Hunter College Sheinerman Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| Lex | 2 | Lake Highland Prep AA | Chris Kymn |
|
| ||
| Newark | 2 | Ridge SK | Preetham Chippada |
|
| ||
| Yale | Octas | Syosset JW | Bob Overing, Cameron Cohen, Paul Zhou |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any I reserve the right to read anything on Nina Potischman's and Tammuz Frankel's wikis. | 9/29/16 |
Jan Feb - Pug ACTournament: Lex | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AA | Judge: Chris Kymn However, the subject is forced to realize that there is an epistemic gap between their worldview, based only in their own experiences, and other knowledge. This recognition that they cannot truly comprehend the Other’s realities forces them to confront their responsibility to them. Thus, the standard is minimizing totalization of the Other. Prefer additionally: 1) Ethics is impossible without the AC framework. Ethics can only exist in relation to others. Totalization denies the infinite alterity of the other by causing a disconnect between your preconceived notions of someone and the actual being, thus rendering such normative guidelines meaningless. 2) Rejection of the Other’s alterity is the root cause of oppression and thus the framework is a prerequisite to analyzing critical roles of the ballot. 3) The resolution occurs in the context of state action since any laws prohibiting colleges from restricting free speech would stem from the state. And The state is bound by an unconditional obligation towards the Other. I defend the resolution on general principle. My thesis and sole contention is that restrictions of free speech on college campuses are a means of totalization. B. Speech codes give the administration the power to determine what speech is and is not legitimate – this embodies totalization. And U.S. Court of Appeals ruled public universities are direct arms of the state. C. Negating enables colleges to treat the Others as means to their ends, thus reducing students to objects. | 1/14/17 |
Jan Feb - Truth Regime ACTournament: Newark | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ridge SK | Judge: Preetham Chippada Oppressive power structures force subjects to recreate the discourses that backup the rulers, thus creating bio-power. And, dominating power sustains by controlling knowledge and idea production through procedural “rules of exclusion” – method to combat is to expose these mechanisms. Next, US Court of Appeals ruled public universities are direct arms of the state. The state uses universities in crafting truth regimes – they are empirically the main producers of knowledge in society and the government is increasingly trying to control them. AND restrictions on free speech on campuses create and enforce regimes of truth. Speech codes have functioned by depriving students of intellectual agency and relegating power of determining the legitimacy of knowledge to administrators. And speech codes empirically empower the college administration to target student activists who may try to expose their methods – not the racist students Thus, I affirm the resolution “Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech on campuses.” The Aff is a method of denying college administration, and by extension, the government a monopoly over determining validity of ideas and thus sustaining oppressive power. The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best fulfills the role of the Foucaultian specific intellectual. The Foucaultian specific intellectual has obligations to resist the domination of structures that perpetuate orthodox knowledge and allow for all questions and viewpoints. AND The role of the ballot precludes normative ethical frameworks -- Equal inclusion of subjugated knowledge is a prerequisite to answering ethical questions since exclusion allows for the arbitrary imposition of viewpoints that precludes access to normative truths. The role of intellectuals in academic spaces is not to discover objective truth, but to ensure that all of the oppressed are able to speak. And educators in academic spaces need to endorse polyvocal debate – specifically, the judge should be an inclusive educator concerned with including multiple perspectives and pedagogies in the debate round. | 1/9/17 |
Sep Oct - Natives ACTournament: Yale | Round: Octas | Opponent: Syosset JW | Judge: Bob Overing, Cameron Cohen, Paul Zhou First, the nuclear power production industry disproportionately affects Native Americans. Corporations failed to warn of dangers of and placed uranium mines on Navajo land, leading to extreme health consequences. The systematic disenfranchisement of American Indian’s healthcare rights supercharges the impact Poverty in native communities was used by corporations to justify dumping nuclear waste on them Part 2 is the History The genocide on Natives never stopped, just started using different, more lethal tools. The history is buried in colonialism – nuclear industry is central to the modern version of it. Part 3 is the Advocacy United States and Canada will prohibit production of nuclear power on indigenous lands. The plan is a method for reclaiming the sovereignty of indigenous people in North America and sparking coalitions and discussions – C.A.R.E. proves Pragmatically deconstructing hegemonic structures by engaging with government tools is key. Dakota pipeline ruling means current political environment perfect for change for Natives. Part 4 is Framing The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best methodologically deconstructs settler colonialism within the context of the resolution. There are no bystanders with crimes against humanity – the role of the ballot is the only alternative to active colonialism. Discourse was a major tool in the USFG’s removal of Native American sovereignty – changing it is key. The debate community has a responsibility to encourage arguments that enable debaters to be catalysts of positive change in the real world Proving an argument is true is insufficient – the debater must prove why this argument is important for us to believe and carry away with us. | 9/29/16 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|