Saturday, September 21, 2013
Novice Questions
So now that you've been to a tournament, debated 6 rounds, beaten some experienced teams, lost to some others, and learned a lot, you must have questions. Please use the comments section of this entry to ask those questions (hopefully, at least five per debater). They can be about arguments, debate procedures, tournament issues, or anything else. Coaches and senior debaters will answer these questions pretty promptly. Please submit your questions (everyone except Andrew and Nina who debated at Binghamton, plus those who haven't debated yet) by noon on Tuesday, September 24. That will give us time to plan to address some of them at the team meeting on Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. What are the different kinds of perms?
ReplyDelete2. What are the best ways of responding to perms?
3. What would be the best way to answer a team who claims that our aff would make it worse for the rural populations because with recruiting down they would have no "other option" to turn to for a job. In addition, without high recruitment in rural areas the amount of people being able to seek higher education (because they can't afford it without the military paying for it) would seriously decrease which would quite likely make this ruralism issue even worse. Without education rural people can never hope to move up the social latter or make a difference in the political realm. In addition it would probably also decrease healthcare standards since the military has really good healthcare benefits. All of these things are points the West Point brought up in our debate which I found difficult to answer since they are very accurate points.
1) The common ones are: Do Both; Do the Plan then the Alt; Do the plan and all non-competitive parts of the alt
ReplyDelete2) Argue why the plan can not include your alternative
a. Every link is a reason you can't perm (With the Security K point out where in the aff they are using realist discourse and how you can't use realist discourse and reject it)
b. Perm Theory (Severance Perm Bad; Intrinsic Perm Bad; Multiple Perms Bad)
3) That is exactly the kind of invisibility in policy decisions that Bassett is talking about. Then argue with the first piece of Giroux evidence that pedagogical practices challenging this systems of militarism, neoliberalism, and neoconservatism solves through resistance to the system. And the last piece of Giroux evidence explains how you challenge these systems the best.
a. Use the prior arg to show how we must challenge the system to give the rural community a voice to be able to pass policy to help provide funding for higher education in rural communities. Neoliberalism and urban bias is what keeps rural people out of politics.
b. Does good healthcare solve for PTSD, Alcoholism, Depression? Answer is no, there are probably studies or former veterans who talk about this.
Andrew's answer above is EXACTLY now the blog is supposed to work (coaches, debaters dialoguing with one another).
DeleteCan somebody give an outline of the most basic organization of the Aff and Neg rounds? What Im looking for is a diagram of sorts that can show me the structure until I have it memorized. Such as, I heard a lot of "Always do timeframe, magnitude, probabilty in last 20 seconds of the 2ar\2nr". In the imagined diagram that would be the last block or part. I had a lot of trouble knowing what was the most important argument to answer (Such as the "should" topicality arguments) and what were the lesser important. Im sorry if this is asking for a lot but I think some sort of noob cheat sheet like this would help me visualize what Im supposed to be doing with my prep time.
ReplyDeleteJohn: That's an excellent (though perhaps impossible) question. Some things are pretty basic from round to round. For instance, always start each speech by addressing the arguments that can lose you the round. Others will vary from round to round based on circumstances. Perhaps someone else will offer a more detailed answer on things that are constant from round to round (especially with our strategies).--NB
ReplyDeleteLink of Omission: so because we run the ruralism K, how do we frame the debate so that we directly link to the affirmative?
ReplyDeleteWe will get to that at the meeting on Friday.
ReplyDeletecan somebody give me some good concrete examples of what this passage talks about in case it comes up in cross x? I can think of some general concepts that are mostly just dealing with recruitment policies, however it would be cool to have multiple things to call on if its questioned.
ReplyDelete"The harm to rural dwellers goes beyond stereotyping; discrimination against rural areas is seen in federal spending. The federal government spends more money on urban citizens than rural citizens - $ 5,369 per urban citizen, contrasted with $ 4,725 per rural citizen. Rural dwellers not only receive a low degree of governmental protection, but some federal policies create or increase problems in rural areas. As a minority group, rural dwellers receive little attention from the legislatures and courts, despite suffering discrimination in virtually every area."
Im wondering about the passage that states some federal policies create or increase problems in rural areas.
Also, concerning the Colghan 09 card, is the major takeaway point from the text that their culture(or in our affs case, rural culture) is an important defense against exploitation\discrimination? I know the card says that this happens but what are the moving parts? Is it just assuming that a body sympathetic to cultural perspectives enough to leave it in tact will exploit that culture less?
The only other questions I have are just about pedagogy. From my understanding, the word just refers to the use of education to solve, is that correct? We have three cards referring to pedagogy, and at first glance they seemed to all sort of say the same thing. Ive read them over a few times each and came up with this simplification, please tell me if I am getting it :
Giroux 06,1 - Neolib exists because we believe in it. Using education we can challenge it
Giroux 06,2 - Debate space is a unique place to challenge academic questions
giroux 06,3 - We in this debate round are the best suited to use pedagogy to be catalyst to a change
Ill update this when I have some more questions. Still reading through the Aff and working on speed.
John
You're right about a lot of things... Pedagogy is the method of teaching.
DeleteThe first piece says that first, and foremost, neoliberalism is an ideology. and that dismantling this ideology is a pre-requisite to any social change.
