Cops kill us and we protest what type of shit is that
Greenhill RR
3
Opponent: not black | Judge: panel
It's too many mothers that's grieving They killing us for no reason Been going on for too long to get even Throw us in cages like dogs and hyenas I went to court and they sent me to prison My mama was crushed when they said I can't leave First I was drunk then I sobered up quick When I heard all that time that they gave to Taleeb He got a life sentence plus
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0-Contact Info
Tournament: All Black Everything | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Niggas Hello, My name is Zion Dixon If you are a Black debater That has questions or would like me to send you a card/article/doc or just need someone to talk to just hit me up!
If you have any questions, concerns, clarifications before rounds contact me Phone: (281) 380 - 8848 Facebook (Messenger): Zion Dixon (friend me first or I won't check the message) Email: zionjd@gmail.com OR zjdixon22@mail.strakejesuit.org
Your best bet is either text or Facebook messenger.
if you have questions, TRIGGERS, or accessibility concerns let me know prior to round because debate should be a safe and welcoming environment to all. Don't be scared of black people please.
Debate should be a fun and safe space for everyone. That being said PLS LET ME KNOW ANY PGP (preferred gender pronouns) or CONTENT WARNINGS BEFORE THE ROUND! I would like content warnings for Nonblack debaters discussing antiblack violence and discussions of mental health.
9/11/21
CP- Cultural IP
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: westwood pm | Judge: panel CP text: Communities should demand the member nations of the WTO reduce intellectual property protections for medicines, except to increase cultural IP protection - CP increases cultural IP protections in Ghana by recognizing domestic cultural IP laws as international
Cultural IP for medicines looks like traditional African treatments and medicines which currently are being exploited by international pharmaceutical companies Preuss 20 Hans-Joachim Preuss 9-6-2020, "Black Panther: African solutions to fight the pandemic," No Publication, https://www.fes.de/referat-afrika/neuigkeiten/black-panther-african-solutions-to-fight-the-pandemic B1ack ZD Two years ago, AND inner-African cooperation.
solves all their cultural oppression offense because it can protect indigenous cultural knowledge and production. Also solves cheeseman and fisher because it’s tactical to counter and resist African colonialism
9/19/21
K-Afropessimism
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Panel Blackness is the embodiment of metaphysical nothingness and any attempt to liberate Black folk or make the world better that does not start with a theorization against the world itself will reproduce the antiblackness they try to resolve. Thus, the role of the ballot is to endorse the best strategy for rupturing metaphysics. The role of the judge is to evaluate the best Black scholarship produced to analyzed Black suffering Warren ’18 (Calvin Warren, Calvin Warren is an Assistant Professor in WGSS. He received his B.A. in Rhetoric/Philosophy (College Scholar) from Cornell University and his MA and Ph.D. in African American/American Studies from Yale University, 2018, Ontological Terror: Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation) B1ACK ZD For the Black AND to capture it. The affirmative’s use of analyzing present pandemics to forecast future pandemics as well as vaccine tactics are geographies of whiteness that shape white supremacy and racial control Baldwin 12, Andrew. (2012). Whiteness and futurity: Towards a research agenda. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511414603 Associate Professor in Human Geography, Durham University; My research examines the intersections of race, nature and geography with a specific current focus on the ways in which discourses and practices of climate change and migration relate to questions of humanism, posthumanism, politics, culture, urbanism and the Anthropocene B1ACK ZD This essay argues AND expression of whitenesses.
The alt is radical negativity-The very act of affirmation is antiblack, one must negate the negation to escape the realms of antiblackness Wilderson 17, Frank. Frank B Wilderson III is an American writer, dramatist, filmmaker and critic. He is a full professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine. “Afropessimism An Intro” Racked and Dispatched, September 2017. B1ACK ZD The distinction that Afro-pessimism AND subjects in society.
9/16/21
K-Wilderson
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 6 | Opponent: antiblack | Judge: antiblack The three pillars of social death define the slave nature of Blackness explaining how Blackness is always situated as an object of accumulation and fungibility in civil society excluded from humanity. The rotb is to embrace the demand of the slave Wilderson 20 Dr. Frank B. Wilderson III, University of California, Irvine “Afropessimism” Originally published: April 7, 2020 B1ACK ZD The three constituent ADN and racial control Baldwin 12, Andrew. (2012). Whiteness and futurity: Towards a research agenda. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511414603 Associate Professor in Human Geography, Durham University; My research examines the intersections of race, nature and geography with a specific current focus on the ways in which discourses and practices of climate change and migration relate to questions of humanism, posthumanism, politics, culture, urbanism and the Anthropocene B1ACK ZD This essay argues AND expression of whitenesses.
Vote negative to embrace the unethicality of civil society Wilderson 20 Dr. Frank B. Wilderson III, University of California, Irvine “Afropessimism” Originally published: April 7, 2020 B1ACK ZD There’s something organic AND of Black desire.
