MDAW 2015. All debate is performing Form and content are inseparable. The norms of debate performance are conditioned by systems (and histories) of oppression.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How to Run a Kritik Affirmative
Advertisements

By Mark Veeder-SCFI How to properly construct an AC and NC -Getting the most out of cross-ex -How to structure a rebuttal.
TOPICALITY Where debate begins.
Introduction to Kritiks Ryan Galloway Samford University.
Theory CODI 2014 Lecture. Rules of Debate Debate has surprisingly few rules Time limits and speaking order There must be a winner and loser No outside.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PHRASING Understanding the Resolution.
The 1ar: Debate’s Paramedic Get the patient to the hospital…alive.
Matt Gomez Ph.D in Theoretical Objections to Negative and Affirmative argumentation (Bingham Campus) SCFI 2011 THEORY.
Introduction To Debate and Building an Effective Argument.
By Beth Mendenhall. Introduction Why you should listen Please ask questions.
PART ONE: Topicality  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate An Examination of Values. OBJECTIVES: The student will 1. Demonstrate understanding of the concepts that underlie Lincoln-Douglas.
Introduction to Debate -Negative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter # Or call and enter # © L. Husick,
Topicality. Our Focus Significance Harms Inherency Topicality Solvency.
POLICY DEBATE Will look like CX on the sign up sheet.
Debate I: Basics & Formats
ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Thursday, 6/27 Baxter and Dave.
Intro to Critiques. Fiat The assumption in the debate game that we pretend the plan gets passed by the USFG. Then, we can debate out the Costs (DA’s)
Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)-
Accountable Talk Malden Public Schools. What is Accountable Talk “Accountable talk sharpens students' thinking by reinforcing their ability to use and.
Debate Terminology Words every debater needs to know!
And other things… DISADVANTAGES. BUT FIRST, LETS REVIEW FOR THE QUIZ The quiz on Wednesday will be open note and will cover the two primary topics and.
Counterplans The Negative’s Best Friend The Negative’s Best Friend.
ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Tuesday, August 5th Baxter and Steve.
Week 1. Q. From where did LD debate come? Q. Where policy debate involves federal policy, what does LD involve? Q. LD involves which civilization?
A Brief Introduction to LD Jonathan Waters Grovetown High School.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE. Table of Contents  What is it  LD Debate Structure  Terms to Know  Constructive Arguments  Affirmative  Negative  Cross.
The Disadvantage Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for the present system.
Chapter Study Guide GROUP COMMUNICATION. Chapter What are the 4 steps in the problem solving process? Describe and understand the problem.
Beyond Blooms – Socratic Questioning Extension from the training day
Affirmative Strategy Austin Layton. Overview At least, take two things from this lecture Main Advantage of Being Aff: Familiarity – Preparation Matters.
Critiques Brian Rubaie, Debate Central. What is a critique?  Disadvantages question desirability of action  Counterplans question methods of action.
Using the skills of argument and rhetoric THE ART OF DEBATE.
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards Baylor University July 2013.
WELCOME TO PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN WELCOME TO PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN Dr. Leeat Granek Summer, 2009.
SCFI 2011 SJK. Understand how to structure and write basic LD constructives Understand the basic components of contention-level argumentation Begin to.
Performance Debate! If I can’t dance I don’t want to be part of your revolution. - Emma Goldman.
Debate 101. What is Debate? A debate is the practice of comparing & contrasting ideas that centers on the discussion of a RESOLUTION. The RESOLUTION IS....?
Establishing Ground by Josh Aguilar and Tyler Haulotte.
POLICY DEBATE. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? A structured format for fairly arguing a topic of policy TEAM DEBATE: two teams of two students each 8 speeches.
 Philosophical or performative advocacy  Rejects Traditional policy focus  Micro vs Macro resistance to oppression.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Resolutions: The resolution is a statement with which one contestant must agree (affirm) and the other contestant must disagree.
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards & Russell Kirkscey June 2015.
Beginning Policy Debate: I ain’t scared ! NSDA Nationals 2014 Jane Boyd Grapevine HS, TEXAS.
Hays Watson Head Debate Coach UGA.  It is the counterpoint to the Affirmative – instead of Affirming a particular course of action (i.e. the resolution),
Basic Structure of a Round. a) Before the Round Pre-flowed arguments.
Topicality “That sounds good. That’s a good skill to have.” –Julia Marshall “Naw. Advantages don’t matter when it comes to Topicality.” –Humza Tahir.
Debate Terminology Week 1 Debate Ms. Haen. Resolution also known as “Rez” the statement that will be argued; The resolution always takes a position and.
KRITIKS Melissa Witt.
Introduction to the Negative
Debate Chapter 13 Pages
8th Annual Great Corporate Debate
BASICS OF CRITIQUES.
Debate I: Basics & Formats
Introduction To Debate and Building an Effective Argument
Debate 101 Basic Debate Workshop.
Do Words have Power- Do words have power?
Hegemony (Heg) Economic, military, and political influence a nation has. It’s America’s street cred Soft Power + Hard Power= Heg Amount of Soft + Amount.
A Brief Introduction to LD
The Affirmative Adapted from:.
Dustin Hurley Medina Valley HS
Debate What is Debate?.
Format Affirmative Constructive - 5 minutes
Introduction to Policy Debate
Debate 101 Basic Debate Workshop.
Informative, Persuasive, and Impromptu Speaking all rolled into one!
Topicality Casey Parsons.
Why Words Matter….
POLICY DEBATE An Introduction by Rich Edwards Baylor University.
Writing Types and Strategies
Presentation transcript:

