Bad Education Negative Supplement - Michigan 7 2024 BDKLS

Bad Education Neg Supplment
Notes
This is a negative supplement to help answer the Bad Education aff the K lab. It contains some additional evidence that can be used to beat the case, as well as some K links or pics that apply. This should be used in conjunction with the already existing files, such as the K Aff Neg, the k answer updates, and any neg files already put out.
Thanks to Zoe, Sophia, Smaritha, Ryan, Julia, Hermes, Eric, Aidan, Abel, and Aaron for their help with the K neg supplement files.
T
AT: Debate bad for queer students---2NC
Debate is good for queer students because predictable clash spills over to real world impacts. Structural unfairness doesn’t matter in debate because the inability to find perfect models turns education.
Lepp 23 [Nicholas Lepp; PHD in communication studies specializing in queerness and debate ; 8-9-2023; "Toward a queering of debate"; Taylor & Francis; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511431.2024.2365518?needAccess=true; accessed 7-27-2024; AH]
This essay has presented a reading of the question “what might it mean to queer debate” which isolates a site of irresolvable tension between “queer” and “debate.” Queer’s central characteristic is its ability to be radically open and develop meaning based on its particular instantiations; debate, on the other hand, is constrained by a variety of factors including speech times, the competition format of the activity, and wins and losses. Rather than try to resolve this tension by either limiting queer or unlimiting debate, I have suggested that we might consider reading it as an instance of aporia, an irresolvable impasse which is nevertheless generative insofar as it invites us to reconsider thinking in the face of this incommensurability. For me, this generative understanding of the necessary conflict between “queer” and “debate” focuses on the hyper-specificity and intense contextuality of queer and applies it to an understanding of debate. As a result, my suggestion has been that to queer debate is to approach each individual debate and consider it on its own terms such that our students sidestep arguments about the overall adoption of each model in favor of the particular contingencies associated with each specific debate. Of course, I have provided but one suggestion when considering how we might queer debate. Many may reasonably disagree with me, and I certainly invite others to advance their own positions, theories, and ideas about what it might mean to queer debate. If one of the central lessons of queer’s evolution throughout recent history is the term’s ability to change depending on its contingent deployments, then a queer model of debate must also be able to morph in different ways. And as I have also suggested, debate’s evolution reflects a similar history to queer’s, changing significantly as teams push the boundaries of what should and should not function within debate rounds. Similarly, aporia invites a plurality of responses, albeit those which are inevitably trapped by the impasse that is aporia. Perhaps there are other contextual factors which may invite a queer model of debate that looks different than the model-less model I have proposed here. In addition to proposing a queer model of debate, I hope to have provided two important lessons for those of us interested in both the educational value of debate and the continuation of debates about debate. First, I have suggested that debate is a messy activity. Even as rules and norms governing the activity ensure a certain standard of predictability, the inability to come to definitive conclusions about how all debates should look ensures that the activity has a certain level of disorganization, chaos, and confusion. Many people who judge “clash of civilizations” rounds which pit different models of debate against each other suggest that they do not believe there is a “right” answer to how all debate should be; as someone who often judges these kinds of debates (and votes for both the “policy” and the “kritikal” teams with frequency), I tend to agree with my colleagues. Yet the disorderly chaos preventing the policy debate community from resolving debates about debate makes possible a level of ingenuity and creativity that we should inculcate in our students. My point is not that debate is necessarily unstable or impossible to prepare for; nor is it that debate should not be stable or predictable at all. Rather, my position is that one of the important lessons debate can teach our students is to be artful and slick, figuring out how to adapt to different situations as they evolve and change. In a sense, this lesson extends Gordon Mitchell’s (1998, 57) claim that “with greater room to maneuver for inventing strategies for action, taking risks, making mistakes and affecting change, scholars can begin to envision how to do things with arguments not only in the cozy confines of contest round competition, but in the world beyond as well.” These are skills that are quite beneficial in everyday life, as everyone must learn to adapt to situations as they morph in unpredictable ways; my suggestion has been that debate’s messiness is necessary for inculcating these important skills. Second, I have suggested that all models of debate are imperfect. There will always be concerns about accessibility, dogmatism, exclusion, fairness, and portable skills associated with each proposed model of debate. Rather than either giving up on debates about debate or trying to find the ideal version of debate, my suggestion