9/19/21
PIC- Zion
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: not black | Judge: not black Do the aff but vote for Zion A The only relationship to academic spaces like debate is a parasitic one that allows niggas to rupture the system while chilling in the undercommons. We Stealing your aff in the ballot cuz I'm a nigga gangsta B Their attempt to be productive or exist within the debate space in any way other than to tear out down will gut any benefit to their resistance Harney and Moten 13 2013 Stefano Harney and Fred Moten , , The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, Minor Compositions) HSLATR Pg. 5-10 SJZD But not surprising when you have understood that the projects of “fugitive planning and black study” are mostly about reaching out to find connection; they are about making common cause with the brokenness of being, a brokenness, I would venture to say, that is also blackness, that remains blackness, and will, despite all, remain broken because this book is not a prescription for repair. Moten links economic debt to the brokenness of being in the in- terview with Stevphen Shukaitis; he acknowledges that some debts should be paid, and that much is owed especially to black people by white people, and yet, he says: “I also know that what it is that is supposed to be repaired is irreparable. It can’t be repaired. The only thing we can do is tear this shit down completely and build some- thing new.” The undercommons do not come to pay their debts, to repair what has been broken, to fix what has come undone. If you want to know what the undercommons wants, what Moten and Harney want, what black people, indigenous peoples, queers and poor people want, what we (the “we” who cohabit in the space of the undercommons) want, it is this – we cannot be satisfied with the recognition and acknowledgement generated by the very system that denies a) that anything was ever broken and b) that we deserved to be the broken part; so we refuse to ask for recognition and instead we want to take apart, dismantle, tear down the structure that, right now, limits our ability to find each other, to see beyond it and to access the places that we know lie outside its walls. We cannot say what new structures will replace the ones we live with yet, because once we have torn shit down, we will inevitably see more and see differently and feel a new sense of wanting and being and becoming. What we want after “the break” will be different from what we think we want before the break and both are necessarily different from the desire that issues from being in the break. Moten and Harney want to gesture to another place, a wild place that is not simply the left over space that limns real and regulated zones of polite society; rather, it is a wild place that continuously produces its own unregulated wildness. The zone we enter through Moten and Harney is ongoing and exists in the present and, as Harney puts it, “some kind of demand was already being enacted, fulfilled in the call itself.” While describing the London Riots of 2011, Harney suggests that the riots and insurrections do not separate out “the request, the demand and the call” – rather, they enact the one in the other: “I think the call, in the way I would understand it, the call, as in the call and response, the response is already there before the call goes out. You’re already in something.” You are already in it. For Moten too, you are always already in the thing that you call for and that calls you. What’s more, the call is always a call to dis-order and this disorder or wild- ness shows up in many places: in jazz, in improvisation, in noise. The disordered sounds that we refer to as cacophony will always be cast as “extra-musical,” as Moten puts it, precisely because we hear some- thing in them that reminds us that our desire for harmony is arbitrary and in another world, harmony would sound incomprehensible. Lis- tening to cacophony and noise tells us that there is a wild beyond to the structures we inhabit and that inhabit us. The path to the wild beyond is paved with refusal. In The Undercommons if we begin anywhere, we begin with the right to refuse what has been refused to you. Citing Gayatri Spivak, Moten and Harney call this refusal the “first right” and it is a game-changing kind of refusal in that it signals the refusal of the choices as offered. We can under- stand this refusal in terms that Chandan Reddy lays out in Freedom With Violence (2011) – for Reddy, gay marriage is the option that can- not be opposed in the ballot box. While we can circulate multiple cri- tiques of gay marriage in terms of its institutionalization of intimacy, when you arrive at the ballot box, pen in hand, you only get to check “yes” or “no” and the no, in this case, could be more damning than the yes. And so, you must refuse the choice as offered. Moten and Harney also study what it would mean to refuse what they term “the call to order.” And what would it mean, furthermore, These kinds of examples get to the heart of Moten and Harney’s world of the undercommons – the undercommons is not a realm where we rebel and we create critique; it is not a place where we “take arms against a sea of troubles/and by opposing end them.” The undercommons is a space and time which is always here. Our goal – and the “we” is always the right mode of address here – is not to end the troubles but to end the world that created those particular troubles as the ones that must be opposed., “The University and the Undercommons,” Moten and Harney come closest to explaining their mission. Refusing to be for or against the university and in fact marking the critical academic as the player who holds the “for and against” logic in place, Moten and Harney lead us to the “Undercommons of the Enlightenment” where subversive in- tellectuals engage both the university and fugitivity: “where the work. gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong.” The subversive intellectual, we learn, is unprofes- sional, uncollegial, passionate and disloyal. The subversive intellectual is neither trying to extend the university nor change the university, the subversive intellectual is not toiling in misery and from this place of misery articulating a “general antagonism.” In fact, the subversive intellectual enjoys the ride and wants it to be faster and wilder; she does not want a room of his or her own, she wants to be in the world, in the world with others and making the world anew. Moten insists: “Like Deleuze. I believe in the world and want to be in it. I want to be in it all the way to the end of it because I believe in another world in the world and I want to be in that. And I plan to stay a believer, like Curtis Mayfield. But that’s beyond me, and even beyond me and Stefano, and out into the world, the other thing, the other world, the joyful noise of the scattered, scatted eschaton, the undercommons refusal of the academy of misery.” C Only vote for niggas- we don’t need the help of anyone else. Additionally, all indicts to our theory of power is good and proves our method is working- Harney and Moten 13 2013 Stefano Harney and Fred Moten , , The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, Minor Compositions) HSLATR Pg. 5-10 SJZD
