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.