Case

All of our arguments attempt to resolve the ROB- entirely

excluding our already limited ability to engage the AFF
surmounts to structural exclusion that will always favor the
AFF- now the LBL

Harris
The 1NC Harris ev says that abstractions in context of IR will
never solve the material reality that plagues US-China
relations, ie trans people targeted by exclusionary sentinel
surveillance, or trans people without health care or access to
jobs- geopolitical readings are good and statist worldviews are
the only solution to dealing with oppression via concrete
solvency mechanisms

Thiel
1NC Thiel evidence says that trans-disidentification denies
material progress for trans people actually facing structural
inequalities like job loss, no health care, etc. Its net beneficial
to combine trans identity and IR to produce the best kinds of
policies- we get that trans people have been rendered invisible
in the status quo, but we never say that should be the normrather IR can be an outlet for identity politics
The 2AC Sjoberg evidence still cedes that pragmatic IR can
occur, just alongside trans theorization- that doesnt disprove
our legalism good claim- just proves our FW solves best
The second piece of ev is the same- just says examining the
incoherence of gender is a good thing within and IR and also
cedes that its not new within the political sphere, means we
solve your ROB because we expand IR theory to recognize how
trans people pass across boundaries
Trans rage can be incorporated into our stasis point- read
Strykers words and use rage as the impetus to engage Chinaits not a methodology unique to their interp

The double bind

We shouldnt be forced to engage in identity politics by
narrating trans-violence- if identity politics are good the clash
you create is discursively abusive and violent because debates
become an ugly battle of suffering porn in which I try to out
queer you- thats not what Im about, that wrecks personal
agency
Or ID politics are bad in which you case you reject their c/I
entirely because the discussions they produce are totally
irresolvable- yep, trans violence is bad, I dont want to debate
against your method
Nothing here is really responsive to our argumentI did my work above on Sjoberg who indicates a parametricized
AFF is best
But their claims of trans rage get them nowhere
Even if trans rage is key, we can never access it as the NEG,
which reifies queer oppression- thats their Stanley evidence,
forces us into the position of overkill
OR trans rage is bad for debate because we ultimately have to
agree on it which means no dialectics occur and no discussion
is actually debated or solved

Bankey
Debate is inevitably a game- it has winners and losers- its a
competition; if they disagreed they wouldnt have read a role
of the ballot, or framed it competitively- all they said was that
this framing is bad but weve isolated critical reasons why
their discourse is abusive
Using identity politics to gain a ballot scapegoats other teams
who inevitably loses must be collateral damage for your
activism- if we agree with your methodology, what does it
mean about your selection of forum if we ultimately get
excluded from your reading by LOSING to trans rage? That
scapegoats us as a problem, perpetuating trans phobia which
forces us into opposition toward your project- fuck that

FW
o/v
Our interpretation was that the AFF has to propose the
implementation of a hypothetical policy action- the 1AC didntthis is a voter for
1: Fair prep and clash- changing the topic post facto recreates
oppressive structures unique to the AFF position because they
get intense bias (first/last speech) plus perms to Ks, the only
actual ground we get, means they wreck any possibility of a
meaningful neg role within their discourse which turns their
offense- that was Galloway
2: Deliberative dialogueThe aff calls for a monologue in which only they get access to
the offense of their identity claims- the neg calls for a dialogue
in which we creates a space where we can have those
discussions on both sides, reciprocating the ground of
argumentation, we dont even get core disads or counterplans,
means they dont have to defend the actual world of the AC.
Argumentation is a form of respect- making all out
methodology claims will always trump our offense, means they
shut down avenues of discussion- that means they re-engage
the oppressive structures they critique by OBJECTIVELY
excluding the NEG; their interpretation will gut any
pedagogical benefits of the AC because the NEG doesnt get to
deliberate
3: They definitely ceded extra-Topicality: The aff claims
solvency mechanisms in addition to the resolution; discursive
projects are additional to the resolution and prove its not
enough, that justifies 1 topical plank and 99 untopical ones, ie
engage with China plus elect Donald Trump which is an i/L to
fairness, we can never prep against extra T affs

TVA
-The USfg should cooperatively regulate its HIV sentinel
monitoring with the PRC
-The USfg should engage with the PRC by creating a working
group over healthcare access for transgender individuals
You get to defend material change for transgender individuals
who get oppressed by American/ Chinese exceptionalism- read
a majority of your evidence, even keep the Stryker poem and
talk about how you identify with those struggles- we get
disads and CPs.
Also cross apply their Sjoberg evidence from the case debatewho says trans politics within IR can still combat cis privilege
and create discursive change
The only warrant coming out of CX is that state is
transphobic but reading an AFF that takes the USfg to task
via legal reform doesnt reify hetero-IR
Saul Newman 10, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory
& Event Volume 13, Issue 2
the notion of
demand: making certain demands on the state say for higher wages, equal rights for excluded
groups, to not go to war, or an end to draconian policing is one of the basic strategies of
social movements and radical groups. Making such demands does not
There are two aspects that I would like to address here. Firstly,

necessarily mean working within the state or reaffirming its legitimacy .