MotEn and Harney also study what it would mean to refuse what they term “the call to order.” And what would it mean, furthermore, to refuse to call others to order, to refuse interpellation and the re- instantiation of the law. When we refuse, Moten and Harney suggest, we create dissonance and more importantly, we allow dissonance to continue – when we enter a classroom and we refuse to call it to order, we are allowing study to continue, dissonant study perhaps, disorganized study, but study that precedes our call and will continue after we have left the room Or, when we listen to music, we must refuse the idea that music happens only when the musician enters and picks up an instrument; music is also the anticipation of the performance and the noises of appreciation it generates and the speaking that happens through and around it, making it and loving it, being in it while listening. And so, when we refuse the call to order – the teacher pick- ing up the book, the conductor raising his baton, the speaker asking for silence, the torturer tightening the noose – we refuse order as the distinction between noise and music, chatter and knowledge, pain and truth. The mission then for the denizens of the undercommons is to recog- nize that when you seek to make things better, you are not just doing it for the Other, you must also be doing it for yourself. While men may think they are being “sensitive” by turning to feminism, while white people may think they are being right on by opposing racism, no one will really be able to embrace the mission of tearing “this shit down” until they realize that the structures they oppose are not only bad for some of us, they are bad for all of us. Gender hierarchies are bad for men as well as women and they are really bad for the rest of us. Racial hierarchies are not rational and ordered, they are chaotic and nonsensical and must be opposed by precisely all those who benefit in any way from them. Or, as Moten puts it: “The coalition emerges out of your recognition that it’s fucked up for you, in the same way that we’ve already recognized that it’s fucked up for us. I don’t need your help. I just need you to recognize that this shit is killing you, too, however much more softly, you stupid motherfucker, you know?” The coalition unites us in the recognition that we must change things or die. All of us. We must all change the things that are fucked up and change cannot come in the form that we think of as “revolutionary” – not as a masculinist surge or an armed confrontation. Revolution will come in a form we cannot yet imagine. Moten and Harney pro- pose that we prepare now for what will come by entering into study. Study, a mode of thinking with others separate from the thinking that the institution requires of you, prepares us to be embedded in what Harney calls “the with and for” and allows you to spend less time an- tagonized and antagonizing. Like all world-making and all world-shattering encounters, when you enter this book and learn how to be with and for, in coalition, and on the way to the place we are already making, you will also feel fear, trepidation, concern, and disorientation. The disorientation, Moten and Harney will tell you is not just unfortunate, it is necessary because you will no longer be in one location moving forward to another, instead you will already be part of “the “movement of things” and on the way to this “outlawed social life of nothing.” The movement of things can be felt and touched and exists in language and in fantasy, it is flight, it is motion, it is fugitivity itself. Fugitivity is not only es- cape, “exit” as Paolo Virno might put it, or “exodus” in the terms of- fered by Hardt and Negri, fugitivity is being separate from settling. It is a being in motion that has learned that “organizations are obstacles to organising ourselves” (The Invisible Committee in The Coming In- surrection) and that there are spaces and modalities that exist separate from the logical, logistical, the housed and the positioned. Moten and Harney call this mode a “being together in homelessness” which does not idealize homelessness nor merely metaphorize it. Homeless- ness is the state of dispossession that we seek and that we embrace: “Can this being together in homelessness, this interplay of the refus- al of what has been refused, this undercommon appositionality, be a place from which emerges neither self-consciousness nor knowledge of the other but an improvisation that proceeds from somewhere on the other side of an unasked question?” I think this is what Jay-Z and Kanye West (another collaborative unit of study) call “no church in the wild.” For Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, we must make common cause with those desires and (non) positions that seem crazy and unimaginable: we must, on behalf of this alignment, refuse that which was first refused to us and in this refusal reshape desire, reorient hope, reimagine possibility and do so separate from the fantasies nestled into rights and respectability. Instead, our fantasies must come from what Moten and Harney citing Frank B. Wilderson III call “the hold”: “And so it is we remain in the hold, in the break, as if entering again and again the broken world, to trace the visionary company and join it.” The hold here is the hold in the slave ship but it is also the hold that we have on reality and fantasy, the hold they have on us and the hold we decide to forego on the other, preferring instead to touch, to be with, to love. If there is no church in the wild, if there is study rather than knowledge production, if there is a way of being together in brokenness, if there is an undercommons, then we must all find our way to it. And it will not be there where the wild things are, it will be a place where refuge is not necessary and you will find that you were already in it all along. D Regardless of the flow vote for niggas to surrender to blackness Brady and Murillo 14 2014 Nicholas and John, “Black Imperative: A Forum on Solidarity in the Age of Coalition,” January 26, 2014, http://outofnowhereblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/black-imperative-a-forum-on-solidarity-in-the-age-of-coalition/, John Murillo III is a PhD student in the English department at Brown University, and a graduate of the University of California, Irvine, with bachelor’s degrees in Cognitive Science and English. His research interests are broad, and include extensive engagements with and within: Black Studies–particularly Afro-Pessimism–Narrative Theory; Theoretical Physics; Astrophysics; Cosmology; and Neuroscience. Nicholas Brady is an activist-scholar from Baltimore, Maryland. He was also a recent graduate of Johns Hopkins with a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and currently a doctoral student at the University of California-Irvine Culture and Theory program. “Surrender to blackness.” A grammatical imperative. Grammatical because syntactically it marks a command to or demand of a generalized addressee: “(Everyone) surrender to blackness.” Grammatical because the black flesh scarred and tattooed by these illegible hieroglyphics