Tournament: St Marks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood SM | Judge: Randa Martinez
Nuclear Family AC
NARRATIVES 

I affirm that countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power through a strategy of queer theory, which opposes a heteronormative view of a nuclear family.  

The nuclear family is a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children.1 The power of the nuclear family is bad for several reasons, all revolving around the idea that  those not belonging to a nuclear family remain ignored and oppressed because society operates under heteronormativity.  

The way that power must be interpreted in this round is the control that the heterosexual has over the queer body in order to reject the ways in which the nuclear family creates oppression.  
Gemmerli 2009 http://ps.au.dk/fileadmin/Statskundskab/Dokumenter/subsites/Uland/QUEERING_DEVELOPMENT_INCORPORATING_SEXUALITY.pdf  
Norms, in general, consist of meaning, values and beliefs that guide our
AND
a necessarily and desirably queer world” (Warner, 1991: 8).  

The affirmative concludes then that "nuclear power production" in this context means the actions, norms, discourse, laws, and existing power structures that reinforce the legitimacy of the heteronormative nuclear family at the expense of the queer family. To “prohibit” the production of this power would be to reject the specific mechanisms of legitimization of the nuclear family. Therefore the affirmative advocates for a prohibition in this sense as a pedagogical and methodological alternative to the resolution. This means the role of the ballot must be to vote for the debater who makes the round the safest space for queer people. The importance of hearing queer voices in the debate space comes before all other impacts because by engaging in discourse, we can create real lasting change in the world. To queer the resolution is to reveal the hollow ground of straight supremacy. Talking about other issues in the round is obviously very important – we can all agree discourse matters – but the Affirmative engages in more action through not only queer pedagogy but through the presentation of my narrative. It doesn’t matter whether or not they prove they engage in relevant discourse, the neg must prove they make this debate space immediately safer and more accessible to queer people. Embrace queerness as a political project in dismantling the walls of each and every form of captivity. 

The nuclear family stabilizes a world that is antiqueer and legitimates the larger power structure of patriarchy and heteronormativity that is violent against difference. Until the nuclear family has been addressed we can have no further impact calculus.  
The Mary Nardini gang, a group of criminalized queers, attests:  
(criminal queers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin “toward the queerest insurrection” RC)  
In the discourse of queer, we are talking about a space of struggle against
AND
against capitalism, racism and patriarchy and empire. This is our history. 

This idea of the nuclear family creates a system where anyone other than the heterosexual is seen as outside the norm - this must be the most important issue of the round because when queer people become the “other,” this engenders violence and oppression.  

The nuclear family has become the heteronormative model, resulting in the exclusion, oppression, and disregard for queer families and lives. By queering the resolution we challenge the heteronormative assumptions of the resolution, society, and the debate space.  

Therefore the best way to achieve my advocacy is through the pedagogy of queer theory. It is necessary to evaluate the round in terms of queer theory in order to dismantle heteronormativity. 

The 1AC does this through a narrative about my personal experience as a queer person and in resistance to oppressive power structures.  
Peterson 2013
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538720.2013.829394
Queer theory is a contemporary academic discourse and a mode of analysis and critique that
AND
“sameness” with heterosexuals in order to gain social credibility and legitimacy.  

My performance and advocacy allows me to access the queer heterotopia - a space in which I can challenge the heteronormative power structures existing in our world and create queer discourse without harm.
Jones 2009 http://www.interalia.org.pl/en/artykuly/2009_4/13_queer_heterotopias_homonormativity_and_the_future_of_queerness.htm
Utopias are abstract portraits of ideal or perfect societies that do not exist. Therefore
AND
their difference. Unlike utopias, heterotopic spaces can be created in reality. 

Under my role of the ballot, the queer heterotopia is accessible in the debate space and broader world. Queering the resolution with queer theory is the only way we can access the queer heterotopia in the round, which means affirming is the only way to avoid a continuation of queer oppression and dismantle the heteronormative powers that control our society. Critiquing my narrative destroys the queer heterotopia, silencing a queer voice. 

The queer narrative is necessary to resisting heteronormativity in academic spaces.  
Tilsen and Nylund 2010 https://dulwichcentre.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Resisting-normativity-by-Julie-Tilsen-Dave-Nylund.pdf  
Central to the success of the reverse discourse is the compulsory performance of the coming
AND
, many states/provinces and nations have passed legislations addressing hate crimes.  

This means that queer narratives specifically resist the powerful heteronormativity in the institutions attempting to silence them. Through reading my narrative, I resist the heteronormative ways in which the majority will define the resolution. The queer narrative challenges our world in which queer voices are constantly silenced and ignored. This is solvency.  

Queering the resolution would lead to banning nuclear power as the rejection of the oppression created by the nuclear family. Therefore if we do not queer the resolution, then we are complicit in the heteronormative structures of power and violence which are not addressed in debate rounds. Debate resolutions rarely give queer students a chance to talk about our experiences and as queer people, we read, interpret, and engage in things through a queer perspective. We MUST queer the resolution in order to be heard, to survive, and to resist the subjugation of the queer body.