On the contrary, demands are made from a position outside the political
order, and they often exceed the question of the implementation of this
or that specific measure. They implicitly call into question the legitimacy and
even the sovereignty of the state by
highlighting fundamental inconsistencies between, for instance, a formal constitutional
order which guarantees certain rights and equalities, and state practices which in
reality violate and deny them.

LBL

AT c/i
a) Cross apply the double bind from case- their interps
demand for us to defend sheer trans identity either
denies our existence as queers or creates irresolvable
discussions
b) That also means coercion is a DA: trans individuals would
have to come out to get the ballot or get strategic
footing, that creates a hostile and uncomfortable debate
environment that perpetuates the same yes-no binary to
the question of trans identity, just like male-female
binaries
c) Their counter-interpretation of individual narratives and
subjectivity is not a good starting point---we have to
extend politics beyond the realm of our immediate
experience---systemic analysis key
Rob 14 Carleton College, Robtheidealist, My Skinfolk Ain't All Kinfolk,
www.orchestratedpulse.com/2014/03/problem-identity-politics/

identity politics
merely means political activity that caters to the interests of a particular social
group. In a certain sense, all politics are identity politics. However, its one thing to
intentionally form a group around articulated interests; its another matter entirely
when group membership is socially imposed.
Personal identities are socially defined through a combination of systemic rewards/marginalization
plus actual and/or potential violence. We cant build politics from that foundation
because these socially imposed identities dont necessarily tell us anything about
someones political interests. Successful identity politics requires shared interests,
not shared personal identities.
Im not here to tell you that personal identity doesnt matter ; we rightfully point out
that systemic power shapes peoples lives. Simply put, my message is that personal identity is not the only thing that
matters. We spend so much energy labeling peopleprivileged/marginalized,
oppressor/oppressedthat we often neglect to build spaces that antagonize
Some people look at these flaws and call for an end to identity politics, but I think thats a mistake. At its most basic level,

the systems that cause our collective trauma .

All You Blacks Want All the Same Things
We assume that if a person is systemically marginalized, then they must have a vested interest in dismantling that system. Yet, thats not always the
case.
Take Orville Lloyd Douglas, who last summer wrote an article in the Guardian in which he admitted that he hates being Black.
I can honestly say I hate being a black male I just dont fit into a neat category of the stereotypical views people have of black men. I hate rap music, I
hate most sports, and I like listening to rock music I have nothing in common with the archetypes about the black male I resent being compared to
young black males (or young people of any race) who are lazy, not disciplined, or delinquent. Orville Lloyd Douglas, Why I Hate Being a Black Man

As we can see from Douglas cry for help, membership in a marginalized group is no guarantee that a
person can understand and effectively combat systemic oppression . Yet, we seem to
treat all marginalized voices as equal, as if they are all insightful, as if there is no
diversity of thought, as ifin the case of race All you Blacks want all the same
things.
Shared identity does not equal shared interests . John Ridley, the Oscar-winning screenplay writer of 12 Years a
Slave, is a good example. Hes written screenplays based on Jimi Hendrix, the L.A. riots, and other poignant moments and icons within Black history. He
wants to see more Black people in Hollywood and he has a long history of successfully incorporating Black and Brown characters into comic book stories
and franchises.

However, in 2006, Ridley made waves with an essay in which he castigated Black people who did not live up to his standards; saying, Its time for
ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck.
So I say this: Its time for ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck. Just as whites may be concerned with the good of all citizens but dont travel their
days worrying specifically about the well-being of hillbillies from Appalachia, we need to send niggers on their way. We need to start extolling the most
virtuous of ourselves. It is time to celebrate the New Black Americansthose who have sealed the Deal, who arent beholden to liberal indulgence any
more than they are to the disdain of the hard Right. It is time to praise blacks who are merely undeniable in their individuality and exemplary in their
levels of achievement. The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger
While Ridley and I share cultural affinity, and we both want to see Black people doing well, shared cultural affinity and common identity are not enough
which recent history makes abundantly clear. Barack Obama continues to deport record numbers of Brown immigrants here at home, while mercilessly

Don Lemon, speaking in support of Bill OReilly, said that racism

would be lessened if Black people pulled up their pants and stopped littering. Last
fall, 40% of Black U.S. Americans supported airstrikes against Syria.
bombing Brown folks abroad.