The second piece talks about how academia has a unique role because it engages in the practice of shaping social values and norms as well as providing a venue separate from other "corporatized" sections of the public sphere.
The last piece of Giroux evidence talks about how critical pedagogy is critical to fostering social agency because it is how we understand the ways in which dominant ideologies (i.e neoliberalism) shape the experiences of people (rural dwellers) and make the impacts of the 1AC inevitable.
When you read these cards in the affirmative, it gives you two-tiered solvency. The first tier of solvency is through implementation.. You're solving for the harms through your policy action. The second tier comes from the actual discourse in the debate. The Giroux evidence indicates that discussing these things in the round helps solve for the lack of agency of rural dwellers. Giroux can even be applied to say that when you, a rural debater, bring up issues of ruralism, you're breaking down neoliberal forms of education that gloss over identity and place-based differences.
John: Those are good questions. I think you've got a pretty good handle on the Giroux cards (if others want to add to that, please go ahead). On the first card, one thing you can point out is that programs like the all-volunteer army take some of the most talented young people away from rural areas. We can brainstorm other examples at Friday's meeting. On the Colghan card, you've basically got it, but we can discuss further on Friday as well.
ReplyDeleteI think I have a lot of setbacks on theory and perms.
ReplyDeleteWe had a huge shutdown in our fifth round at west point when the team ran six perms against us. I talked with some team mates about it and have somewhat of an idea as to how to begin to address multiple perms, but could somebody write something out that I can refer back to and study regarding it?
Also, whats the best offense to use against dropped arguments concerning edu abuse? two judges suggested we pursue that strategy.
I THINK I understand the differences between topicality and framework so im going to type it out and see what you guys think. Topicality: not linking up to the reduction of warpowers etc. Additionally, they can criticize words like should, for, reduce, etc that if not properly defined would make us not topical. Framework : Way of viewing the round? Particular rules and things to ask the judge to consider when giving RFD? Thats all I really know about this.
Also, can we get a specisism frontline? Vandy came at us with it and I had a hard time. We should have permed, but even if we didnt perm I would like to have something cut out to address a specisism k
On the K: we can make a frontline specific to it by next tournament. Additionally though, you have the generic front line to any K arg, which walks you through the steps of how to answer it. Link, Perm, Alt, Impact weighing etc. If you do not have this front line, or the frontline to CP or DA, let me know so I can get it to you
DeleteOn the Perm Debate: 1) Read theory on why multiple perms are bad (In the basic theory file that you should have) 2) Group the perms- Cannot perm because every link to the K we are winning is a disadvantage to the perm 3) Specifically on Perm Do Both- Cannot use security discourse/logic in the 1AC and reject security discourse/logic at the same time, it would be contradictory 4) Specifically on Perm Do The Plan then the alternative- Would be like an alcoholic saying they are sobering up but after having one last drink. The alternative will continually be pushed down the road and never be attempted/completed.
ReplyDeleteFramework at an even more meta level is how debate in general should function. It's setting the rules for debate and the specific round in particular.
We can write something up for the speciesism K, but like any other critique you need to be making no link arguments, why the alt doesn't solve, and a perm at the very least.
Need more info on what the educational abuse claims are? When your AFF or NEG?
Oh! I have another question. I watched a debate on the JMU website today that featured a guy reading a narrative sort of thing for his 1ac. It included a lot of things about their aff, explainations and a few citations but it also included defense against what I imagine they thought the most common arguments would be against it (a lot of pedagogy support weighed against the neg using offenseive arguments against pedagogy to be exclusionary.) What my question concerns is how this works in the debate space. Does he just jump card files to them and summarize them in the 1ac? whats the advantage\disadvantage of doing this?
ReplyDeleteNot totally sure what you mean from the description. Can you post a link, and I'll take a look at the speech.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehttps://jmutube.cit.jmu.edu:8443/content/mabreype/playlist/17917/play/
DeleteHe reads a few pieces of evidence in the last minute and a half or two minutes of the speech, are those the only carded pieces he has or is the beginning thats not a narrative carded too?
DeleteAlso, in the 1nc both teammates are speakers. Isnt this just a clever way of stealing prep time during the round? They go back and forth, each reading a piece of evidence while the other preps
DeleteThanks. Busy day today, but will try to view the clip tonight and respond. Others should feel free to do so as well.
DeleteMe and Zach have lost some rounds because we haven't talked about the impact enough. We hammer home the three Giroux solvency cards and say its the roll of the ballot to make an intellectual investment to begin conversation that preceds policy implementation. We extend the Santos 03 card saying this is what we solve for but somehow the judge always asks for more at the end of the round. How can we talk maore about the impacts and what exactly are the impacts?
ReplyDeleteCan you specify one or two rounds from West Point or Vermont (ether judge or round #--maybe with opponent)? That way, I can see what I can learn (including maybe judge comments, if available).
DeleteI think were ok on this. Were beginning to realize how to bring the impacts to life within the round.
DeleteWhat is abilism and can we possibly use it? We lost the quarterfinal NEG round to Army's Powerpoint Aff with about two cards on it. They were advocating the drone victims be recognized and they stood with them in solidarity. Maybe we could have said this won't really carry over into the world outside debate? How will people be able to learn about this? the judges recommended this to us after we lost and asked how to attack an Aff like this.
ReplyDelete