Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Table of Contents


Framework / Resolution



MG Answers

Background/ Strategy Guide

Its time to get funky.

Our interpretation is that the affirmative is allowed to interpret the locus of topic harms.
1. Debate is a laboratory: its an opportunity for a thought experiment without real
world repercussions outside of a ballot.
a. Debate rounds are a unique opportunity to test new theories about
the world, and to engage in a discussion about the pros and cons of that theory in

a way that mets out all possible consequences of those proposals.

b. We pose as policy makers, but at the end of the day the intrinsic
value of debate stems from education: evaluating fake scenarios in realistic ways.
2. The affirmative will defend the plan text as a way to reinterpret the locus of topic
harms. Instead of nuclear war or global warming, were addressing the way the topic
relates to structures of power.
a. We are justified. We can choose that way of looking at the topic
because were in a debate round. Nothing says that the only thing that matters is
killing the most people. That sort of mindset puts us in a situationan inherently
masculine situationof arguing who pushes the red button.
b. New approaches are good. We recognize that the round is an
opportunity to discuss different things: trying to make this round as educational as
c. Current policy discourse engages in a methodology that is
inherently masculine in nature, consequently skewing the feminist perspective out
of the conversation.
When we engage in debates about policy, it is
constructed around an automatically-accepted idea of what is standard and
normal, rather than first challenging the norm and questioning if the
standard is objective enough.
In this case, this policy lacks female perspective
because it is not objectively sought at the onset of formulating ideas.
3. We should reject structural violence in every opportunity given.
a. The failure to do so is to accept the cost of human suffering as a
necessary and desirable externality.
In 2002 alone, 11 million people died of preventable
infectious diseases. Over 8 million children die annually of malnutrition.
In 1998 ALONE, Malaria, tuberculosis, respiratory infections killed over
6.1 million people. People died because the drugs to treat those illnesses
are nonexistent or are no longer effective.
They died because it didnt pay to keep them alive.
It is not advantageous enough to those in power to forfeit a small resource
advantage to preserve their lives.
c. That ethic must end. Reading extinction level econ and politics
disadvantages is nothing but a lie used by elites to justify the current social
relationship of domination that exists in the squo. We should refuse to be bullied
into accepting preventable violence by these artificially constructed threats.
4. We are still topical and do not exclude anyone from the round.
a. As youll see, we operate within the context of the resolution: our
plan will address the question of feminism as it relates to [RESOLUTION].
b. The negative still has offensive ground: for example, you can argue
that our methodology is flawed (this is an unproductive way to approach the
problem, its uneducational for the debate space, it precludes a different or better
ethical calculation) or that were essentializing, oversimplistic, or redacting the



1. The affirmative engages impossible realism- this visionary project requires total
acceptance to reveal emancipatory potential.
a. The only place of resistance for subjugated groups is to engage in
impossible realism- to envision the world as free from violent oppression and
b. The plan text accesses this because it reframes and advocates a
radical, unprecedented shift in policy that places women at the forefront of
[PLAN]. Women are never the focus of [PLAN TOPIC].
c. Our plan ruptures the dominant paradigm of patriarchal thought:
by exposing the fact that our plan is perceived to be jarring, shocking, or strange,
we are addressing the inherent state of patriarchal control.
d. Imagination in this way motivates revolutionary action- it makes
the fight worth it, because an impossible reality free from state oppression is
worth fighting for

e. This process decolonizes the mind- it places a filter on

understanding US policy. Even if the complete overhaul of the system is
impossible, the aff can certainly get us to pass more just policies as we ask better
questions about those policies.
2. This process is active rejection of an insidious relationship of power
a. Power seeks to disguise and mask itself. It is to the benefit of those
who possess it for it to remain invisible. Domination is much easier if the cause of
dominance is unknown, and uninterrogated.
b. Criticism is the act of rupturing the dominant paradigm. It exposes
the way that our day-to-day, normal engagement with the world is complacent in a
system of dominance and otherization.
c. Criticism is necessary to open a third space to expose the
relationships of power, as well as emancipate ourselves from our acceptance of
these assumed norms. We allow for knowledge production to occur outside of
patriarchy, and allow previously subjugated knowledge to rise to the surface.
Patriarchy is interested in objectivity and rationality that more often than not
treats all individuals as faceless and genderless. If we allow patriarchy to
determine how we define fair and equal treatment it should be no surprise that
women are excluded and hurt.
d. Those who possess an advantage of power, influence, or resources
have never in the course of history voluntarily relinquished said advantage. This
allows the abuses to go unreported, and unrecognized. We ought fight back when
and where we can. For us, here and now, that resistance is in the debate round.
3. This is not a question of whether or not we do away with all of the patriarchy as a
a. To say that would be incredibly narcissistic: we dont think that we
can solve the problems of patriarchy in the context of a single debate round.
b. However, power is fluid and ever-changing-- some amount of
social change and progression is inevitable.
c. This means that it is only a question of how intentionally we orient
ourselves within this progression, or how specific our act of resistance is.
d. People in power will always work to deflect criticism of their
positions of privilege. Only the affirmative takes a position that intentionally
resists and ruptures the dominant paradigm of patriarchy. the only way to
produce positive change in power relations is through things like the affirmative.