My skinfolk aint all kinfolk, and the Left needs to catch up.
NO MORE ALLIES
John Ridley, Barack Obama, myself, and Don Lemon are all Black males. We also have conflicting political positions and interests, but how can we decide
which paths are valid if we only pay attention to personal identity?

Instead of learning to recognize how the overarching systems maintain their power
and then attacking those tools, we spend our energy finding an other to embody
the systemic marginalization and legitimize our spaces and ideals. In some
interracial spaces I feel like nothing more than an interchangeable token whose only
purpose is to legitimize the politics of my White peers. If not me, then some other Black person would fill the
slot.

We use these others as authorities on various issues, and we use concepts like
privilege to ensure that people stay in their lanes. People of color are the authorities on race, while LGBTQ
people are the authorities on gender and sexuality, and so forth and so on. Yet, experience is not the same as
expertise, and privilege doesnt automatically make you clueless . As Ive discussed,
these groups are not oriented around a singular set of political ideals and practices.
Furthermore, as we see in Andrea Smiths work, there are often competing interests within these groups .
We mistake essentialism for intersectionality as we look for the ideal subjects
to embody the various forms of oppression; true intersectionality is a description of systemic power, not a call for
diversity.

If we dont develop any substantive analysis of systemic power , then its

impossible to know what our interests are, and aligning with one another according
to shared interests is out of the question. In this climate all that remains is the ally,
which requires no real knowledge or political effort, only the willingness to appear
supportive of an other. We cant build power that way.
After having gathered to oppose organized White supremacy at the University of
North Carolina, a group of organizers in Durham, North Carolina found that the Lefts emphasis
on personal identity and allyship was a major reason why their efforts collapsed.
They proposed that we adopt the practice of forming alliances rather than
identifying allies . (h/t NinjaBikeSlut)
Much of the discourse around being an ally seems to presume a relationship of one-sided support, with one person or group following anothers

In an
alliance, the two parties support each other while maintaining their own selfdetermination and autonomy, and are bound together not by the relationship of
leader and follower but by a shared goal. In other words, one cannot actually be the
ally of a group or individual with whom one has no political affinity and this means
that one cannot be an ally to an entire demographic group, like people of color, who
do not share a singular cohesive political or personal desire. The Divorce of Thought From Deed
While its vital for me to learn the politics and history of marginalized experiences
that differ from my own, listen to their voices, and respect their spaces and contributions its also important for
me to understand the ways in which these same systems have shaped my own
identity/history as well. Since we know that oppression is systemic and multidimensional, then Im
leadership. While there are certainly times where this makes sense, it is misleading to use the term ally to describe this relationship.

going to have to step outside of personal experience and begin to

develop political ideals and practices that actually antagonize those

systems . I have to understand and articulate my interests, which will allow me to
operate from a position of strength and form political alliances that advance those
interests interests which speak to issues beyond just my own immediate
experience .

AT prereq to fairness
a) Fairness is a prereq to discussing transphobia- that was
Dryzek- their refusal to engage the topic isnt benign,
rather their ethos will always trump any inch of ground
the NEG gets from their already unstable interpretationthat guts their pedagogy and makes deliberation
impossible
b) Our interp controls the i/L to fairness- your narrative still
happens under our interp but we get to engage it

AT FW=/= trans speech

a) Answered that above on TVA- our FW invites you to say
why transphobic policies are fucked in the status quomost T affs dont mandate gender binaries cause you can
utilize legalism to already challenge statist norms that by
nature exclude trans people- that solves the ROB

