Kritiking Topicality and "debate hegemony"

[Jason Regnier]

I find none of these points problematic.  In fact, I agree with all of them.
T is not "inherently" more exclusionary; its just deployed that way.  Affs
should be topical as well.  I agree that the resolution serves a purpose.  I
agree that the aff must show that the negative has ground and that that
ground is predictable.  Fairness is an important value.  Like I said in a
previous post, you have to wiegh it versus other factors.

jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Kirk Evans" <nkirkevans at mail.utexas.edu>
To: "a. ryan" <abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>; "Jason Regnier"
<jason at regnier.com>
Cc: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:02 AM
Subject: Kritiking Topicality and "debate hegemony"


> I hate to join with Andy in some unholy alliance, but I thinks he is right
> on two things:
> 1. Topicality is not inherently more violent than any other argument that
> attempts to configure the forum in a particular way--whether it be
> kritikal, performative, or "conditionality bad."
> 2. Throwing around words like "ideology," "hegemony," and "violence" while
> making analogies to egregious historical injustices--only decreases your
> credibility. To reiterate a lesson from Topicality 101, THE AFF MUST HAVE
A
> COUNTER-INTERPRETATION. Affs who depart from "conventional" policy-making
> will never win consistently unless they can articulate two things:
> 1. What ground they give the neg.
> 2. How this ground is predictable.
> The second is harder than the first, since I don't think the resolution
> gave the negative the impression that they should be packing their
> "autobiography bad" evidence. Once the aff has established those two
> things, then proving how the negative's restriction of the resolution to a
> particular meaning is an instantiation of destructive politics will be
just
> icing on the cake. I have won and lost a great deal of rounds running
> "non-conventional" debate arguments, and I have rarely been able to win
> without being able to prove those two things. Complain all you want about
> "debate hegemony"--in reality, debate hegemony is defined less by a
> specific set of arguments than by a group of people who have the ability
to
> explain why their arguments should yield a ballot.
>
> -Kirk Evans
> Texas Debate
>
> At 01:36 AM 2/21/2001 -0600, a. ryan wrote:
> >
> >> Well lets see...  at its most basic level, topicality is an argument
that
> >> refuses to engage and instead goes to jurisdiction.
> >
> >Sometimes the process is more important than the outcome.  The rules are
> >central to the presentation of the arguments in a manner that best
> >forwards productive policymaking and individual development.  It is not a
> >refusal to engage.  To engage what the system should look like before
what
> >it will produce is not a refusal no more than a negative critique of
> >calculative thinking is a refusal to engage a plan.
> >
> >
> >  I'll remind you of the
> >> history of discriminatory jurisprudence in the US.  It used certain
concepts
> >> like "reasonableness" and "fairness" in order to procedurally damage
people
> >> (again, i dont compare these levels of damage).
> >
> >Again, I think this is another shallow analogy that is entirely
misplaced.
> >What you should try to remind me of is how the history of discriminatory
> >jurisprudence in the US is at all relevant to the discussion we're
having.
> >
> >Using words like "reasonable" and "fair" does not mean you can critique
> >our topicality violations with Charles Beard's ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF
> >THE CONSTITUTION.  Our motives in arguing topicality are not different
> >than your motives in not arguing topicality.  Both of us desire to win.
> >It is quite unlike those who wrote US jurisprudence who had a large stake
> >of power to protect by refusing women and slaves the right to vote so
that
> >they could protect their own property.
> >
> >> Topicality excludes a diverse population of participants-
> >> particularly the need for a plan.  Many individuals occupy a cognitive
space
> >> that is not the calculative agony/joy of plan/bush/agent/etc debates.
These
> >> individuals are forced out of the activity.
> >
> >This can be said for any style of debating.  What if the style of debate
> >(not plan, performance/project based, etc.) which you are defending
drives
> >people out of debates?  There is no proof that individuals are forced out
> >of the activity because they had to run a plan.  People are not arrested
> >or picked up and thrown on buses and taken to places where there are not
> >debates because they refused to read a plan.
> >
> >
> >  And if they manage to stay in
> >> the activity, its only because a radical form of conformity.
> >
> >You seem to deny this, as do many other debaters.
> >
> >
> >  This
> >> homogenization chops off the difference in the community and
constitutes a
> >> form of violence.  Topicality excludes different ways of knowing and
methods
> >> of inquiry.
