Most of our 1NC's have consisted of some story-telling, narratives, poetry, and some combination of the cards you see below and the cards AND some of the cards from our affirmative (namely, Sparks, Young and Apple and Beane).  We also employ stories (though not always narratives proper) from topic countries.  

We mix-and-match a lot of the below arguments/evidence before debates so its really hard to say what our stable "shells" are for these positions.  The central theme of our arguments are that debate is fundamentally exclusive toward certain groups.  The affirmative engages in methodological and stylistic practices that perpetuate this exclusion.  And that heeding the perspectives of oppressed peoples is a superior method for opening debate and making it more accessible to those who need it most.

We argue that democracy assistance is bad historically and that evidence that supports it is problematic epistemologically.  We contend that these problems run all the way up through the think-tanks, universities, classrooms, to debate rounds and begins with how we understand the world through technical, state-centered, top-down approaches to social problems.

Mumia Abu-Jamal 1998 [“A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” 9/19/98, http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm]

 It has often been observed that America is a truly violent … every decade, throughout the world.”[Gilligan, p. 196]

Cuomo 1996

"War is not just an event"

theory that does not...agents of the state

Nayar 1999

the significance of...for human relations.

The assumption that they need help and we can give it creates ignorance – the 1AC participates in a discourse that NEEDS to think of the target country as broken, desperately in need of intervention – the result is the trivialization of local perspectives and the consolidation of state power

Dr. Peter Uvin 1998

(Associate Professor at the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University, worked for Swiss NGO in many African countries, Ph.D in international relations, Aiding Violence: The development enterprise in Rwanda, pg. 157-159)

But maybe the most profound ...majority of the poor.

US funding of NGO’s is short-sighted because it ignores intersections of oppression in favor of a “the people” vs “the oppressors” model – an intersectional approach that heeds these multiple and complex perspectives is better

Jad 2003

Islah, Ph.D researcher at SOAS (School of African and Asian Studies), University of London, on leave from Bir Zeit University,  where she lectures on gender and politics in the Women’s Studies Program and Cultural Studies Departmentm, Gender Myths and Feminist Fables: Repositioning Gender in Development Policy and Practice, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, 2-4 July 2003, “The NGOization of the Arab Women’s Movements” www.siyanda.org/docs/jad_ngoization.doc

The worldwide promotion of democracy and ‘civil society’....but tend to shift and intersect (Al-Ali 1998: 45).

DA = rigging elections

Sussman 2006

(Gerald Sussman teaches urban studies and communications at Portland State University and has published widely on the international political economy of information technology, mass media, and development.  “The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe”, 2006, Volume 58, Issue 07

)

Among the principal targets .,..and the overall good intentions of the state.

Perspectives of oppressed peoples are important/inform policy making

Brent Henze, "Who Says Who Says?" Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism, 2000


Heeding perspectives of the oppressed is good

Fiona Cambell, , Open Lecture Certificate IV in Community Services,Melton Campus, Victoria University of Technology Thursday November 4th 1997

Doubling is bad

Fasching and deChant 2001

(Darrell and Dell, Prof. of Religious Studies @ University of South Florida, Prof. of Religious Studies @ USF,Comparative Religious Ethics: A Narrative Approach, Pg.  42-43)

Interpreting our own historical...human rights, and human liberation.

state-centered solutions bad

Wadiwel 02
(Dinesh Joesph, “Cows and Sovereignty: Biopower and Animal Life” Borderlands E-Journal Vol.1 #2)
“But such a political… life shared by both entities”

Debate arguments are ahistorical, despite being defined in history
Spanos, Cross-ex, pg. 467

Support for revolutions in the middle east is not noble, its calculative – the US will use the plan as an attempt to manipulate elections and take-control of these popular uprisings – Just like Eastern Europe, the history of US  interventionism will not change

 Ghannoushi

The Guardian 2011

The first wave of Arab revolutions is entering...Washington to "discuss democratic transition".

Women mobilizing now

Anushay 2011

Eltahawy states that aside from Egypt’s...out of revolution’s closet.

We need to speak-out against democracy assistance in the Arab Spring – the affirmative is a thinly veiled attempt to co-opt these revolutions in favor of imperialist control – voting negative is a way of heeding the perspectives of the people who are fighting for political ends that are corrupted by aid

Dixon 11

(Mark, Department of Sociology at Cornell University, “An Arab Spring”, Review of African Political Economy, June 21, Vol. 38, No. 128, June 2011, 309–316)

These are the so-called prescriptions... are present with the resulting shocks.

Use the button to Add an Entry.

Use the second box for cites formatted with wiki syntax or plain text, such as that exported from Verbatim 4.

