Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
Performance 2AC Blocks (ADI)

Performance 2AC Blocks (ADI)

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 1,731|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/03/2013

 
Performance aff 2AC Blocks
2AC OVERVIEW – ALWAYS READ THIS PAGE...............................................................2AT: FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................4SPEED BAD................................................................................................................7AT: Switch Side........................................................................................................12A2: No Plan text.......................................................................................................13A2: FARMWORKERS WANT STATE ACTION................................................................14A2: AT: You’re too subjective/can’t judge a performance debate.............................16AT: Just Read Plan....................................................................................................22A/T ROLE PLAYING GOOD.........................................................................................25A2: YOU ESSENTIALIZE............................................................................................29A2: FORCED CONFESSIONS......................................................................................30A2: CRITIQUES.........................................................................................................31A2: Speaking For Others..........................................................................................39A/T: Just add a plan..................................................................................................40FREIRE: WE GET BETTER EDUCATION; WE PRODUCE BETTER KNOWLEDGE............41................................................................................................................................53................................................................................................................................53................................................................................................................................54A/T: PEOPLE OF PRIVILEGE CAN’T PARTICIPATE........................................................55A/T: MUST FOCUS ON CAPITALISM...........................................................................56A/T: WE JUST ALL AGREE..........................................................................................61KNOLWEDGE PRODUCTION SOLVES.........................................................................62A2: GOTTA FOCUS ON CAPITALISM/UNIVERSAL ISSUE.............................................64DESCRIPTION OF COLORBLINDNESS........................................................................69AT: CP and DA’s / Experts Bad.................................................................................71A2: IDENTITY POLITICS.............................................................................................801
 
2AC OVERVIEW – ALWAYS READ THIS PAGE
 THIS IS OUR ARGUMENT: Subsidies are bad because they are part of a system of identities and material conditions that result in the oppression of migrant farmworkers. THIS IS OUR INTERPRETATION: The USFG is us, the people in the room. After all, theConstitution that created the USFG in the first place places sovereignty with thepeople, not the government. The topic asks whether we as individuals shouldeliminate our support of subsidies, and we should. Even if we don’t directly give themonetary subsidies, our identities and the choices we make in this room about howto construct them are complicit in them. This complicity is ours to remove. THIS IS OUR FRAMEWORK: Seemingly normal and race-neutral governmentalactions are not neutral. White is a race too. Given the patterns of exclusion insociety and in debate, there is a massive presumption that so-called “normal”practices are colored by whiteness. The remedy is a critical historical analysis of government policies, debate practice, and identity, and how those inter-relate.Debate is about knowledge production, and all arguments are evaluated in terms of how progressive or regressive their knowledge-value is. The topic gives us a subjectabout which to produce knowledge, but we should follow wherever productiveknowledge takes us, and not have educationally counter-productive debatesbecause of hegemonic and flawed believes about the rigidity of language.So what about counterplans and disads? In simple terms, we’re not linking out of them, we’re turning them. Make any argument you want, but you will have to provethat it doesn’t uncritically reproduce a system of whiteness.We want to debate what we call material conditions and you call policy, and policyand identity CAN be debated together, but they CANNOT be separated. Nobody butcollege debaters thinks the world is divided into policy- and non-policy arguments.It is divided into identities and material conditions, and the two are always inter-related.And, in our framework you can run: Subsidies good for farm workers, high priceshelp workers, an alternative critical history, colorblindness good (where most of themedia and think tank literature goes your way), identity doesn’t cause materialconditions to change, critical histories bad, or any of the various critiques. You candefend debate as it happens now, if you wish.Our framework would be like inviting Malcom X, Zizek, and Gramsci to a room andasking them to debate subsidies. The idea that they would have nothing importantto say or no area of rich disagreement is ridiculous. The only thing that would makethat debate stupid is if you made them all defend a plan text.2
 
[Any argument that uncritically accepts seemingly normal assumptions that aresteeped in institutional whiteness are bad arguments. We believe that materialconditions – what are called polices in traditional debate terms – can and should bedebated. BUT, if the evidence used to justify those positions is ahistorical, relies ona so-called “expert” or media opinion, and/or has been arrived at without a seriousconsideration of identity, there is a massive presumption that it will re-produceinequities.Remember that history is full of well-meaning policies imagined by elites to help theoppressed; they almost universally fail and make things worse.]3

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Mario P C liked this
Bryant G Andrade liked this
martialartsgrl21 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->