Thesis: The solvency debate describes the complicated network of power/ social relationships
that systemically excluded and enable violence against women. Without the affirmative, that
artificial power relationship remains largely invisible, unchallenged, and makes the following
tangible impacts inevitable:
1. Patriarchy leads to violence against women, the impacts of which are profound
and largely unknown.
a. The concept of patriarchy theorizes violence against women
because it keeps the theoretical focus on dominance, gender and power.
b. This leads to massive amounts of violence against women.
One in every four women will experience domestic
violence in her lifetime.
One in six women have experienced an attempted or
completed rape.
Almost one third of female homicide victims that
are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner. Thats
approximately 16,800 homicides a year.
iv. Intimate partner violence results in more than 18.5
million mental health care visits each year.
c. This violence is largely underreported
In most cases, domestic violence are never reported

to the police.
Less than one-fifth of victims reporting an injury
from intimate partner violence sought medical treatment following the
2. This violence against women is inevitable in a world of patriarchy.
a. Patriarchy establishes a system of dominance among men. The
least powerful men are those most likely to victimize women under social
pressure to secure more power and redeem their wounded masculinity.
b. Domestic violence has been recorded to be higher in households
with more entrenched gender roles.
c. Men are less likely to be punished for violence against women in
societies with a greater emphasis on masculinity.
3. Makes war inevitable.
a. Patriarchy results in structured social relations that promote
particular kinds of violence in particular circumstances.
b. Traits like confidence, strength, competition, and rationality are
preferred, while qualities such as nurturing, caring, sensitivity, and emotionality
are derided.
c. The ideology of patriarchy glorifies soldiers, focusing attention on
their heroism and sacrifice. In the 20th century, 90% of all war deaths have been
unarmed civilians.
d. Patriarchy ignores the economic harms of war: with the destruction
of Iraqs economy, women and girls especially have suffered from deprivations. In
the US, poor women bear the brunt of public service cuts.
e. When wars are inevitable, its only a matter of time before
someone escalates to nuclear war, causing extinction and environmental collapse
4. Patriarchy destroys the environment.
a. Patriarchy makes resources zero sum game, and instrumentalizes
b. The patriarchal mindset only values the environment as a tool,
rather than a unique ecosystem. Ignores the intrinsic value of life of the sake of
c. It treats the environment as a bargaining chip, to be dominated, and
lorded over those deemed less worthy instead of shared as a common right. (Lord
over - to exclude someone from accessing & mock them for it)
d. When this is the status quo, environmental destruction is
inevitable: when we do not value the environment as a living, intricate ecosystem,
and instead treat it as a commodified product, is only a matter of time before we
exploit it to the point of collapse.

1. We meet: the speech act of the PMC engaged in the most real sort of FIAT
there can be.
a. We could never guarantee that the government passes a plan, just
because of what we advocated in round.
b. the utterance of the words of the advocacy statement is the most
relevant declaration we can make as two students in this round.
c. That Google Dictionary thinggy defines fiatas a formal
authorization or proposition; a decree The plan is a decree in the strictest sense
2. Counter- Interpretation: Fiat includes discourse
a) its fair all we walk into this room with are the words we use to engage in a
discussion about the resolution. The affirmative has explained in the PMC that the way we
engage in this debate is through our discourse -- impossible realism.
b) better for education we can learn about how we, as five people in this room, relate to
systems of power. This is the most real-world sort of education that we can access, since there is
no guarantee that we end up as policy makers, and I am 97% certain we are all people in the

c) You can still run offense to our speech act, you just need to read links to what we have
3) Counter- INterp : ITS IN THE RULES
The B subpoint under Resolution in the Parli rulebook claims, (HILLARIOUSLY) that They
[the resolutions] may be phrased in literal or metaphorical language.
we engage in the resolution metaphorically.
b) We adopt a metaphorical interpretation of the resolution.
c) this is good because it is the only way to engage locally with the rez
4) Disad to competing interpretations on not-topicality
a) There are only rules about topicality now.
b) the Negs attempts to limit things arbitrarily, like FIAT, justifies numerous other
restrictions on the affirmative.
c) This prevents the growth and education of parli
i) kills creativity
ii) limits progress in argumentation styles
iii) limits recruiting because people dont want to join an activity that they cannot
have an impact on.
1. we are winning the question of impact calc on the disads, means the aff 1st
2. Terminal no link: they have given no good reason as to why the [thesis of Da] is
implicated by us four talking in this room
3. You shoould be skeptical of the claims of the Disad, this is likely an artificial
construction aimed to disguise the current domination and violence that is the status quo.
They have conceded the arguments on ____ that explain how utilitarian thinking often
leaves externalities, that are left unconsidered in the context of their calculation.
thMG A2 T
1. Their T argument is scarcely a topicality argument at all-- They use Topicality as a tool
to silence our voices in this round. It is not that we violate a rule of a game, it is that we
deviate from the norms of debate that the negative claims as offense.
2. We meet ( insert specific we meet here.
3. Standards
a) Education: our approach to the topic is the most educational for 2 reasons. 1-- we
access the real world in a way that their policy making framework cannot access--