Neg: Emporia WW

Round # 5

 Tournament: Shirley

Vs Team: Samford BL

Judge: Jadon Marianetti (Florida)

Off Case Args:

1 Off-Case K-

1NC narrative: As people, we become disempowered about what the USFG can do for us.   People are forced to align themselves with the system.  The system is bad in Kansas City, Missouri, where I (Toya-the 1N) am from.  No adequate education, racism, gangs, poverty, commercial exploitation of people of color, based on youth, gender, etc. I am a child soldier.  Even though I’m over 18, I am a child soldier, who has faced oppression in these circumstances in KC. 

-The loss of the glare of reality they’re supposed to be acceptable for.* (* denotes card read)

-You spark a revolution by doing it.*

-We make that movement; we as debaters have an obligation to ourselves, and decrease reliance on the USFG to do it for us.

-The state creates invisibility with respect to structural violence; the local level is key.

-The aff fails by begging the support of the USFG

-Their narrative about the girl soldier is from the Philippines; they didn’t know her name and misstated her country of origin; this proves they don’t care and are disinterested.

-They’re short-sighted in what method to use.

-What good is support if it can’t be sustained?

-1N- narrative about learning to tie her own shoes; @ that point of tying my shoes myself, I became liberated.   Now you take a walk in my shoes. We must recognize the intersectionality of identities.

-Girls and womyn soldiers don’t just fight, but they also get forced into sex slavery & domestic violence.  Kaplan & Meyer ‘00

-There’s a unique complexity of intersectional oppression which requires a new rights paradigm.

-This is reinforced by unique gender stigmas. Kaplan & Meyer ‘00

-The Role of the Ballot—Vote for the team that is best engaged/situated in the story of children & the way of how the state treats children & what we do in the round.

-We can’t just pat ourselves on the back and say our work is done/the state did our work for us.

-Immediacy of our impacts—in debate, in our communities, comes first.

Case Args:

None

Block Strategy:

2NC-

-2N Narrative: I am a child soldier; I went to the streets and sold crack out of my bedroom window, to pay for my mother’s prescriptions, but she died anyway in 2002.  I had to reexamine myself.  I gave up on education, family, and myself, standing on the corner with a Glock, waiting to kill the next N-word who messed with me.  Then I met someone who told me I had to find something to do with my life.  I had nothing; I wasn’t interested in sports or rap, and I had nothing until I found debate, but I’m still fighting to be a part of it.  I’m still a child soldier.

-You should vote for the team with the best performance and method—XT Fashon ev.

-We turn the 1AC; they’re divorced from reality.

-Appropriating the U.S. response is not about child soldiers, but about seeking to always engage this country; they’re the right wing now.

-Debate Accessibility- Structural inequalities make violence inevitable; they have no social position. 

-The aff never gets back to people in Yemen (Fiat Link). 

-Aff does nothing for people who have already been soldiered.

-Why we preference methodology; it relates back to the personal realm.

-Examples: Crips, gangs, children living in communities were the government was building ICBMS.

-Youth being oppressed by USFG now

-They don’t’ answer our democracy args—they can do something about it but they don’t alter the flow of traditional debate.

-We win—their method is uniquely bad.*

-Democracy theory requires performing kritiks but also theorizing how the media works.

-1 activist can make the US wonder what we are doing.

-This = Direct AT: Their cede the state args

-Legislative solutions are not the appropriate vehicle.

-Must be more aware of individuals as related to debate

-They don’t heed perspectives; they don’t even know the correct info about their child soldier who gives her narrative; should not just listen, should heed.

-Refusal to talk about Toya’s (the 1N’s) story is a demonstration of a disinterested refusal to engage our advocacy; that’s part of their flawed methodology.

-1NR-

-This debate is about exclusion: vote for the team that best engages exclusion.

-Perm doesn’t solve—It’s shallow.  The aff doesn’t solve itself; XT-The State à structural violence from the 1NC.

-Extend the 2 Kaplan & Meyer cards from the 1NC-Intersectionality = a Net benefit they cannot access; they short circuit the movement. *Bell ’99; This is an Impact Turn b/c well always say sexist language, like they said “you guys” over and over and over, they’ve already degraded womyn; that performance is an independent reason to you can’t vote for them.

-They pacify; Young card, Sure they allow things but don’t create the space needed; they just say “that’s good enough.”

-The negative is the starting point; should start with our relationship to oppression 1^st, & then with state action.

-The Perm doesn’t recognize their privilege as white males. 

-XT-We can à true dream spillover in debate; speaking out for more democracy here, in this activity.

-They didn’t even know the name of the child soldier they read, or that she was from the Philippines, not Uganda or Yemen.