AT trans dont have ground- aff prereq

a) We control ground- TVA means you dont lose all the AFF
and you still get footing within your narratives of the
monster whereas the NEG gets no core disads or CPs- the
1AC demands a tradeoff that prioritizes ethos over
dialogue which turns the case whereas TVA means we
solve 100% of the AFF and also preserve NEG ground
b) Stasis point outweighs regardless- even if they win that
debate is a key site to contest transphobia, they still
discourage negative engagement and participationempirically causes students to quit and programs to shut
down which turns their liberation claims
Rowland 84 (Robert C., Debate Coach Baylor University, Topic Selection in
Debate, American Forensics in Perspective, Ed. Parson, p. 53-54)
The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is
the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate.
As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that
utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented toward debating the
national policy debate proposition, so-called NDT programs, are diminishing in
scope and size.4 This decline in policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe,
to excessively broad topics. The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy
debate topics is extreme breath. A resolution calling for regulation of land use
literally and figuratively covers a lot of ground. Naitonal debate topics have not
always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular
policy change.5 The move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to some, the
effect of limiting the number of students who participate in policy debate. First, the
breadth of the topics has all but destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that
because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value
debate as a means of introducing students to the debate process.6 Despite this
advantage of policy debate, Gaske belives that NDT debate is not the best vehicle
for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad policy topics terrify novice debaters,
especially those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with
the breadth of the topic and experience negophobia,7 the fear of debating negative. As
a consequence, the educational advantages associated with teaching novices
through policy debate are lost: Yet all of these benefits fly out the window as
rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caugh
without evidence or substantive awareness of the issues that confront them at a
tournament.8 The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus
lessening the educational value of the activity and limiting the number of debaters
or eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to
noting the effect on novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage
experienced debaters from continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is
that it takes so much times and effort to be competitive on a broad topic that students who
are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced out of the activity.9 Gaske
notes, that broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do

requisite research.10 The final effect may be that entire programs either cease
functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research
burdens. Boman supports this point: It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and
thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between institutions that
participate in academic debate.11 In this view, it is the competitive imbalance
resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel
their programs.

AT solves IR edu
Cross apply Thiel from the case debate- inter-meshing trans
identity within IR is key to producing material change for those
communities via pragmatic legalism- ANYTHING ELSE FAILSmeans our education is best and solves their K, plus its
predictable which is net beneficial

AT rage solves FW
a) Rage doesnt establish a clear stasis point for affirmationmeans it cant solve FW cause it doesnt endorse a topical
policy implementation.
b) Plus it loops back into exclusive models of debate- that
was the dialogue DA

AT Transphobia o/ws
a) First, no offense prior to the resolution- well concede
that talking about any type of identity violence is
subjectively better than the resolution but that doesnt
access stable ground for the NEG to actually refute
whatever narrative you read which is a key reason
limiting down debate is net-best
b) Prep and ground outweigh the case because even if they
win transphobia is more important than the resolution
those discussions dont access predictable ground which
means they are still inaccessible to the NEG- that was the
Rowland evidence above

AT Mummy DA
a) No prior offense- that was above
b) Creativity within our FW solves Grimm- the TVAs are
pretty dank- creativity only occurs when you have a stasis
to compare it to and elaborate off of which their c/I
doesnt provide
c) FW isnt superficial- that was Ericson whos super
contextual to policy debate- the stasis point for the topic
is federal action- our interpretation isnt the same as
placing limits on sexual/gender subjectivity either

AT Rage is political
a) Still justifies un-limited AFFs, ie throwing desks and
scraping nails on a chalkboard in debate are concrete
tactics to express something but that doesnt mean we
can debate your method just because its functional
Justifies functional but untopical mechanisms like US,
China, and Vietnam should have an orgy, Thomas the
Tank Engine should watch GoT with me
b) If its just a debate of methodology, FW is net-beneficial;
we parametricize your ethic and solve the dialogue and
prep disads which is more inclusive

AT Dialogue K
a) Vattimo just says that dialogue is always neutral and no
clash actually occurs but the 1AC links way harder
because Ill fucking cede that trans-violence is bad, their
framing of the AFF makes it uniquely hard to disagree
which creates a trap of neutrality and triggers the MPX of
indifference cause zero dialectical clash occurs
b) Dialogue is still good and possible- that was Dryzekabsolutist claims about identity ie transphobia bad
creates a dogmatic backdrop that refuses actual
participation in the sport- democratic reciprocation is
uniquely key to in-round equality; dialogue isnt just a
banal quest for PTX disad links, but to respect the agency
of other debaters by not using unpredictable narratives
and ethos to cut them out of the debate by making
undeniable claims

AT aff is best conversation

They misunderstand what a dialogue is- the 1NC Galloway
evidence says that refusing to defend a topical state action
denies the NEG to have any counter-word in the debate which
denies us any role within your discourse which is exclusion- all
the MPX and warrants in the o/v

AT your edu is cis

a) The Bauer evidence is power tagged af, our FW never
mandates that affs reify the gender binary- TVA has same
advocacy, means we solve it back
b) We also invite you criticize SQ normativity- that was
Newman above- their only attempt at a warrant was state
bad which is embarrassingly unspecific when weve parametricized their ethics
c) Thiel evidence creates predictable and progressive
education - combining IR and trans politics is netbeneficial, disidentification denies material progress by
disengaging from legalism

