Arcadia chan Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harvard Westlake | 4 | X | X |
|
| ||
| USC | 1 | X | X |
|
| ||
| USC | 5 | X | X |
|
| ||
| contact | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1AC Harvard WestlakeTournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 4 | Opponent: X | Judge: X Framing The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who better performatively and methodologically resists surveillance. CX checks any ambiguities. The surveillance state corrupts scholarship through “thoughtcrime” – confronting this is a prior question Surveillance has invaded public pedagogy, coopting dissent, debate, and critical dialogue, resistance is key to avoid global violence “The practice of surveillance is both separate and unequal.” Minority groups represent the bulk of those targeted It’s try or die – the surveillance state ensures genocide and extinction The ballot is key - just like voting in system of government, casting a ballot in a debate is an endorsement of material change. Thus, the judge is not just the arbiter of who wins the debate, but is recognized as an agent implementing change on a micropolitical level. Debate should surround material consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression. Contention The censorship of online speech enables universities to monitor their students and staff – everything from emails and social media to campus whereabouts. This draws parallels to NSA surveillance, as universities shut down criticism of the surveillance regime. This debate should center around online speech – it’s the core controversy of the topic Thus, I affirm: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected online speech. I reserve the right to clarify. The aff solves: 1 Resisting surveillance in education causes a widespread culture shift 2 Surveillance uniquely threatens students’ freedoms. Criticizing and protesting surveillance both on campus and in debate is vital to civic engagement and social change. Students are key – no one else will oppose surveillance. 3 The AFF’s critical interrogation and analyses of surveillance is crucial to analyzing the way in which daily life and the body itself has become a feature of securitization—our dissent functions as an unravelling and exposure of dominant power relations Pedagogical praxis is key – translating critique into action is key to making education central in political effectiveness. | 2/22/17 |
1AC USC Round 1Tournament: USC | Round: 1 | Opponent: X | Judge: X The state’s justifications for mass surveillance are a rhetorical tool to paper over the violence of US militarism. The terror expert industry is not academic but political. View their evidence with skepticism. It’s try or die – the surveillance state ensures genocide and extinction The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who better resists surveillance. The ballot is key - just like voting in system of government, casting a ballot in a debate is an endorsement of material change. Thus, the judge is not just the arbiter of who wins the debate, but is recognized as an agent implementing change on a micropolitical level. The standard is mitigating material inequalities. Ideal theory strips away questions of particularities and isolates a universal feature of agents. This normalizes a single experience and epistemically skews ethical theorizing. Debate should surround material consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression. This debate should center around online speech – it’s the core controversy of the topic Thus the plan – Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected online speech. The censorship of online speech enables universities to monitor their students and staff – everything from emails and social media to campus whereabouts – this draws parallels to NSA surveillance, as universities shut down criticism of the surveillance regime. Surveillance is mutually exclusive with First Amendment rights and is grounds for injury under the Constitution Online censorship fails because it will move elsewhere – counterspeech is effective, empirics prove – soft enforcement solves Any restriction spills over Resisting surveillance in education causes a widespread culture shift Surveillance uniquely threatens students’ freedoms. Criticizing and protesting surveillance both on campus and in debate is vital to civic engagement and social change. | 3/4/17 |
ContactTournament: contact | Round: 1 | Opponent: 1 | Judge: 1 | 11/6/16 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|