enunciates at the level of symbolic and ontological world orders: “Surrender to blackness” is a command at the level of the foundations of thought and being themselves; grammatical. Imperative because if there is any hope for a revolutionary praxis along any lines—race, class, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability—it must centralize, which is to say look in the face of, which is to say begin to the work of real love for, the blackness preposition which “an authentic upheaval might be born.” #BlackPowerYellowPeril failed to recognize this imperative as legible, let alone heed and meet its command/demand. Created by Suey Park (@suey_park), the hashtag sought to draw from and build upon the accomplishments of Black womyn activists on twitter and tumblr who have long mobilized to generate productive and revolutionary interjections into the world’s violently antiblack discourses (see, for example, #solidarityisforwhitewomen, and #blackmaleprivilege) through extended, communal commentary, usually in direct opposition to the censoring strictures of any kind of respectability politics. Discussions about and within the hashtag can be found here, here, here, here(though this is very hasty, a bit shortsighted, and still not doing much more than glancing at, as opposed to engaging blackness), and here. But broadly, the intentions of the hashtag are founded upon a belief in the possibility of solidarity/coalition politics between Blacks and Asians, seeking to challenge persistent “tensions” between the communities for the sake of a common struggle against ‘white supremacy.’ For those nonblack participants, the drive toward solidarity represents a purely innocent and unquestioned, unquestionable, desire. All critiques of Asian antiblackness are rendered as derailing the move toward solidarity, for they are to bring up the obvious – clearly we are all human, we make mistakes, but to continuously bring up the “mistakes” and never “move on” is to foreclose the possibility of solidarity. And what a wonderful thing the blacks of the conversation were foreclosing – this solidarity thing. What a wonderful thing others were offering to us and we simply would not take. And yet, the unthought question remains: have you truly earned the right to act in solidarity, to form solidarity, to even believe in solidarity? And what is this solidarity thing we all hold near and dear to our hearts? Have we ever experienced it or do we simply have images we have transformed into memories of a solidarity that never existed? I know Black people and Asian people have worked together in the past, but have we ever formed a solid whole? And who is to blame for the fact that we have never had solidarity? The hashtag implies that both “sides” play an equal part in the failure to form solidarity. In the face of this, confessing our sins to each other forms the moment where we can form emotional bonds: “see, you were as racist as I, and how unfortunate it is that we let old whitey come between us. Never again will whitey make us part.” This is the logic behind much of the Asian confessing – white supremacy duped us into being antiblack racists – and also fed into the backlash aimed at blacks – “stop playing oppression olympics, that’s what whitey wants.” It must be foregrounded here that antiblackness cannot be simplified as “anti-black racism” and it is a singularity with no equivalent force – “anti-Asian” racism is not the flipside of antiblackness nor is orientalism or islamophobia. Antiblackness predates white supremacy by at least 300 years (and much more than that depending on how we trace our history) and we can understand antiblackness as the general tethering of the very concept of life to the ontological and unspeakable, unthinkable force of black death. That statement is a place to begin to define antiblackness, it is not the end for this force weaves itself in infinite variety throughout all corners of the globe, forming globe into world. This is not simply about the little racist microaggressions that people listed in their tweets, this is about a global force that the world – not simply whites – bond over and form their lives inside of and through. What #BlackPowerYellowPeril revealed, however, is that the underside of coalition politics remains a violent and virulent antiblackness. As blacks— John Murillo III (@writedarkmatter), New Black School (@newblackschool), Nicholas Brady (@nubluez_nick), and others—raised questions and comments in the spirit of that singular imperative—“Surrender to blackness”—antiblackness emerged in the violence of the response levied against it; one need only visit the hashtag to bear witness. From outright refusals to engage the antiblackness central to the histories and politics of nonblack communities of color, to denials of the foundational, global, and singular nature of antiblackness, and to the repeated calls to police and remove this disruptive blackness and its imperative from the conversation, antiblackness exploded onto the scene. All of this in the name of “coalition.” This is because “coalition” politics and possibilities are fetishized, not loved. The fetish denies the necessary recognition of antiblackness at coalition’s heart, and that antiblackness left unattended renders the imperative illegible. It is a fetishization, then, of antiblackness. The fetish object at the heart of the coalition has always been black flesh – a fetishization where pleasure and terror meet to create the bonds of solidarity people so desire. Here, we open a forum on how the hashtag embodies this fetish, the distinction between fetish and love that must be made in excess of the hashtag and ones like it, and the absolute imperativeness of the imperative. Instead of fetishizing the object, you must surrender to blackness. E SOLVES- it’s the ultimate form of planned failure of the aff
9/19/21
PIK-Looting
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Panel Looting is one of the most liberating methods of resistance against antiblackness and white supremacy. Voting neg is symbolic for liberation Kahzan 20 OLGA KHAZAN JUNE 2, 2020. “Why People Loot” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/why-people-loot/612577/ B1ACK ZD As Raven Rakia puts it, “In America, property is racial. It always has been.” Indeed, the idea of blackness was invented simultaneously with American conceptions of property: via slavery. In the early days of colonial America, chattel slavery was much less common than indentured servitude—though the difference between the two was not always significant—and there were Irish, French, German and English immigrants among these populations. But while there had always been and continued to be some black freedmen, over the course of the 17th century light-skinned European people stopped being indentured servants and slaves. This is partially because production exploded in the colonies much faster than a working population could form to do the work–either from reproduction or voluntary immigration–and so the cost of hired labor went through the roof. Even a very poor and desperate European became much more expensive than an African bought from the increasingly rationalized