After an extended holiday hiatus, The 3NR Podcast returns today for its ninth episode with a lengthy and wide-ranging discussion of topics including:
- A Judging Hypothetical (from Rajesh Jegadeesh)
- Do Dropped Advantages Need To Be Explicitly Extended in the 2AC/1AR?
- Rounds We Judged Together At The Glenbrooks
- Non-Sensical Plan Writing and Plan-Inclusive Counterplans
- Disclosure Norms Regarding New Plan Texts
- Research Techniques (in regard to the Crowd-Sourcing Threads)
- Specific vs. General Critique Responses
- Impact Turns Alongside Critiques As A Negative Strategy
- Switch-Side Debate and the Hicks and Greene Evidence
As always, you can download this episode directly
or access it (soon) through iTunes.
In 2005, Ronald Walter Greene and Darrin Hicks authored an article in the journal Cultural Studies that has been used by debaters to criticize the ethical and political implications of “switch-side debating” at contest round tournaments. Entitled “Lost Convictions: Debating Both Sides and the Ethical Self-Fashioning of Liberal Citizens,” the article has been excerpted to support “critique” and “project” arguments by establishing the harmful effects of traditional debate pedagogy. In particular, quotes from Hicks and Greene are leveraged to argue that the switch-sides methodology contributes to the creation of “exceptional subjects” whose personal convictions are neatly separated from their public statements and who therefore contribute to the ideological maintenance of American exceptionalism.
Debaters wishing to respond to this argument must defend the virtues of the switch-sides model of contest round debating. Below the fold you will find three pieces of evidence that should be helpful starting points for the construction of a persuasive response. I have left the cards untagged and ununderlined: I encourage debaters to read the original articles and to consider the best ways to package their answers to Hicks and Greene. Feel free to use the comments to begin a discussion—consider this another “crowd-sourcing” experiment in the construction of compelling debate arguments.
Lets say you are debating the popular fem K after having read your trusty hegemony advantage. The negative both says that your knowledge claims are suspect, and that we should utilize standpoint epistemology as an alternative. If you only have time for 1 card to read on the alternative, which do you pick and why?
This is probably old news too many, I heard this card for the first time in a debate I judged today (though I think I remember another old spanos email card floating around that said something similar) and I find it pretty annoying/ill informed. What do people think?
William Spanos in Joe Millers’ book Cross-ex (pg. 467) 2004
Think Progress 1/14 (Alex Seitz-Wald, 1/14/10, ” Atomic scientists push back Doomsday Clock because of Obama’s ‘pragmatic … “, http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/14/doomsday-clock/)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced today that it would push their Doomsday Clock back one minute — to six minutes to midnight — in recognition of President Obama’s efforts to combat nuclear proliferation and climate change. Scientists concerned the world was spiraling toward nuclear disaster first introduced the clock in 1947 and it has only been adjusted 18 times since. The group of scientists — which includes 19 Nobel laureates — hailed Obama’s “pragmatic” foreign policy: A key to the new era of cooperation is a change in the U.S. government’s orientation toward international affairs brought about in part by the election of Obama. With a more pragmatic, problem-solving approach, not only has Obama initiated new arms reduction talks with Russia, he has started negotiations with Iran to close its nuclear enrichment program, and directed the U.S. government to lead a global effort to secure loose fissile material in four years. In awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the committee cited Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy” and combat nuclear proliferation. As the Wonk Room’s Max Bergmann notes, in the next six months, Obama will “encounter test after test of his commitment to the nuclear agenda — starting with the effort to focus the the Nuclear Posture Review on terrorism.”
It’s been brought to my attention that the quality of the 3NR has improved, as you can see in this wordle where zizek is no longer prominent
One important thing, if not the most important thing, in preparing for a 2AC is making sure that you have the absolute best card possible for every argument you make. It’s not like the neg block where you can read a crappy card in the 1NC and its ok cause you can read 10 more without any time pressure. Most 1AR’s are not going to be able to read a ton of evidence.
GBS (aff) v Woodward
Carrollton (aff) v New Trier