2nr Strategy:

-We don’t need to win an alt to win; we’re winning this argument turns their methodology’aff.

-They try to hide exclusion under the guise of a good idea.

-The Perm is a reason to vote neg; for child soldiers everywhere who have been oppressed, & for those who have already been soldiers.

-Intersectionality- They don’t care about these people; Hanson ev.  Must start our thoughts from the lives of the oppressed, not theirs’.

-What does the perm look like?  How have they performed it?

-We access perm solvency better—Deal with child soldiers here, individually, first.

-Error replication—We’re winning a turn to the Aff—aid fungibility; it’ll be used to buy more guns, etc.  We don’t even need to win our alt.

-Their aff does nothing for existing child soldiers; not with equality in debate.  XT-Youngs ev.

-They à right wing take-over; cause  psychological violence.

-They turn people off with these kinds of conversation.

-They barely even talk about child soldiers.

-What about womyn’s rights?  They should talk about Toya.

-Their AT: “you guys” is ridiculous; no one walks around and says “hey girls” to everyone of both genders.

-Their criticism of the term “f*ck” is really stupid—They don’t assume womyn can f*ck in this space.

Neg:Emporia State WW

Round #  4Tournament:

Vs Team: Central Oklahoma AV

Judge: Gordie Miller

Off Case Args:

Critique of debate and their ethics of truth.

Case Args:

Block Strategy:

same

2nr Strategy:

same

Neg: Emporia WW

Round #2  Tournament: Wake

Vs Team: Michigan LH

Judge: Stout, Dan (This scouting report is Carlotti’s account of the debate round)

Off Case Args:

The neg’s contention is anchored around two locus arguments:

1)         Role of the ballot:  Their framework is that we need to perform democracy in the classroom/debate space so that we have the tools that we need in order to be effective citizens and thus actually affect government policy.

2)         Advocacy: the neg advocacy is to open debate up to personal perspectives and allow everyone’s voice to be heard – debating about the USFG silences those personal understandings of violence and oppression that are both necessary to have an effective understanding of the harms of the 1AC as well as to have a broader impact to debate itself; they solve inclusivity of more people by allowing their voices to be heard, which means they access the benefits of why debate is good better than the aff.

Case Args:

Block Strategy:

A large amount of the neg block gets much deeper on all of these points relating specifically to Bahrain and the 1AC.  The negative makes the accessibility argument a large part of the debate and leverages this as offense against all of the framework-ish args from the aff.  The neg also shapes the link debate as one of omission; the 1AC ignores the interpersonal oppression that occurs within the United States and elsewhere which prevents broad inclusion of democratic perspectives in debate.  Lack of everyone’s perspective = not democratic, thus the aff doesn’t meet role of the ballot.

2nr Strategy:

Same as Block.

Round 1, vs. Wake BC, Judge: Watts

1NC

Poem/Rap: Selection, Deflection, Reflection

Make a selection

Uniqueness DA to taking step against militarism – 1AC made an explicit choice to address militarism internationally and ignore the militarism domestically

People in inner city do not have equal access to services or safety

Quality of life is political punishment

Spark a political revolution – “you simply do it”

Fasching and deChant 2001 (Comparative Religious Ethics (book) 42-43)

Interpreting our own historical situation is a risky… human rights, and human liberation

Attach their names to the same system that enacts violence on an everyday basis – turns their performance of Saul Williams

Their names matter in the immediacy of these spaces

Become complacent in a circular politics that fails to address structural violence

Includes several personal narratives about experience of oppression domestically

Evaluate power dynamic attached to advocacy – regardless of whether plan is good idea or not – must evaluate subject position of aff

Framework: who best performatively and methodologically confronts violence?

Psychological violence – hard for oppressed people to engage in debate the same way the aff does

Should not have to defend things we do not believe – only those who are privileged can do so

3 tiered method:

1.       Speak from social location

2.       Traditional Intellectual (provide a theoretical framework)

3.       Organic Intellectual – 4 standards

a.       Be a member of the aggrieved community

b.      Reflect the needs of that community

c.       Create a counter hegemonic discourse

d.      Build coalitions

Coalitions are fractured – aff perpetuates exclusion of the oppressed.  Stands by idley and passively

Space should be accessible – any performance of aff that precludes our methodology is problematic because it excludes the people that need to be included the most – taints the methodology for confronting violence

2NC

We have a unique position of students in regards to the issue of democracy

The aff is not affirmative – pointing out some messed up stuff is not affirming anything – how do you evaluate the aff?  What is their role?

Where does this leave the judge?  The ballot cannot help anyone under their framework.  Only we educationally posit the role of the judge.