1. This theory argument does not call into question whether or not we engage the topic.
This theory position is an attempt by them to re-enforce the norms of debate. This is the
very claim that we are criticizing in the 1ac. The thesis of the PMC is that the dominant
paradigm in debate, and the world writ large, currently evaluates utilitarian concerns
above everything else. EXTEND THAT _____ isolate that this produces certain
externalities, namely, problematic things that are committed for the (say quote) greater
good Specifically with regards to women.
2. We meet: plan text in a vacuum is topical
3. CI: NPDA rules say we must present a sufficient case for the resolution
a. Our discourse shapes reality args etc
b. We affirm the resolution by saying, look, heres a good thing that can be done with the
words of the resolution if we can win that there is a good impact to embracing our
discourse, we think we should win.
c. WE are rupturing traditional hegemonic knowledge production,
d. Look at the occupy movement, their discourse, though criticized as unproductive,
raised class consciousness in a radical and new way. This is the space we are occupying in
the debate round.
4. CI: rez is a springboard
5. Their interpretation is just a disad to the way we engage in the debate, they just say
that you should debate in our way because it would be good for __ ___ __
a. Means that any sort of way that we claim that our engagement of the topic is good is a
disad to their interp
b. Extend our caseits functionally am iMpact turn to their T args, all of our claims of
how we address the harms of partrairchy are disads to the way theey say we should engage
in this debate.
6. DA 2 their interptheir claims about debate should be about the implementation of
the plan are problematic
7. We will win that our form of debate is good for education and fairness.
a. Extend that structural violence should come first. They concede this, means it is just
true that new ways to engage in the ending of violecnce are K
b. WE allow for new voices
i. We allow previously subjugated forms of knowledge to come to the
surface and challencge systems of power
c. Challenging Normativity is good
i. Forces us to be critical of our practices
ii. Forces us to be more empathetic to the plights of those who fall
outside of norms.
d. Challenging Db8 norms is good
i. Prevents stagnation in the activity
ii. Allows us to address issues of structural violence.
e. Not allowing for criticism is bad for fairness
i. Means that people become invisible in this community because we
dont focus on these populations
f. New Approaches for debate allow for more authentic engagement which is better for
fairness and education, it increases the proximity of these issues


g. Policy-Making Bad
i. We are not policy makers, we likely never will be
ii. Forcing us to role play as policy makers means that the aff can
only ever produce knowledge from the lense of trying to be a policymakereven if they
win that we will be policy makers, we are ahead on the question that status quo policy
making is bad. Only by adopting our lens can we hope to create good policy makers in the
real world.
iii. Topic Specific education is only accessed by the affirmative, look
the most specific education we can garner in this activity is about how we as people can
engage with the words of the resolution.
1. If your claim is thatby talking about feminism, we are not engaging in the right way,
then we dont want the sort of education that you have to give on this topic. Extend the
case, that this form of knowl-prod creates gendered violence.
2. IF your claim is that feminism is the wrong thing to talk about THATS THE WHOLE
REASON WE READ THIS status quo policies produce the sorts of harms that were
talking about
Random Dump of Arguments
i) The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year.
1. Current policy discourse engages in a methodology that is inherently masculine in
nature, consequently skewing the feminist perspective out of the conversation.
a. When we engage in debates about policy, it is constructed around
an automatically-accepted idea of what is standard and normal, rather than first
challenging the norm and questioning if the standard is objective enough.
b. In this case, this policy lacks female perspective because it is not
objectively sought at the onset of formulating ideas.
c. For example, a debate about United States securitization would
revolve around international backlash and domestic economic and political
response; we would never discuss the idea of internal securitization, preventing
women from being raped. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape
increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing
among the rivalries within states. However, this would never enter into typical IR
discussions that focus solely on state-to-state interaction, simply because IR
discussions traditionally remain focused on states as key actors.
1. What we do defend is that the way in which we relate to structures of power
creates a space that can actually address these oppressive systems.
2. Extend the solvency 2, sub B that criticism is the act of resistance against the
dominant paradigm, this is the way that we challenge the system. The only way to--eventually-- rid society of the patriarchy is to engage in discourse like our own. If we
can win that the negative doesnt do this, and you should prioritize the kind of violence
that we outline, you vote aff.
MG Impact Extensions


1. Patriarchy makes securitization and militarism inevitable