Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[64]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[64]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,24 +1,0 @@
1		-Interpretation: Debaters should read substantively justified frameworks grounded in a normative starting point to combat and understand pre-fiat oppression. Consistency with the best liberation strategy for the oppressed requires a debate where we explain what this oppression is, how we react to it, and why it’s the only relevant impact. To clarify, my argument is not oppression is ok but that debating the justifications is inescapable from solving oppression.
2		-Violation: You literally say you shouldn’t waste time justifying why oppression is bad.
3		-Net Benefits:
4		-First, saying oppression is bad without normatively justifying it is insufficient. Connecting theory to the real world is key to produce social change. A non-reflective theory only reinforces stereotypes, turns their performance.
5		-Smith and Eaton“Role of reflection and praxis in community-based learning and social justice work” by Toby Smith and Marie Eaton http://cielearn.org/wp-content/themes/ciel/docs/Praxis_Social20Justice202-10.pdf
6		-“If reflection is an interpretation of the unknown through the lens of the known, students will reflect in the only way they know, which often means applying stereotypes, repeating cliches, and describing their emotions. The emotions are often the most intense aspect of an unfamiliar situation and so students frequently focus on them. We can develop all the writing and discussion exercises we like in our attempts to encourage students to achieve a deeper level of knowledge, but if we do nothing to disrupt familiar narratives, we merely reinforce existing patterns of thought. To achieve a complex understanding of the unfamiliar, it is necessary to break with these comfortable frameworks of interpretation. Well, for me it was like I think I came into the class naively looking for answers to questions I had and then I just came up with more questions which gave me more answers to ask more questions and it just kept going and going and going. (Mary-Jayne – interview) If we are to encourage students to challenge comfortable old orthodoxies, they must be prepared before they engage with the community and learn new conceptual tools and receive relevant substantive information continually. As Jack Mezirow notes, “We have a strong tendency to reject ideas that fail to fit our preconceptions....” These are powerful and tenacious truths that come from “cultural assimilation” and “primary caregivers” (Mezirow 1997) ”. It is very difficult to challenge the apparently coherent and unquestionable authority of home, church, and state. Reflection per se does not necessarily require that we critically evaluate our assumptions. Moreover, in our consumerist, often anti-intellectual culture, pragmatism trumps philosophy. “Just do it.” All this social change work I had done prior to the social change series had really been ...just ... getting in these organizations that...told me what to do and I went out and did it. (Mary-Jayne – interview) The greatest part of this class for me was the praxis work, and having a space, both oral and written to reflect, analyze, and evaluate the actual, real life work that I was doing. Without the built in opportunities to reflect I don’t feel like I would have done that for many of my activities, and when you don’t reflect on your work, you miss a great many chances to learn from your mistakes and your successes...I have the tools to look at any situation and analyze it, which I was not very capable of doing before. (Ashley SE 310c) Nor is it a question of simply giving alternative information to students. Information is not knowledge; it is merely data. Knowledge, in all its epistemological clarity, is a synthesis of thought. Thus the goal of the social change series was not to politically reorient students but to facilitate a self-learning puzzlement. Rethinking assumptions on which initial understandings of a problem were based. (Van Manen, M. (1987) Human science and the study of pedagogy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education. Hamilton, Ontario) Kolb, D. Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences. in A.W. Chickering and Associates. (1981) The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. At the end of the third term, Toby Smith and Marie Eaton conducted a group feedback session with the students. A transcription of his session provided many of the student quotes used to illustrate the ideas in this paper. Students at Fairhaven College are required to write a Self-Evaluation for every course. This quote, and others designated SE were taken from those narratives. situation where students themselves evolve an ethical thoughtfulness and evaluative intelligence which transcends allegiance to authoritative voices and through which they achieve their own knowledge of the world. When I started out the first day and we were building this analytical framework, I thought oh my god I didn’t realize that this is what it’s all about....I’ve never thought about half these things and so I’d have to go through some major...sorting out...just to apply it to the case study. And by the time I got out into the community I felt like I was almost asking so many questions that I was afraid to talk and ask, you know I just started analyzing the group dynamics and...different aspects...it was good because then I could apply it...for the rest of my Fairhaven career... One thing is developing a language with which to talk about it – I had no language and I had no support network, and the class sort of offered me, gave me a language to talk about it and gave me people to talk about it with and so its influence has sort of transformed me – so I would say I’m a totally different person on that level. (Mary-Jayne – interview) Everything I have studied and learned from being a part of this class has expanded who I am, by challenging some old patterns of behavior, beliefs, expectations and judgments, while simultaneously, validating what has brought me to this point. (Regina SE 310c p5) The kind of reflective practice aimed at in this social change series was the kind of transformation of consciousness in the tradition of Paulo Freire and John Dewey and explored by educators such as Jack Mezirow, Ira Shor, and Max Van Manen. required the integration of, not the application of, analytical and evaluative thought and engaged a dialogue between theories and the stories of personal experience to build deeper understanding. In this type of reflective practice we reframe, recast, and reconstruct our past understandings as we move back and forth between what we know and what we do, between text and our lives. ”
7		-
8		-Second, their use of educational spaces as a sites of empowerment places the judge into the role of the authoritarian adjudicator who molds students in accordance to a particular political end. This kills any conception of critical citizenship and turns their performance.
9		-Rickert Rickert, Thomas. ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World." JacOnline Journal