transatlantic slave trade. The distinction between white and black was thus eventually forged as a way of distinguishing between who could be enslaved and who could not. The earliest working definition of blackness may well have been “those who could be property”. Someone who organized a mob to violently free slaves, then, would surely be considered a looter (had the word come into common usage by then, John Brown and Nat Turner would have been slandered with it). This is not to draw some absurd ethical equivalence between freeing a slave and grabbing a flat screen in a riot. The point, rather, is that for most of America’s history, one of the most righteous anti-white supremacist tactics available was looting. The specter of slaves freeing themselves could be seen as American history’s first image of black looters. On Twitter, a tongue-in-cheek political hashtag sprang up, #suspectedlooters, which was filled with images of colonial Europeans, slave owners, cowboys and white cultural appropriators. Similarly, many have pointed out that, had Africa not been looted, there wouldn’t even be any black people in America. These are powerful correctives to arguments around looting, and the rhetorical point—that when people of color loot a store, they are taking back a miniscule proportion of what has been historically stolen from them, from their ancestral history and language to the basic safety of their children on the street today—is absolutely essential. But purely for the purposes of this argument—because I agree wholeheartedly with the political project of these campaigns—I want to claim that what white settlers and slave traders did wasn’t mere looting. It was genocide, theft, and barbarism of the lowest order. But part of how slavery and colonialism functioned was to introduce new territories and categories to the purview of ownership, of property. Not only did they steal the land from native peoples, but they also produced a system under which the land itself could be stolen, owned by legal fiat through force of arms. Not only did they take away Africans’ lives, history, culture, and freedom, but they also transformed people into property and labor-power into a saleable commodity. Chattel slavery is the most barbaric and violent form of work coercion—but as the last 150 years has shown, you can dominate an entire people through law, violence, and wages pretty well. STB a the aff debater should surrender their offense and b the debate space should surrender focus to niggas Brady and Murillo 14 2014 Nicholas and John, “Black Imperative: A Forum on Solidarity in the Age of Coalition,” January 26, 2014, http://outofnowhereblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/black-imperative-a-forum-on-solidarity-in-the-age-of-coalition/, John Murillo III is a PhD student in the English department at Brown University, and a graduate of the University of California, Irvine, with bachelor’s degrees in Cognitive Science and English. His research interests are broad, and include extensive engagements with and within: Black Studies–particularly Afro-Pessimism–Narrative Theory; Theoretical Physics; Astrophysics; Cosmology; and Neuroscience. Nicholas Brady is an activist-scholar from Baltimore, Maryland. He was also a recent graduate of Johns Hopkins with a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and currently a doctoral student at the University of California-Irvine Culture and Theory program. “Surrender to blackness.” A grammatical imperative. Grammatical because syntactically it marks a command to or demand of a generalized addressee: “(Everyone) surrender to blackness.” Grammatical because the black flesh scarred and tattooed by these illegible hieroglyphics enunciates at the level of symbolic and ontological world orders: “Surrender to blackness” is a command at the level of the foundations of thought and being themselves; grammatical. Imperative because if there is any hope for a revolutionary praxis along any lines—race, class, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability—it must centralize, which is to say look in the face of, which is to say begin to the work of real love for, the blackness preposition which “an authentic upheaval might be born.” #BlackPowerYellowPeril failed to recognize this imperative as legible, let alone heed and meet its command/demand. Created by Suey Park (@suey_park), the hashtag sought to draw from and build upon the accomplishments of Black womyn activists on twitter and tumblr who have long mobilized to generate productive and revolutionary interjections into the world’s violently antiblack discourses (see, for example, #solidarityisforwhitewomen, and #blackmaleprivilege) through extended, communal commentary, usually in direct opposition to the censoring strictures of any kind of respectability politics. Discussions about and within the hashtag can be found here, here, here, here(though this is very hasty, a bit shortsighted, and still not doing much more than glancing at, as opposed to engaging blackness), and here. But broadly, the intentions of the hashtag are founded upon a belief in the possibility of solidarity/coalition politics between Blacks and Asians, seeking to challenge persistent “tensions” between the communities for the sake of a common struggle against ‘white supremacy.’ For those nonblack participants, the drive toward solidarity represents a purely innocent and unquestioned, unquestionable, desire. All critiques of Asian antiblackness are rendered as derailing the move toward solidarity, for they are to bring up the obvious – clearly we are all human, we make mistakes, but to continuously bring up the “mistakes” and never “move on” is to foreclose the possibility of solidarity. And what a wonderful thing the blacks of the conversation were foreclosing – this solidarity thing. What a wonderful thing others were offering to us and we simply would not take. And yet, the unthought question remains: have you truly earned the right to act in solidarity, to form solidarity, to even believe in solidarity? And what is this solidarity thing we all hold near and dear to our hearts? Have we ever experienced it or do we simply have images we have transformed into memories of a solidarity that never existed? I know Black people and Asian people have worked together in the past, but have we ever formed a solid whole? And who is to blame for the fact that we have never had solidarity? The hashtag implies that both “sides” play an equal part in the failure to form solidarity. In the face of this, confessing our sins to each other forms the moment where we can form emotional bonds: “see, you were as racist as I, and how unfortunate it is that we let old whitey come between us. Never again will whitey make us part.” This is the logic behind much of the Asian confessing – white supremacy duped us into being antiblack racists – and also fed into the backlash aimed at blacks – “stop playing oppression olympics, that’s what whitey wants.” It must be foregrounded here that antiblackness cannot be simplified as “anti-black racism” and it is a singularity with no equivalent force – “anti-Asian” racism is not the flipside of antiblackness nor is orientalism or