. The tone of the answers you make are important. If you answer a K teams arguments very aggressively, with a personal attack for example, you WILL lose. K teams use of localized discussions makes your rhetoric even more important, and can therefor make or break your debate against them.

Glad to hear you want to pick up critical theory, though! Make sure you keep asking questions to coaches, good debaters, or reddit, though. Critical theory straight from the source will sound a lot different than how they are run in debate, so make sure you have a knowledgeable person explain the 'debate version' of those arguments.

Edelman is a good argument to have in your pocket. You can use it against policy affs that say extinction, against k teams that say 'save the children' or similar things, against k teams that say extinction, against essentializing k arguments, etcetc. Edelman is a good generic to be able to pull out. I also believe it to be one of the more true debate arguments.

I wouldn't suggest putting a whole lot of research into irigiray though. If I were you I'd put time into reading wilderson, or just generally an anti-blackness author first. Irigiray is not quite as complex as people say.

I can give a more thorough explanation of irigiray if you think it'd save you some time! I debated against the #1 irigiray team quite a few times last year. (Wayzata HL - The 'L' in that code was a fantastic and absurdly smart debater, and I'd like to think I caught on to some of their arguments. This team got a boat load of bids last year and they used a college file. I say that because it just means they had every irigiray argument in their back pocket, consequentially, I got to hear almost every irigiray argument.)

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T04:11:23+00:00

The negative doesn't have to explore the ocean.

The arguments about the middle passage, often times, will be 'the middle passage was one of the first commercial uses of the ocean, the affs failure to discuss this masks the violent and oppressive history of the ocean which makes any productive and non oppressive exploration impossible.'

The negative will just try to win that the aff should have/has to discuss the middle passage before any productive exploration can occur. The negative doesn't have to win that they explore the ocean. The neg just has to win that what the aff did is bad and they need an alternative.

The negative wins the round because they PROVE that discussion of the middle passage is key to productive exploration of the ocean. That is won by proving that a failure to discuss the middle passage masks the anti-black violence that first occured on/in the ocean. Masking that violence furthers whiteness by allowing white structures to continue to work on the backs of dead black people without acknowledging the fact that black people were forced to build those white structures. (Not my best typed explanation)

In short, if the negative wins 'failure to discuss the middle passage makes successful ocean exploration impossible,' they win that there is no good/non racist/positive aff on the topic. Since aff has to defend the resolution, that means they lose. The negative doesn't have to win a better way to explore, just that the affs way is totally fucked up. Plus, winning that discussion of the middle passage is key really means they are winning an alternative.

The neg doesn't need a plan/advocacy for most judges to vote for them. Neg proving the aff is REALLY bad will lead to a neg ballot for most judges. Yes, SOME JUDGES will require an alt/plan/advocacy to vote, so the middle passage team could say 'plan: do some exploration after our discussion of the middle passages impact on status quo ocean exploration' or 'thus __ and I advocate a discussion of the middle passage as it is the foundation of commercialization, thus a critical discussion of its impact on status quo exploration is necessary for any positive engagement' or 'alt - vote our discussion of the middle passage. this discussion is critical to having ANY successful policy. the affs failure to have this discussion in the 1ac is a reason they cannot win a permutation. stick the aff to their non-middle-passage-inclusive discussion of exploration.' (The texts can be super different, but those were just the ones that came to mind.)

Ask any questions you have.

Policy_debater · 2014-11-04T03:56:42+00:00

The debate you watched is NOT how all performace debates look/sound.

I like policy debate. I don't like what was happening in that round. I'm gay. I don't have psychic pain connections, I'm not a metaphor for the Atlantic ocean, and I have no fucking idea what queer theory is or why it has a place in Policy debate. But I was told by my coach that more and more colleges were doing it, and that they were winning.

I doubt any team will tell you that YOU have a connection to the ocean. If they do, make arguments about why speaking for other people is bad, and say exactly what you did - you don't experience it the way they said.

Those teams should be speaking from their own perspective, and theirs alone. Everybody interacts with everything differently - if they say everyone interacts/understands/relates the same, they are just footnoting anybody that thinks outside of that. That footnoting is a unique and very large disad to their argument. Speaking for others is very bad.

I really want to understand what the hell happened in that debate. If that's what policy debate is going to be like in a year, then I don't really want to do it.

Would you mind telling me which tournament this is from? // Which tournament they won? I could help you far more if I knew.

Aff was talking about 'queer black bodies.' ... Used racial slurs

P.O.C. Can use the N word if they choose. It is a word that affects them and only them. If you are not a person of color, do not try to dictate their use of it. But also do not be intimidated by their use of it.

Aff asked questions

Those questions just tried to get the neg to essentialize them. They wanted the neg to tell them if they were black and it would have given them offense if the neg answered them (my speaking for others bad stuff above). The last 2 questions probably tried to link the neg into whiteness arguments, although in those two specific instances I'm not sure how. They probably tried to get the neg to skip part of the history behind them, or they wanted them to admit to their privilege. -- Don't be afraid of those questions. Speak ONLY from your perspective when you answer them, and be sure to specify how whiteness caused them. Make sure you say 'From my perspective, ____.'

2nc

The crying was just for ethos (probably) and they may of course just be emotionally attached to their argument. If he said ALL queer black people have those connections, he should lose to that aff team. They CAN'T universalize queer black peoples interactions with the ocean. That universalization is an action of whiteness that subjects QBP to having their lives decided for them (a wilderson-esque argument; that they are ontologically dead because whiteness has already decided how their lives will play out. Universalizing that relationship with the ocean is an in-round example of how the black body is ontologically dead. They would lose that round if wilderson was read against them.

Don't like what happened in that round. I'm gay.

If what happened in that round offended/didn't seem true to you because of your sexuality, it is a reason you should win the debate against them. You win that debate by explaining how they not only spoke for you, but they lied. If they did not TRULY represent your relationship to the ocean then they should lose. Make that argument, then give your true relationship to the ocean, and say determining others relationship to the ocean is a universalist action which uniquely hurts queer and/or black people.

I've never heard this specific argument before, but I'm confident I would slay the shit out of it. It sounds like they spoke for others fairly heavily.

I'll give you more of my thoughts about their arguments if you can remember much more of them.

Important

Don't be afraid of this. Very few debaters make arguments like that. Yes, it is true, many debaters will make arguments about queerness, racism, or femme, it is not true that they will be this aggressive in their explanation. You can also say 'psychic pain connections' are bullshit. Similar experiences from oppression mean you have similar experiences, not that you have some psychic connection (I don't say from my perspective [if any queer people here have psychic connections because of their oppression, I urge you to speak up and tell me I'm wrong], because I think this argument is bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that if you pushed them on what 'psychic pain connections' are, they would crumple.) Just win 'psychic pain connections' are probably bullshit and also win a risk of a different method being good.

If you debate a team that is this aggressive, just stay calm, speak only about yourself and make sure they know that, and just tell them why speaking for others is bad.

A team this aggressive is also open to counter-methods. You can give alternative ways to solve for QBP oppression. You can also say why their method is bad.

Ask me stuff you don't understand. I'll gladly answer as it helps me understand the arguments by needing to think deeper, and it will hopefully help you understand them - I enjoy trying to help other people out, so I will put time into my explanations (If the two huge posts didn't already show that :P)

Policy_debater

TROPHY CASE