has been that it is in the very inability to find perfection that we might isolate the educational value of encouraging our students to engage in debates about debate. In other words, much like aporia itself, debates about debate are stuck—but in a productive and generative manner. My position thus diverges from other debate educators who suggest that our goal ought to be to “resolve old disagreements about the paradigms and pedagogies of educational debate” (Hogan and Kurr 2017, 87). Instead, my suggestion is that it is from within the very inability to find resolution for the disagreements between and among debates about debate that we may advance conversations about the intellectual and argumentative value of continuing to engage in these kinds of debates. The college policy debate community is split over what constraints are acceptable and which are not; my suggestion is that we may mine that irresolvable division to find the educational value of debating about debate. And it is particularly important for debaters, educators, and coaches to advance conversations about the benefits of debate now, in the wake of recent conservative attacks on our activity. In a variety of places, Derrida (1992, 41) reminds us that “ethics, politics, and responsibility, if there are any, will only ever have begun with the experience and experiment of the aporia” (See also Derrida 1993; Derrida 1995; Derrida 2001). Derrida (1992, 41) continues by stating that “when the path is clear and given, when a certain knowledge opens up the way in advance, the decision is already made, it might as well be said that there is none to make: irresponsibly, and in good conscience, one simply applies or implements a program.” If we already know what must be done, then we are not making a decision; we have not really been faced with a choice to make. Instead, making a decision, as one must when considering ethics, politics, and responsibility, necessitates insurmountable indeterminacy, uncertainty, and doubt. Much like ethics, politics, and responsibility, queering debate necessitates an overwhelming and irresolvable level of perplexity and messiness. But approaching that mess from a position of radical openness makes possible a different way of considering the value of debates about debate. While we may not ever be certain what the correct model of debate is, we can turn to aporia for an idea of what to do in the face of that uncertainty. Ethics, politics, and responsibility—every debate, in some way, addresses these three topics. Can we remain open to their irresolvable possibilities?
Copyright TVA---2NC
Copyright reform in enforcement, intellectual property education schemes, and meditation with queer artists are policy proposals that let queer arts survive
Albert 21 [Antoine Prince Albert Iii; Antoine Prince Albert III is a Government Affairs Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, Inc., a DC-based public interest group working to defend consumer rights in the emerging digital culture. At PK, Prince delivers high-impact advocacy strategies on issues like online platform governance and competition, Section 230, artificial intelligence and algorithms, music licensing, net neutrality, digital inclusion, and privacy. He is routinely consulted for critical insights on how technology functions within Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities in the United States, the Caribbean, and Africa. ; 6-25-2021; "Copyright Vogued, Dragged, and Bounced: Reimagining ‘Fair Use’ Through LGBTQ+ Artistic Expressions"; Public Knowledge; https://publicknowledge.org/copyright-vogued-dragged-and-bounced-reimagining-fair-use-through-lgbtq-artistic-expressions/; accessed 7-27-2024; AH]
Queer arts are uniquely important to queer identities, rainbow youth empowerment, and the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement because unqualified acceptance and intentional inclusion only come through societal acknowledgment and deepening empathy. Acknowledgment and empathy manifest in queer representation in art and media. While we vogue our hands, pat our feet, laugh our stomachs into knots, and wipe tears from our eyes, queer actors, musicians, comedians, painters, and fashionistas are imperceptibly sensitizing us to the complexities of the human sexuality spectrum and structuring our societal conversations about power, love, and the law. Most importantly, queer youth who are most at risk for suicide, homelessness, exposure to illicit drugs, and childhood physical, psychological, and sexual abuse will lose hope when the queer artists they emulate get picked off by major record labels and media conglomerates. Queer kids will never know that “It Gets Better” with time, intentional community, and self-actualization. If rightsholders were to exercise their rights to enjoin drag, ballroom, and queer music performances, we’d lose more than art.
LGBTQ+ arts are now experiencing what rappers endured in the late ‘80s and ‘90s — the dead ends of the copyright system. These artists depend on de facto non-enforcement of our Chapter 17 of the United States Code to survive, and they survive until they thrive. Once arts start thriving, the media conglomerates want their financial cut of outsider arts. As drag, ballroom, and bounce performances move from nighttime shows in dark smokey clubs to Apple Music, Spotify, and prime-time streaming services, queer art grows increasingly susceptible to DCMA takedowns and performance injunctions to stop queer artists from making more money on their copyrights than the conglomerates do.
But All Hope Is Not Lost!