> >
> >No, topicality is a debate regarding ways of knowing and methods of
> >inquiry in a desire to protect education on knowledge and inquiry.  As
> >Kirk eloquently pointed out, if the negative proves the affirmative's
> >interpretation of the topic undermines education, then what value is
there
> >to advancing the affirmative's systems of knowing at the expense of
> >debate?
> >
> >>  An immense education is denied and on the flip side, a
> >> homogenous and unidimensional education is insured.  This is a form of
> >> violence that is done the the community as a whole.
> >
> >You're assuming that the nature of the resolution entirely excludes the
> >style of debate you are seeking to protect.  Topicality is not a
> >dictatorship; it does not eliminate your ability to make the arguments
you
> >wish to make.  You just have to realize that topicality could be waiting
> >for you out there.
> >
> >
> >  Topicality is also
> >> violent by defining what the center and the perifery are.  T is not
some
> >> innocent divider of ground.  It reveals an ideological bias in defining
> >> dominant debate at the center and as the requirement of all debaters in
at
> >> least half of their rounds.
> >
> >Everything reflects an ideological bias.  Both of our positions are very
> >ideological.  Your attribution of the term "dominant" to debate seems
> >interesting given you concede below that hegemony is inevitable.  So what
> >if you displace current topicality-centered dominant debate with no-plan
> >performance centered debate?  Could the negative argue that topicality
> >should be resurrected because they are arguing outside of the current
> >mold?  My point is not that topicality should exist as an a priori rule,
> >but that it is a valuable one that should not be dismissed so quickly.
> >Being different isn't a reason to win a debate.  Justifying your
arguments
> >is.
> >
> >Lastly, topicality is not a rule in the sense that it applies to every
> >debate.  It's situational.  So it's not that you're locked out of
debating
> >your case on the aff.  Clearly a team's topicality violation isn't pinned
> >on you for all of your future debates.
> >
> >
> >  Is flip side debating good?  Of course it is,
> >> but the way "flip side" debating is deployed is to reinforce the
hegemony.
> >> This form of legitimization and delegitimization does violence by
literally
> >> forcing certain peoples/ideas to the margin.
> >
> >Um, how?  (You might think this is another soft pitch, but I think you
> >swung and missed on the first one, so here's #2).
> >
> >Isn't any idea that loses pushed to the margin?  How do we construct this
> >idea of the center?  Is it what is said in 51% of the prior debates?  Do
> >we do surveys?  What do we do if in Round the Fourth at the NDT scouting
> >reveals that performance controlled 51% of the debates at issue?  All of
a
> >sudden should we add "Vote for our Bush DA because it prevents ideas from
> >being marginalized" to our 2NC impact calculus?
> >
> >
> >  What else?  Oh yes.  The
> >> deployment of "potential abuse" is violent.  Its analogous (though not
> >> equal) to a first strike.  It attempts to predict what an "enemy" might
do
> >> and then beats them to the knockout punch.  It bludgeons and levels
> >> difference and moves people (fellow debaters) around like pieces on a
> >> gameboard.
> >
> >This is fictitious.  Explain how topicality is like a first strike.
> >Potential abuse like war?  Give me a break.  Potential abuse is an
> >argument regarding how interpretations of the resolution affect the
> >framework of a debate.  It is a theoretical justification for limiting
> >the scope of those interpretations, just as examples of the worst
> >scenarios utilitarianism or deontology could muster are often the focus
of
> >critics of those positions.  No debaters are moved around like pieces on
a
> >gameboard, no knockout punch is delivered, and no fiery diatribe speaks
of
> >killing the enemy that is performance.
> >
> >> Its funny you should say that.  Any number of people have written about
the
> >> act of coercion that can occur with the definition of words.  The
ability to
> >> define the terms of conversation is perhaps one of the greatest forms
of
> >> power that we can hold in certain forums.
> >
> >I'm not denying that the way you define words can have coercive effects.
> >I'm saying that those definitions are not set in stone precisely because
> >they get to be talked about.  There isn't silence because you can read
> >from any number of people that have written about the act of coercion
that
> >can occur within the definition of words.  We will respond with a series
> >of arguments and you will answer them until our time together is through.
> >The negative doesn't destroy the affirmative with the sheer utterance of
> >the word "topicality."
> >
> >> I wish that T were only like that, but its not.  T is separated from
other
> >> debate arguments.  Its prioritized and absolutized (a priori,
jurisdiction,
> >> procedural, NDT rule, etc).  Its not deployed as merely an argument to
> >> persuade.  If that were so, then it would not be necessary to run T.