islamophobia. Antiblackness predates white supremacy by at least 300 years (and much more than that depending on how we trace our history) and we can understand antiblackness as the general tethering of the very concept of life to the ontological and unspeakable, unthinkable force of black death. That statement is a place to begin to define antiblackness, it is not the end for this force weaves itself in infinite variety throughout all corners of the globe, forming globe into world. This is not simply about the little racist microaggressions that people listed in their tweets, this is about a global force that the world – not simply whites – bond over and form their lives inside of and through. What #BlackPowerYellowPeril revealed, however, is that the underside of coalition politics remains a violent and virulent antiblackness. As blacks— John Murillo III (@writedarkmatter), New Black School (@newblackschool), Nicholas Brady (@nubluez_nick), and others—raised questions and comments in the spirit of that singular imperative—“Surrender to blackness”—antiblackness emerged in the violence of the response levied against it; one need only visit the hashtag to bear witness. From outright refusals to engage the antiblackness central to the histories and politics of nonblack communities of color, to denials of the foundational, global, and singular nature of antiblackness, and to the repeated calls to police and remove this disruptive blackness and its imperative from the conversation, antiblackness exploded onto the scene. All of this in the name of “coalition.” This is because “coalition” politics and possibilities are fetishized, not loved. The fetish denies the necessary recognition of antiblackness at coalition’s heart, and that antiblackness left unattended renders the imperative illegible. It is a fetishization, then, of antiblackness. The fetish object at the heart of the coalition has always been black flesh – a fetishization where pleasure and terror meet to create the bonds of solidarity people so desire. Here, we open a forum on how the hashtag embodies this fetish, the distinction between fetish and love that must be made in excess of the hashtag and ones like it, and the absolute imperativeness of the imperative. Instead of fetishizing the object, you must surrender to blackness.
9/16/21
Pic- Black Grandma
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: not black | Judge: not black Text: do the aff but at my grandma’s house
1 Aff causes cooption but cp solves- Undercommons and hapticality in nonblack spaces just results in nonblack people coopting Blackness and Black spaces to constrain fugitivity. At my grandams house we can give niggas jobs and affirm touch and care through the without fear of nonblacks commodifying our style 2 Academic consumption da: Your method is all for academic consumption. If these spaces are so white, then why don’t we just not sustain and uplift these spaces in the first place. Perm fails because it a method that is still in the academy, still in debate, and has to be voted on by nonblack individuals. 3 snitchin da- We could have done the aff until you told the nonblack judge that we were going to do it, you told the master the game plan and even worse, your did it for a ballot. You snitched on the niggas running a way so you could get a reward from the master. Which turns solvency, b/c if it solves so well, then you should have not said anything in this space of whiteness. 4 ballot da-they don’t need the ballot to affirm Black endurance, care, or to endorse their method so just vote neg on presumption because I think ballots can be dope
9/19/21
T-Embodiment
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 3 | Opponent: not black | Judge: panel Interpretation: The 1AC must use the three-tier process of personal knowledge, organic and academic intellectuals to justify the plan as topical Reid-Brinkley, Shanara (2008),” The Harsh Realities Of “Acting Black”: How African-American Policy Debaters Negotiate Representation Through Racial Performance and Style” Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/reid-brinkley_shanara_r_200805_phd.pdf Taja1h The process of signifyin’ engaged in by the Louisville debaters is not simply designed to critique the use of traditional evidence. As Green argues, their goal is to “challenge the relationship between social power and knowledge.”57 In other words, those with social power within the debate community are able to produce and determine “legitimate” knowledge. These legitimating practices usually function to maintain the dominance of normative knowledgemaking practices, while crowding out or directly excluding alternative knowledge-making practices. The Louisville “framework looks to the people who are oppressed by current constructions of power.”58 Jones and Green offer an alternative framework for drawing claims in debate speeches, they refer to it as a three-tier process: A way in which you can validate our claims, is through the three-tier process. And we talk about personal experience, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals. Let me give you an analogy. If you place an elephant in the room and send in three blind folded people into the room, and each of them are touching a different part of the elephant. And they come back outside and you ask each different person they gone have a different idea about what they was talking about. But, if you let those people converse and bring those three different people together then you can achieve a greater truth.59 Violation: They don’t Definition of Topical Webster 18 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topical Taja1h Definition of topical: designed for or involving local application and action (as on the body)
Standards: 1 Knowledge making, we are key to refinement and testing the implications you introduce within debate rounds which produces better liberation strategies because we know the successful and failing ways to oppose whiteness. 2 Pornotroping: The 1AC narrates forms of violence for ballots commodifying experience and degrading them to high school debate rounds and detaching ourselves from the violence. This turns the aff because none of your impacts are achieved only recreating cruel optimism. Voters: Black Fairness –debate is educational for black bodies and it is a question of how those black bodies are able to engage and reproduce that said education exists, but that can only exist through fairness for black bodies. This o/ws their fairness, because black debaters always face the back end of debate practices. TVAs: their advocacy but in the ways their non-blackness attributes to the ways we view IP and a recognition on how it relates to your experiences and flag authors that can relate personally to the affirmative through lived experiences or personal understanding DTD T indites the aff Prefer Competing interpretations, reasonability leads to judge intervention which means biases go unchecked. No RVIS and Impact turns aren’t reasons to drop me is just a form of anti black reparations, you shouldn’t win simply because the 1NC was wrong which reproduces cancellation politics of harshly punishing black people for small mistakes.
