You are on page 1of 4

ADI 1

Freire Ans.
Performance Bad Supplement – Freire Ans.
Performance Bad Supplement – Freire Ans...............................................................................1
A2 Freire Debate Is Bad................................................................................................................2
A2 Freire Debate Is Bad................................................................................................................3
A2 Freire Debate Is Bad................................................................................................................4
ADI 2
Freire Ans.
A2 Freire Debate Is Bad
1. No link – The way they frame debate is not the way we do debate or consider doing debate. Our coaches do
not “deposit” information into us for regurgitation, but instead, we explore issues in dialogue WITH our coaches.

2. Turn – Our case is an example of what happens when the oppressed is not given a voice in the international
context – the result of their advocacy is to silence these voices because OUR advocacy does not fit into their
framework. Although they have a different justification for excluding the voices, the result is the same.

3. Permutation – Vote for our advocacy in the 1ac AND adopt a critical understanding of oppression. They
have to prove that OUR advocacy in this round, not “traditional debate” as a whole, excludes their advocacy for a
critical understanding of oppression.

4. Permutation is best option – their critical understanding alone is doomed to failure the
permutation represents the hope that can stem from the critical understanding
Hendricks, 1994. [Sarah, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, “Review of
Pedagogy of Hope: Pedagogy of the Oppressed,”
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/freire/freirebooks.html]

In a clearer voice than was articulated in Pedagogy of the Oppressed1, Freire reminds us that a critical
understanding of oppression will not succeed in and of itself in achieving liberation from oppression. Nevertheless,
the comprehension of oppression is “indispensable” (p. 31) to a new vision of the world based on justice and
freedom. Hope helps us to “understand human existence, and the struggle needed to improve it..” (p. 8). In other
words, hope is imperative, yet in isolation it is insufficient: “Alone, [hope] does not win. But without it, my struggle
will be weak and wobbly” (p. 8). Hope then, inspiring and inspired by understanding is, as Freire repeatedly states,
an “ontological need” (p. 8), essential to both our being and knowing, integral to both epistemology and ontology.

5.Turn:

a.Debate is inroads to the democratic participation in choosing the content of our education
and is based upon participatory dialogue that is imperative to the praxis of education.
Hendricks, 1994. [Sarah, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, “Review of
Pedagogy of Hope: Pedagogy of the Oppressed,”
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/freire/freirebooks.html]

Likewise, Freire maintains a progressive vision premised upon the democratic participation of families, social
organizations and communities in choosing the content of education. In the same way that language must begin
with an understanding of popular discourse, so too should the programmatic content of education be chosen by the
people. The simultaneous reading of both context and text, or what Freire terms a “reading of the world and a
reading of the word” (p. 105), is integral to the content of problem-posing education. Freire’s vision of
“democratizing the power of choosing content” (p. 100) does not imply the complete withdrawal of the educator.
Rather, a dialogical relationship between both the educators and the educands will ensure that the content is situated
within the people’s “reading of the world” (p. 111), and within an environment in which the educator can also offer
his or her own analysis of the world.4 This formulates Freire’s defence of adult literacy education which empowers
people to engage in dialectical solidarity through a critical awareness of the world. Moreover, Freire asserts that the
acquisition of language developed through the democratization of education is instrumental to the formation of
identity: “Dialogue is meaningful precisely because the dialogical subjects, the agents in the dialogue, not only
retain their identity, but actively defend it, and thus grow together” (p. 117). Problem-posing education which is
based upon participatory dialogue is imperative to the praxis of education and thus directly relates to the people’s
assertion of their human rights, or, in Coben’s words, their “battle for citizenship”.5 For Freire, democratic popular
education provides the means of empowering people to own their language and thus attain citizenship (p. 39).6
Thus, the importance of a dialogical relationship which merges teacher and student is reaffirmed in Pedagogy of
Hope through Freire’s defence of popular discourse and the democratization of content in education.
ADI 3
Freire Ans.

A2 Freire Debate Is Bad
b. Although we have a topic each year, it is voted for by the community and it can be
interpreted by each individual and team differently, then we can have democratic dialogue
about which interpretation is best. They especially must admit that their ability to talk
about the things they choose to talk about is the best example of how debate is an
exemplary of the educational system that Freire advocates.

6. Turn: Their interpretation of Freire’s argument is not true – Freire NEVER says we
should remain absolutely bound up in local reality, but should instead become the source
for analysis and then integrate global economic structures like the plan does. This is
another reason to vote for the permutation.
Hendricks, 1994. [Sarah, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, “Review of
Pedagogy of Hope: Pedagogy of the Oppressed,”
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/freire/freirebooks.html]

Freire likewise rejects the suggestion that his focus on popular knowledge limits the educands’ understanding of
global structures. In defence of popular knowledge, Freire declares that such knowledge must be the starting point
of popular education, with the purpose of going beyond this knowledge to a critical analysis of the world. Rejecting
the assumption that his pedagogy was locally bound, Freire asserts himself by stating that “never, however, have I
said that these programs . . . ought to remain absolutely bound up with local reality” (p. 86). The existential
experience of the people must first become the source of analysis before global economic structures can be
integrated.

7. No link and turn: Debate is not an example of “banking education” – it encourages
critical thinking and challenging social and political positions through dialogue with
coaches during preparation, opponents during the round and critics during post-round
discussions
McClafferty, 1993. [Karen, UCLA, “Review of Pedagogy of the Oppressed,”
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/freire/km.html]

Freire’s central argument is that education is always a political act. It can be used to maintain the status quo or it can
be used to bring about social change. Through what he calls “banking education,” learners are not encouraged to
think critically and consequently do not challenge their social and political position. Instead, they receive
knowledge “deposits” which are absorbed without reflection. Their “oppression” is perpetuated by this inability to
question. Failing to take into account the notion of agency, Freire assumes that the oppressed blindly follow what
they are “taught” and that no resistance to this oppressor identity takes place.
Through dialogue, Freire argues, the nature of education is changed. The oppressed are able to actually experience
the world, and as a result question it. In turn, “the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed” can be
accomplished: “to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well” (p. 20).
ADI 4
Freire Ans.
A2 Freire Debate Is Bad
8. The case becomes a disadvantage for voting for the critique alone: Freire excludes any
examination of issues of race or ethnicity that the affirmative shows to be so important.
Tan, no date. [Sandra, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, “Review of
Pedagogy of Hope: Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/freire/st.html]

Freire’s theory evinces some fundamental shortcomings
Despite praiseworthy credit and deference given to this “landmark” book,
that cannot be overlooked. The major gap lies in its failure to incorporate and interrogate race and gender relations within
the theme of oppression. This is particularly disheartening when we note that class struggles mounted in the name of the
“oppressed” have historically and consistently displaced or subsumed the disparate struggles of women and people
of colour beneath its homogenizing rhetoric. While I am conscious of Freire’s defense that a text is a reflection of
its historical moment and hence its incompleteness (1997:318-9), I am not convinced of his position given that other
revolutionary thinkers have demonstrated such a vision. Notwithstanding the contradictions in their revolutionary actions, Mao and
Castro’s political thought, to name a couple, have not only challenged bourgeois ideology, but paved the way to the liberation of women in their
respective locations and ruptured dominant practices of racial discrimination as in the case of Cuba.