10		-“An example of the connection between violence and pedagogy is implicit in the notion of being "schooled" as it has been conceptualized by Giroux and Peter Mclaren. They explain, "Fundamental to the principles that inform critical pedagogy is the conviction that schooling for self- and social empowerment is ethically prior to questions of epistemology or to a mastery of technical or social skills that are primarily tied to the logic of the marketplace" (153-54). A presumption here is that it is the teacher who knows (best), and this orientation gives the concept of schooling a particular bite: though it presents itself as oppositional to the state and the dominant forms of pedagogy that serve the state and its capitalist interests, it nevertheless reinscribes an authoritarian model that is congruent with any number of oedipalizing pedagogies that "school" the student in proper behavior. As Diane Davis notes, radical, feminist, and liberatory pedagogies "often camouflage pedagogical violence in their move from one mode of 'normalization' to another" and "function within a disciplinary matrix of power, a covert carceral system, that aims to create useful subjects for particular political agendas" (212). Such oedipalizing pedagogies are less effective in practice than what the claims for them assert; indeed, the attempt to "school" students in the manner called for by Giroux and McLaren is complicitous with the malaise of postmodern cynicism. Students will dutifully go through their liberatory motions, producing the proper assignments, but it remains an open question whether they carry an oppositional politics with them. The "critical distance" supposedly created with liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class.” (299-300)
11		-Third, their unquestionable model to oppression that justifies itself through self-reference ensures a rigid vision of resistance where the judge prescribes the student an imperialist model of education – turns their performance.
12		-Rickert 2 Rickert, Thomas. ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World." JacOnline Journal
13		- “This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing pedagogies that rely on modernist strategies of critical distance or political agency. Implicit in such pedagogies is the faith that teaching writing can resist dominant social practices and empower students; however, the notion that we can actually foster resistance through teaching is questionable. As Paul Mann states, "all the forms of opposition have long since revealed themselves as means of advancing it. ... The mere fact that something feels like resistance and still manages to offend a few people (usually not even the right people) hardly makes it effective" (138). In light of Mann's statement, I urge us to take the following position: teaching writing is fully complicitous with dominant social practices, and inducing students to write in accordance with institutional precepts can be as disabling as it is enabling. By disabling, I do not mean that learning certain skills-typically those most associated with current-traditional rhetorics, such as superficial forms of grammatical correctness, basic organization, syntactic clarity, and such-are not useful. Such skills are useful, and they are often those most necessary for tapping the power that writing can wield. In learning such skills, however, we should also ask what students aren’t are not learning. What other forms of writing and thinking are being foreclosed or distorted, forms of writing that have their own, different powers? If one of our goals as teachers of writing is to initiate students into rhetorics of power and resistance, we should also be equally attuned to rhetorics of contestation. Specifically, we must take on the responsibility that comes with the impossibility of knowing the areas of contention and struggle that will be the most important in our students' lives. Pedagogy could reflect this concern in its practices by attending to the idea that each student's life is its own telos, meaning that the individual struggles of each student cannot and should not necessarily mirror our own. Or, to put it another way, students must sooner or later overcome us, even though we may legitimate our sense of service with the idea that we have their best interests in mind. However, we should be suspicious of this presumptive ethic, for, as Mann astutely observes, "nothing is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other” (48)
14		-Rickert 1 and 2 Outweigh:
15		-A.
16		-B.
17		-Fourth, it destroys critical discussion if assumptions like those about oppression being bad are not justified. Foucault 84
18		-Foucault, Michel. "Polemics, Politics and Problematizations." In Essential Works of Foucault, edited by Paul Rabinow. Vol. 1 "Ethics". The New Press, 1998.
19		-In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the ques­ tions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of the other. Questions and answers depend on a game-a game that is at once pleasant and difficult-in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of the dialogue. The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On prin­ ciple, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polem­ icist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.
20		-Analytic Impact
21		-Fifth, philosophy is ABOUT social realities and teaches us how to address them. My framework claims are about to real world, not playing some academic game. This is a pre-fiat turn because she’s trying to suppress philosophical discussion while I say we should argue about the best framework. Traber 13:
22		-And, here is where I’m about to sound sappy: philosophy in a very real way can teach you what it means to be a better person. I am always stunned when theory shells casually debaters drop statements that “deontology is useless in day to day life.” Kant is talking about day to day life. While this is not true of all philosophy as studied in the academy, the vast majority of the authors that we use in debate and are critiqued for being ivory tower are speaking seriously about choices we face on a day to day basis. I know personally that my time in debate has made me a better person, if only because it has exposed me to ideas that caused me to question my basic assumptions about the world and about ethics. There is a persistent assumption that those of us who teach debaters about authors like Hobbes, Schmitt, or Derrida are doing so because we think they are strategic, not because we think it will help them be a better person. I can only speak for myself, but I think the ability to grapple with complicated and problematic arguments, understand their warrants and defend their claims, is a key step in growing up to a critical, engaged, moral human being. We are rarely going to be in a position to make decisions about nuclear policy or due process claims, but we will make decisions about what is the right thing to do every hour. Morality, despite the fact that we often think of it instrumentally, is not about debate rounds and I can only see good results from having high school students think about it.
23		-
24		-This all impacts back to their ROB of resisting oppression. These arguments all justify why you don’t do that and your speech act is one that re-inforces it on a pre-fiat level. Drop the debater for those reasons- they made the debate about stopping oppression, and this shell proves they just perpetuate it. Competing interps- reasonability makes no sense on this shell since it’s a methods question, which means it’s offense-defense, not a fairness concern.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-12-29 07:03:46.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Evnen, Wright

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-North Crowley LR

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-34

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3 - Justify Oppression Normatively or Lose v2

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Strake RR