9/20/21
T-Metaphor
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Panel Interp: The 1AC must provide a metaphorical interpretation of the resolution. To clarify, fiat and the aff’s impacts of extinction are bad and a metaphorical interpretation of the resolution means not using fiat or the member nations of the WTO as an actor 1 Real world education: Debates over hypothetical actions reduce the severity and realities of everyday violence and oppression Reid-Brinkley 19 (Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, June 2019. University of Pittsburgh, “Voice Dipped in Black: The Louisville project and the Birth of Black Radical Argument in College Policy Debate”) B1ACK ZD During competition a team is either assigned to be affirmative in a debate, and thus must defend the resolutional statement, or is assigned the negative position and negates the af¬ firmative. When a team is assigned to debate on the affirmative side they traditionally use the topic as a lens from which to offer a specific policy action that is consistent with the intent of the resolution. Thus an affirmative team need not defend all aspects of the reso¬ lution, just their specific example of the resolution (the affirmative plan). The debate reso¬ lution for the 2003–2004 school year read: “Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should enact one or more of the following: Withdrawal of its WTO complaint against the EU’s restrictions on GM Foods; Increase economic or conflict prevention aid to Greece and/ or Turkey; Withdrawal from NATO; Remove barriers to (p. 226) EU/NATO participation in Peacekeeping and Reconstruction of Iraq; Remove TNWs from Europe; Harmonize DNA intellectual property law with EU; Rescission of 2002 Farm Bill Subsidies” (“Tournament Topics 1946–2012” n.d.). Rather than a literal interpretation of the resolution that calls for the affirmative to take on the role of the US federal government, Louisville expands the traditional interpreta¬tion of the resolution and the prima facie burden of affirmative teams in competition. Specifically, the Louisville debaters engage in a metaphorical interpretation of the resolu¬tion. Louisville’s strategy is to engage the traditional methods of competitive debate prac¬tice. They argue that the resolution should serve as a metaphor, an alternative to the strict interpretation of the resolution that leads to a hyper focus on the cost-benefit analy¬sis of policy considerations. The metaphorical interpretation changes the frame for the debate. The debate is taken out of the cost-benefit analysis frame where teams argue over the relative merits of a policy as if it were actually going to be enacted in legislation after the debate. Normally a debate about US withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would center on the implications to US leadership and the potential for destabilizing China, Russia, and the Middle East. The debate would quickly degener¬ ate to a comparison of body counts on both the affirmative and negative sides, with each team arguing that the other team’s position will result in a measurable and hence compa¬ rable risk of numerous conventional and nuclear wars. Pre-Louisville debate was often parasitic, discussing bodies as objects, not subjects in policy-making. In debate competi¬tion, the race to identify a war or extinction impact as central to one’s major arguments, regardless of their potential probability, has resulted in limiting the significance of more certain and existing structural impacts like anti-Black racism and economic oppression. In the following examples, the Louisville debaters uses the foreign policy language of “withdrawal” from NATO to talk about the “exporting” of US social and political practices abroad. They will then use “withdrawal” and “exporting” as the metaphorical basis for discussing domestic US anti-Black racism. 2 exportability: Debates over literal interpretations of the resolution rather than a metaphorical one prevents debaters from talking about how their politics can create material change or how it will affect the people in the communities you claim to care about. Our model of debate is key to spread awareness and actualize movements to solve their offense
Voter is antiblackness: violent debate norms and racially charged affs must be held accountable for safety. Anti-blackness per our standards is a form of unfairness because it proves you’ve damned us from victory.
TVA: Defend in aff that acknowledges slavery as a form of IP or defends the communities you claim to care about taking grass root action
DTD T indites the aff and a model of antiblackness should not be tolerated. Prefer Competing interpretations, reasonability leads to judge intervention which means cognitive biases from nonblack judges go unchecked and you can't be reasonably antiblack. No RVIS and Impact turns aren’t reasons to drop me: a. RVIs is just a form of white reparations, you shouldn’t win simply because the 1NC was wrong which reproduces cancellation politics of harshly punishing black people for small mistakes.
