Changes for page Clements Kolluri Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 8 added, 1 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -A Interpretation: All affs must specify explicitly in the plantext of the 1AC which constitutionally protected free speech they defend not restricting in colleges and universities. To clarify, they must specify which free speech is NOT constitutionally protected e.g. slander, child pornography, actual threats in the 1AC. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 00:27:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Clements Kolluri Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Potential Strake Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 00:27: 13.01 +2016-12-16 00:27:46.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@ 1 +This shell was extemped 2 + 3 +A Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a government policy, They must read a text with a piece of evidence in the 1AC that’s clearly delineating specifying a mechanism for guarantee a right to housing 4 +Standards- 5 +1) Shiftiness 6 +2) CX Doesn't check 7 +3) Advocacy Skills 8 +No RVI 9 +Fairness is a voter 10 +Advocacy skills is a voter 11 +Competing interps 12 +Drop the Debater - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:06:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Clements Kolluri Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +MA - Shell - Implementation Spec - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@ 1 +Wynter K 2 +There is no hope to deal with the question of “humanity,” the potential of what “humans” should be, should think, and how they should act based on these stances within the anthropology of white European models of thought. Regardless of the “critique,” the white call to action allows Europe the continued power to construct “MAN,” within their own systems of thought. Their position is just another example of a moral plea to white decadent anthropology. 3 +(basically says you try to solve a problem of racism within the same Eurocentric knowledge systems which created it in the first place so you can never solve; it’s also a warrant for why materialism is good; it compounds the hatespeech DA) 4 +Syliva Wynter—2006 ( “Interview with Syliva Wynter,ProudFlesh Interview: New Afrikan Journal of Culture, Politics and Consciousness, Issue 4) 5 +PROUD FLESH: At this point in your life’s work, who could think of your writing without thinking of its critical thesis on “humanism,” of Western humanism, or what it calls “Man,” which also raises critical questions of “consciousness,” does it not? And other questions, too, of course. SYLVIA WYNTER: Such as, “Why does this meaning have to be put on being Black—this meaning of non-being?” These are the kinds of questions that you guys are going to ask. I beg you guys to go back and read about Copernicus, Galileo and so on. The Darwinian thing was a bit of a struggle, but not as much~-~-strangely enough . . . PROUD FLESH: Yes, you consistently show how “the Copernican revolution” was one enabled by imperialist exploration-cum-exploitation or conquest. For undergraduates in Western universities, in particular, they simply stick the Copernicus issue in the anthology of “modern Western philosophy,” as a lesser textual concern, without dealing with it or its significance; I mean, with no context or explanation. SYLVIA WYNTER: They never even wanted to write about it! And why? Because I think they are aware of the implications, if taken seriously. That’s how they took over the world. We have to take it all seriously. YOU CANNOT SOLVE THE ISSUE OF “CONSCIOUSNESS” IN TERMS OF THEIR BODY OF “KNOWLEDGE.” You just can’t. Just as within the medieval order of knowledge there was no way in which you could explain why it is that certain planets seemed to be moving backwards. Because you were coming from a geocentric model, right? So you had to “know” the world in that way. Whereas from our “Man-centric” model, we cannot solve “consciousness” because “Man” is a purely ontogenetic/purely biological conception of being, who then creates “culture.” So if we say “consciousness” is “constructed,” who does the constructing? You see? Whereas in Fanon’s understanding of ontogeny-and-sociogeny, there’s no problem. Do you see what I mean? 6 +Vote neg for an analysis of the aff-Social systems of power must be discursively legitimated. The issue is not “what we speak,” but how “what we speak,” perpetuates very specific cultural determinations of how systems work and respond to our discursive appeals. The Negative’s position is not simply about a difference of values about the world, rather this is a difference about how the Aff reifies and naturalizes the structures, systems, and types of knowledge that perpetuate the cultural concepts of white supremacy. 7 +Sylvia Wynter—1992 (“Beyond the Categories of the Master Conception: The Counterdoctrine of the Jamesian Poiesis,” in C.L.R. James Caribbean, eds. Paget Henry and Paul Buhle, 63-91) 8 +To be effective systems of power must be discursively legitimated. This is not to say that power is originally a set of institutional structures that are subsequently legitimated. On the contrary, it is to suggest the equiprimordiality of structure and cultural conceptions in the genesis of power. These cultural conceptions, encoded in language and other signifying systems, shape the development of political structures and are also shaped by them. The cultural aspects of power are as original as the structural aspects; each serves as a code for the other's development. It is from these elementary cultural conceptions that complex legitimating discourses are constructed. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:06:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Clements Kolluri Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +MA - Wynter K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@ 1 +This shell was extemped 2 + 3 +A Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a government policy, They must read a text with a piece of evidence in the 1AC that’s clearly delineating specifying a mechanism for guarantee a right to housing 4 +Standards- 5 +1) Shiftiness 6 +2) CX Doesn't check 7 +3) Advocacy Skills 8 +No RVI 9 +Fairness is a voter 10 +Advocacy skills is a voter 11 +Competing interps 12 +Drop the Debater - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:06:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Clements Kolluri Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +MA - Shell - Implementation Spec - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-16 23:09:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +drew burd - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-17 18:10:47.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Tom Evnen - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cedar Park MG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:02:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aff was Give Back the Land - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1,2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:05:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aff was Give Back the Land - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3,4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-09 20:06:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville SM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aff was Give Back the Land - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TFA