1. MDAW 2015

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 2001 - 2005 (“Who most meaningfully increases black participation in debate”) Oklahoma CL at CEDA 2014. (“War powers should not be used against niggaz” 52:00-55:00) Oklahoma CL

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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”

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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)

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