MDAW 2015

All debate is performing Form and content are inseparable. The norms of debate performance are conditioned by systems (and histories) of oppression. White supremacy and anti-blackness. Heteropatriarchy. To name a few. Debate rounds are not training spaces but part of a STRUGGLE linked with similar struggles in the world outside. Debate competition is not equal playing field but a field charged with power relations.

Standards for evaluating evidence, authority, and argumentation Personal experience, music, affect How clash is mapped and evaluated (the flow) Ethos and Pathos as well as Logos Stylistic norms How you perform in debate has direct bearing on the value of your argument (form and content inseparable) Conscious and unconscious behaviors within and outside debate rounds What teams said in previous debate rounds (“adaptation”) Slips of the tongue in speech and cross-x Strike sheet decisions

Performance AFFs with plans (“Critical AFFs”): Critical framing changes the way judges evaluate impacts and/ or the desirability of the plan AFFs that change what it means to affirm resolutional action (e.g. “demand” AFFs) Usually tacitly accept dominant standards of evidence and argumentation and focus on content Performance AFFs without plans (“Performance AFFs”) AFFs that place their performance within the resolution in order to undermine its effects AFFs that reject the resolution in its entirety in order to discuss a question that comes prior to it. Garner advantages from alternative stylistic and evidentiary forms

Fort Hays at CEDA, 2002, USFG should increase control over Indian Country topic (“Affirm this topic in its everydayness as transversal dissent. Affirm the topic as a vision.” 10:00-11:06) Fort Hays The Louisville project (“Who most meaningfully increases black participation in debate”) Oklahoma CL at CEDA (“War powers should not be used against niggaz” 52:00-55:00) Oklahoma CL

Emphasis on micropolitics, the molecular, the local, the embodied Critique of unmarked/neutral/distanced position from which “one” can evaluate what is true and what is good and bad Emphasizes how debaters themselves are implicated in the resolution

We internalize surveillance subjectively Racialized and gendered experience are structured by systems of surveillance that compel us to act and value ourselves in certain ways. Stop and Frisk. Job interviews. Scholarship applications. “Sex” designation on driver’s licenses. Debate reproduces those behavioral norms Education, testing, school evaluation, classroom discipline Analogies to debate

Style/content. Division of labor in the AFF constructives Organize the flow differently Derive offense from your performance

Frameworks are claims to what should be evaluated in a debate and how Performance AFFs hold that standards of evaluation can never be neutral or “fair,” but participate in the struggle defined by structures of power. “Fairness is non-unique” Performance AFFs have explicit or implicit frameworks backed by the AFF thesis “Who best methodologically liberates the oppressed” More specific frameworks based on AFF This is your “counter-interpretation”

1AC proves that the topic itself is the problem. It shouldn’t be accepted without discussion No neutral interpretation of the topic. 1AC is a built in kritik of neg fairness, education, and jurisdiction standards Defaults to a framework debate (not about what the topic commands, but about how debaters should debate the topic) Evaluate topicality as a disad. Case impacts operate on the same plane as T impacts

Write your answers specifically based on AFF. Most things a performance AFF critiques have their analogies in debate. Excludes by definition the local, micropolitical, the embodied (everything that the AFF claims is good and necessary) Debate as a “research activity” assumes a neutral, unmarked, agent of knowledge and action. That translates as white cisgender and male. But you want to pretend that that’s not the case. (There are other rationales too) Should not force the USFG grid of political change on everyone. We do not want to talk or walk like you do.

Idea that you need to set the terms of discussion before you can have a discussion (e.g. the resolution). And discussions are good for democracy or whatnot. But: AFF shows how public sphere of compulsory USFG advocacy is founded on violence not agreement. Which is why those norms need to be challenged in public. (A link turn to democracy)

There are more than two sides. And there is also an underside. When was the last time you ran our AFF?