This
> >> is handled above.
> >
> >I don't understand your point here.  Yes, topicality is given the status
> >of a voting issue (even by the NDT committee).  Tell me this, have you
> >persuaded any judges this year that the voting issues in your 1AC (vote
> >for us because we don't have a plan, vote to examine borders as per our
> >Mingolo evidence) are worth endorsing?  If so, how does topicality have
> >any place above your interpretation in the course of a debate?
> >
> >And I don't understand that if topicality's function is to persuade you'd
> >never have to run topicality.  Would it go unsaid?  Would it be left up
> >to the judge(s)?  In your world, would we critically engage the 1AC only
> >afterwards to find out that the judge(s) did not believe that your
> >affirmative was development assistance?
> >
> >> It does seem that you are going in the direction of a "solvency
takeout" for
> >> T.  That it doesn't actually push anybody out of the activity.
> >
> >Not the solvency takeout route, but the 100% link takeout route.
> >Topicality doesn't act to push anyone out of the activity anymore than
> >other arguments do.  It's ridiculous to analogize this to inter-racial
> >relationships. The situation is entirely different (you and your
> >analogies).  Topicality provides a forum where individuals can debate
what
> >their activity should look like in 2 hours.  Laws that ban inter-racial
> >relationships (successful or not) eliminate the rights of individuals
> >too associate with whom they please and put them in legal jeopardy.
> >Getting jailed for who you love is just a bit different than losing a
> >debate on topicality (or any argument for that matter).
> >
> >
> >> I'll admit that, to a large extent, violence is inevitable.  Just as
> >> hegemony is inevitable.  The key is finding when and how to use it in
order
> >> to advance the most productive politics.  Did it take violence to end
> >> slavery (again not analogizing violence, merely circumstances)?  The
civil
> >> war suggests so.  Even so, that doesn't deny any of my claims.
> >
> >My question was not "isn't violence inevitable?"  It was "what is
> >discursive violence and how is it identified?"  Is sarcasm discursive
> >violence?  Are insults?  When Megan called me a moron (even in that
> >affectionate way) was it violence?  Was your mocking of "thanks for the
> >softball" violence?  Is my constant berating of your analogies violent?
> >Give me something to grab on to so that I can look at something and say
> >"ooh...violence" and look at something else and say "ooohhh...not
> >violence."
> >
> >
> >> politics.  T is not needed (and in fact is detrimental) to discussing
or
> >> questioning an affirmative's advantages/disadvantages/assumptions/
politics.
> >
> >Topicality is needed to preserve the ability of both sides to be
> >adequately prepared to discuss the affirmative's assumptions/politics,
> >etc.  That is why topicality is important.
> >
> >> I'm glad you didn't quit, andy.  I think you should recognize the
position
> >> you're in though.  Its much easier for one who wins most of their
rounds and
> >> then loses one to shrug it off.
> >
> >I'm glad I didn't quit as well.  And I'm glad you're glad that I didn't
> >quit.  Hopefully we're not the only two.
> >
> >> Heh.  No better way to beat the victim than to grab the victim role
> >> yourself.  The problem is that, for the most part, this is dead wrong.
> >> Competition breeds respect and legitimacy.  Arguments have to win to be
> >> thought of as good arguments.
> >
> >I don't think this is true at all.  Notice the art of the "cheap shot."
> >Many judges in America desire to respect the objectivity that their role
> >demands of them and often discard arguments that they acknowledge are
very
> >good in favor of arguments they acknowledge are very very bad.  And
> >winning arguments aren't thought of as good.  Clearly some judges don't
> >believe the topicality shuck 'n jive we've got going on here at Iowa, but
> >that doesn't mean some don't think it's a good argument.
> >
> >> nevertheless demonstrates the point.  I'll also add the community's
rank
> >> elitism.  Think of the individuals in this community that you (being
> >> representative of the top of the activity) know by name.  I would take
bets
> >> on the fact that those people are either successful, from a powerhouse
> >> school, or just some random person that you stumbled into.  I could be
more
> >> demonstrative of this elitism, but i'm growing sleepy.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not understanding your point here.  Yes, I know a lot of people in
> >debate from powerhouse schools (transfer this much between them and you
> >meet a lot).  I also know a lot of people I have stumbled into.  What's
> >your point?
> >
> >ABR
>
>