The methodological flaws of the 1AC outweigh the advantages to the 1AC

Their advocacy is detached from the community

Fasch evidence – runs the risk of  being dangerous because it teaches underprivileged students that their grievances mean nothing because we should always be looking outward – pushes domestic violence out of conversations – answers the permutation and the root cause claims

No respect or relationship to the domestic other – allows for continuation of politics of hierarchy in the debate space

What is our role?  How do we access and activate the discussions we have?

Methodology excludes people from the inside

Framework provides uniqueness - arguments about debate turning people into pawns

Their form of politics is meaningless and justifies more structural violence – aff lack of response is problematic – allows state to disengage from people in a supposed representative democracy

3 tier methodology levels playing field on the way we have this discussion

Speak from social location – aff has universal collection as We – who can claim the identity of WE – not everyone – aff does not problematize this – your role as a judge is to problematize their complicity

3 tier methodology has praxis in real world  - work with high schoolers to impact community

1AC has lead to militarization of debate space

Act of complicity to systematically mislead

Failure to examine one’s own speaking position replicates structures of privilege and oppression

Campbell 1997 (Fiona, members.tripod.com, 12/4/07)

So what am I – to speak… allied with resistance to oppression

We create scholarship with accessibility

People are speaking out now globally and locally people cannot access this speech – we need a standpoint that starts with the experiences of those who are oppressed – gives them a hand in their own liberation strategies

What is the position of you and your relationship to violence?

Engaging in social location is a process and not an event

1NR

Have possibility to select – as a judge with agency – make a choice about how you interrogate violence

They facilitate disengagement – means 1AC never takes place

This debate is about debate and its facilitation of invisibility

Question is whose method to violence is best

Their disingenuous engagement with the topic does not meet our approach

Psychological violence – Watts evidence – moral obligation to facilitate equal rights and access to engagement

AT: PERM

All parts of the 1NC are competitive with the 1AC

They do not have a comprehensive story or narrative

Starting point DA

Can’t understand oppression in the abstract – our perspectives key

Brent Henze, “Who says Who says?” Reclaiming Identity, ed. Paula Moya, 2000

Though I argue against efforts to speak for those” … “systemic yet particular effect of power”

Vote neg if you prefer the perm

Access is a key internal link – they don’t increase access means they can’t meet method

Are not organic intellectual – 4 standards for organic intellectual

No counter hegemonic discourse – the attempt at permutation is disingenuous

Only neg spills over – aff is mental masturbation

We need to focus on home – when do we actually worry about it? World of aff = never

They are a normative advocacy – fractures coalitions – means no solvency

No good knowledge production

2NR

Debate about methodological exclusion that prop of matrices of power

Who best performatively and methodologically addresses violence enacted by USFG

Accessibility is biggest I/L in round

Aff refuses to treat psychological violence – means they can’t engage in debate

3 tier method solves – has a proven track record of allowing people to even enter a debate or convo in the first place – means its necessary to aff solvency

No explanation of what the permutation is/does – we say the alt is completely mutually exclusive

1AC is lack of social location starting point – 1AR attempts to enclose his identity – perpetuates exclusion of those who can only relate / express political agency in a space where they can speak from their standpoint

1AC is insular and self-serving

Judging cannot be objective – no way to determine “who did better debating” without more explanation of framework

Our purpose is to illustrate violence in debate round – disengagement within classroom

Sequencing – the oppressed must have a hand in their own liberation – if they do not meet method and improve access they can never solve

Strategic omission is a link – just be prepared to debate our project – our project is predictable

You do not reflect the needs of this community or facilitate diversity within the community 

Same argument as earlier in the Round Robin-

Democracy is not equal access. That's the name of the game. 

Role of the ballot- Vote for the team that best performatively or methodologically plants the seeds of democracy in the classroom.

Aff's should make arguments that consider the following three most important factors 

methodology

Accessibility

Work 

Link was focused around intersectionality and inability to comprehend distinctions within groups.

Case arguments were made analytically that the SCAF will not allow change to happen.

Denial is even worse than colorblindness. Concerns about climate change and global warming that omit discussions of race and racism reinforce white privilege. This is not a mere link of omission, but a form of racist marginalizing that undermines survival

Wise 10 (Tim, International Lecturer and anti-racist essayist, http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/)

But as troubling as colorblindness can be when evinced......people of color and their concerns, but is to weaken their fight for survival.

Our framework better encompasses their laboratory model for activism and a pre-requisite to all their policy good offense

Gehrke 98 (Pat J., "Critique Arguments as Policy Analysis: Policy Debate Beyond the Rationalist Perspective" Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 19, p. 18-39)

Just as Weimer and Vining seek to ensure that the training of policy analysts considers.....weaknesses of the rationalist policy paradigm (Anderson 31).