And they can't weigh, or cross apply case because we are indicting the case and their starting point. They need to defend their model is a good and productive model of debate
9/16/21
T-T Framework
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: not black | Judge: not black Interpretation: when debating Black debaters only the resolutional statement should determine the division between affirmative and negative ground. To clarify, any ability to garner offense outside of the resolutional statement is a violation. Violation: You don’t 1 Limits: their model has no resolutional bound and creates the possibility for literally an infinite number of 1ACs. Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters. Which turns their AFF pre-fiat impacts because they lock lower income Black debaters out the ranks which means they never get to do the AFF advocacy. Accessibility is an independent voter because if debate is inaccessible than the 1ac recreates their impacts and prevents anyone from accessing education or fairness in the first place and Counter-interpretations are arbitrary, unpredictable, and don’t solve the world of neg prep because there’s no grounding in the resolution 2 Engagement: non topical affs prevent engagement because niggas are unable to develops substantive and quality engagement to the aff. This means they can't weigh case and presume their arguments false since I cannot contest it in the first place. Engagement is key to resolve the ac impacts because discussion and contestation allows them to develop the best method of resistance and an inclusive movement which allows their method to better get off the ground
TVA solves a) IPR is fundamentally racist Parthasarathy 20 Shobita Parthasarathy, 11-2-2020, "Racism is baked into patent systems," No Publication, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03056-z B1ack ZD In The Color of Creatorship, law scholar Anjali Vats focuses on how racism has shaped intellectual-property systems. Patent, copyright and trademark laws and policies have, she argues, imagined whiteness and creatorship as synonymous while consistently devaluing the ingenuity of people of colour. This is particularly pernicious because it is cloaked in technical legal language and in seemingly objective categories such as invention, novelty and infringement. So it goes unchallenged, and shapes our understanding of who can participate in science, technology and markets — and how. Vats’s powerful analysis draws mainly from laws and legal cases in the United States, moving roughly chronologically from the eighteenth century to the present. But her argument has international reach. US law shapes global industries and markets, and many countries have adopted the US approach to intellectual property. They see it as a model in stimulating innovation and economic growth. Most histories of US intellectual property emphasize that the idea was so central to the founding of the country that it appears in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times for Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. They also often observe that the US system was intentionally more democratic than its European predecessors, with low barriers to participation. They rarely mention that this access was limited to free persons. Enslaved people created inventions, often in agricultural technology, but could not receive intellectual-property protection through patents. After the abolition of slavery, many Black Americans held patents — including Lewis Latimer and Granville Woods, who worked on electricity and telegraphic communications. Yet, well into the twentieth century, racists used low rates of patenting to argue that people of colour lacked ingenuity and could not fully participate in the US project of technological progress. The problem is not just one of systematic exclusion. Vats argues that it is one of fundamental orientation. The rules and procedures of the patent system embody approaches to knowledge production that promote a “vision of inventorship as a process that unfolds in a laboratory, at the hands of expert scientists”. It has little truck with the creative fruits of the kitchen, forest, farm or workshop. b) CA your own Adams evidence- health systems are a form of neoliberalism Testing – topical debate allows in depth analysis of tangible solutions for real world problems. Abstracting to arbitrary advocacies deteriorates from those skills, making debate meaningless Education- 1 Portability –we care about the portable skills we carry from debate and that is only possible through valuing pedagogical debates 2 Black Fairness debate is educational for black bodies and it is a question of how those black bodies are able to engage and reproduce that said education exists, but that can only exist if the space is accessible for black individuals and we have fair rounds. This o/ws your fairness because it’s contingent on your anti-blackness and black debaters always face the back end of debate practices.
Also means you don’t get to weigh case, it’s a question of If I should even been debating this aff in the first place. Competing interps: reasonability leads to judge intervention which means cognitive biases of racist judges go unchecked which would gut aff solvency.
Drop the debater is drop the argument, as theory concerns the legitimacy of the entirety of the 1ac. No impact turns since we aren’t violent but our suggesting ways to combat antiblackness. Additionally, I am Black so this is about methods debate for niggas to form communal resistance
9/19/21
Theory-Black Authors
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 3 | Opponent: not black | Judge: panel Interp: Nonblack Debaters must have multiple black authors and flag that they are black in the 1AC citation
Violation: You don’t and can’t
Standards:
1 Diversity allows for a model of debate with integrative experiences with multiple author perspectives 2 Truth testing; We’re a better model of debate were black people could engage in rounds bc they’re debating other authors that understand their perspective and detail it 3 Citational Politics: Citing authors means their works get shared and becomes more popular which brings recognition to the violence they mention – controls the i/l to aff solvency because more people become aware of UQ violences you want to solve. 4 c/a paradigm issues
9/20/21
debate is so antiblack
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: not black | Judge: not black 1 Interp you must not prevent niggas from engaging in fugitivity. to clarifiy this is an oci to dislcosure that they must beat back a this allows a safer space that encourages fugitivity for black debaters. Also solves your standards because the shell is true, just not when debating me. B black flex- it’s harder to exist in debate and outside of debate because of structural and procedural barriers so this is key to level the playing field. 2 Impact turns are independent reasons to reject them and their model of antiblackness a Labor DA: Why must I work for you to help you, this reasserts the slave/master dichotomy where blackness works for the master to give them an easier chance b Outting DA: You want me to out my strategy which leads to a mandingo circuit of black debaters being contested and negated in public spheres to be humiliated and pushed out of spaces such as debate. c Reading disclosure is an a priroi reason to drop them, it advances a model of debate where we can call others violators for not making themselves vulnerable, dropping them is best for inclusivity and saftey 3 reps matter- if I win offense that your shell or voting issue is antiblack, violent, or net worse for Black debaters I should win because I have beaten back your arguments and proven a disad to you winning which means anything else excuses infinite antiblackness and promotes violent reps
Non-black abuse o/ws black abuse this includes independent voters A. If I’m abusive to you, that’s just an example of the fugitivity of blackness that attempts to create safe spaces w/n debate. B. It is much more preferable to make the round harder for you if that means niggas an opportunity to have a voice