AT FW prioritizes cis people

a) Fiat doesnt force you to become the cis State, just that
you engage in it as a mechanism- that means you can still
operate outside confines of hegemonic knowledge- that
was Newman above
b) Their privilege theory is the worst; Reducing
argumentation to poles of oppression is reductive and
destroys the potential for universal struggle--individualizing accounts of oppression that restrict people
solely to their social location recreate neoliberal fatalism
Esme Choonara and Yuri Prasad 14, author of A Rebel's Guide to Trotsky and
author of The struggle for Tamil freedom. Whats wrong with privilege theory?
www.isj.org.uk/?id=971
Most privilege theorists would also agree that the privileged should not be called on to
give up their advantagesthough primarily because they believe that privilege is
something that cannot be got rid of, not because of a need for wider solidarity . As
Michael Kimmel puts it, One can no more renounce privilege than one can stop breathing. 40
This is a very pessimistic theoryjust as someone cannot renounce their privilege,
they cannot avoid being complicit in oppressing others. They can only aspire to
greater awareness of their privilege and attempt to curb or legislate against the worst expressions of it.
Ironically the idea that we cant escape our privileges seems to echo the Marxist notion that being determines consciousness

someones ideas and behaviours flow directly from their position of privilege or
penalty. But this highly reductive and deterministic view of how oppressive

ideas are formed is, as we have seen, a long way from Marxism. First, someones being
in this sense cannot just be reduced to a sum of what oppressions they do or dont
suffer. Second, there is a range of ideas across society, including among the oppressed
and there is no direct correlation between ideas and the level of oppression an
individual faces . Peoples ideas are not fixed otherwise why bother with
argument , political organisation and so on? Finally people are not just passive
objectswe constantly act on and interact with the world around us . In particular the
antagonism at the heart of capitalism compels people to fight back, creating a situation in
which human agency changes not just the world around them, but also the people
themselves.
Privilege theory also expresses a form of elitismwe are all seen to be inescapably bound
to innate bias and oppressive ideas except the theorists themselves who have been
able to reach a degree of enlightened self-awareness. Those who see us all as
prisoners of our unearned advantages can only ever expect to persuade a minority
to acknowledge their privileges. In this way, despite superficially appearing to be
rooted in material reality, privilege theory actually collapses into idealism
seeing ideas as the crucial factor. That is why for privilege theory the key focus is
education and awareness.
This approach has a lot in common with liberalisma focus on educating individuals and a
moral imperative to strive for justice , without believing that inequality can be

completely overcome (presumably without wiping out men or white people or

heterosexuals at least).

privilege theory literature focuses not just on challenging others, but on

challenging oneself. Even an author with such a broad historical scope as Collins argues that change starts with self,
Much of the

and relationships that we have with those around us must always be the primary site for social change.41
There is, of course, nothing wrong with individuals being self-critical about their attitudes and interactions with others. And it is right

the struggle against huge

systemic divisions such as racism, sexism and homophobia cannot rely on the
individual self-reflection of a number of progressive individuals.
to challenge all manifestations of oppressive behaviour, language and attitudes. But

These arguments are not new. Writing more than 20 years ago, Ambalavaner Sivanandan pointed to the dangers of an approach

that focused primarily on the personal and interpersonal: By

personalising power, the personal is

political personalises the enemy: the enemy of the black is white as the enemy of
the woman is the man. And all whites are racist like all men are sexist .42
Privilege theory tends to reduce political argument to moral appeal and personal
feelings, in which who is saying something often becomes more important than what
they are saying. This is one reason that the notion of privilege is potentially
corrosive to debate and actually risks letting oppressive behaviour off the hook. If
someone speaks or behaves in a racist or sexist way, it is surely better , and more educative
for all concerned, to challenge them by explaining that what they do or say is racist or sexist, rather than
attributing it to an automatic expression of their privileged gender, race, sexuality
and so on.
Even when supporters of privilege theory move away from the relentless focus on
individuals and involve themselves in wider campaigns they insist that the privileged can play at
most a supporting role to the oppressed. Frances Kendall, for example, argues that the point of
checking our privileges is to become an ally, able to build authentic relationships with those who
do not share our privileges.43

The focus on trying to change ideas in ourselves and others before a meaningful
challenge to wider structural inequalities is possible is getting things the wrong way
round . Most people who enter into struggle, whether for better rights at work, to stop
a war, against racism, sexism or some other campaign, bring with them a mixture of
contradictory ideas. They may accept some reactionary ideas, and reject others. It is precisely in the
struggle for change that most people learn new insights into how capitalism
functions, and old assumptions and prejudices can be broken down. This is because in
battling for change, peoples direct experiences come into the sharpest conflict with the view of the world propagated by the
institutions of capitalism.