Here are three policy ideas worth exploring for the survival of queer arts:
Let’s empower queer artists with knowledge about the copyright landscape so that they can make informed decisions about how they reprise and revive works. Young artists sharing their work via social media are susceptible to DMCA takedowns because they are not familiar with the technical statutory contours of fair use, or how to emphasize uncopyrightable aspects of original works. This education effort can help queer artists make artistic decisions and publicity choices to navigate around or through copyright allegations. Education efforts may even ignite a conversation about newer, more agile IP rights that spur more creation and more sharing.
Corporate rightsholders should continue strategic non-enforcement and, when appropriate, pursue mediated arbitrations with queer artists. The asymmetries between complex media conglomerates that hold the rights to nearly all mainstream original works and the regional drag queens, young ballroom walkers, and home-grown bounce MCs who borrow from those works induce a corporate abuse of power that chills free artistic exercise and further marginalizes queer culture. Instead, they can be good corporate citizens and recognize queer cultures’ inherent essence to American culture. Instead of immediately resorting to litigation or the blunt instrument of take-downs, rights-holding media companies can also pursue voluntary alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. These forms of dispute resolution can be unfair when they are forced on people, when the adjudicator applies rules that systematically favor one side (typically the more powerful one), or when the process ends up biased towards the party that pays the expenses. But it can be done right, too, and the platforms that queer artists use can help set up a process that is fair to users and to rightsholders.Mediation is one form of ADR where the parties, guided by a neutral third party (“mediator”), discuss their issues, interests, understandings, and feelings in a private forum. In mediations, large copyright holders and queer artists can share information and explore innovative resolutions beyond rote court-adjudicated remedies like enjoining future performances and engorgement of profits. Disputing parties generally reach a “sustainable, voluntary, and nonbinding agreement” that can be challenged in court if not honored by both parties. Failing that, other forms of ADR such as mediation-arbitration (med-arb) can be appropriate. These processes can allow artists to tell their story and make their cases in nontraditional ways. In recent years, mediators have designed [cultural and] “artistic interventions [that] provide a setting conducive to dialogue… to circumvent highly-charged patterns of discourse.” Perhaps ADR can move us from compromise-created incentives to incentive-created compromises that protect queer arts from retribution and marginalization.
Corporate rightsholders should discover, feature, and employ queer artists equitably. Media companies should increase efforts to scout, showcase, and fairly compensate queer artists. Lucrative contracts would offer queer artists public presence and financial viability to escape persecution and even transform the communities that once persecuted them. (See bounce artist Big Freedia’s “Bounce Up” charity organization that improves the lives of New Orleans children. See also Rihanna sponsoring the 2019 Latex Ball’s face category with Fenty Beauty makeup products and funding the $10,000 grand prize.) Instead of targeting people who are disproportionately subjected to physical, mental, and emotional abuse as well as financial exclusion and legally un-cognizeable systemic and individual microaggressions, corporations can stand in the gap and empower queer artists by hiring them and working with them.
As queer people assume their rightful places on America’s mainstream stages, and as queer rights evolve beyond tokenistic recognition, our copyright regime could use a good drag, a hot vogue, and a hard bounce to catch up to queer imaginations.
DA---Russia
Russia DA---1NC
Promoting epistemic insecurity fuels far-right populism and is used to support Russian revisionism – that shields Putin’s regime from domestic revolution
P. B. Craik, 19 – London School of Economics and Political Science “The Weaponization of Postmodernism: Russia’s New War with Europe” https://aei.pitt.edu/102413/1/LEQSPaper146.pdf edited for ableist language - DH
This relationship between epistemic insecurity and acceptance of ‘alternative knowledges’ is of great interest to the Russian government. The weakening of scientific dominance in favour of a plurality closely mirrors Russian designs on liberal hegemony at the international level. The same applies to the incursion of conspiracy thinking into the ground previously occupied by rational liberal political debate. Again, to put this in post modern terms, once Russia has ‘exposed’ the dominant discourses of the West for what they are—lies and distortions—the (psychological) ground is clear for the rise of ‘alternative’ discourses, ‘alternative knowledges’, all of which are, at least in principle, equally valid.
One example of this tactic in action is RT’s penchant for anti-mainstream politicians, granting ‘extended coverage to party leaders and their views, as well as portraying key common enemies, such as the US and global capital, in a negative way’ (Grätz 2015: p. 43). Nigel Farage, for instance, the then leader of Britain’s Eurosceptic Ukip party, appeared on RT at least seventeen times between December 2010 and April 2014 (Wintour and Mason 31 March 2014). As Patrick Wintour and Rowena Mason at the Guardian note, ‘The Ukip leader has appeared so frequently that he is cited in literature for the TV station Russia Today as one of their special and “endlessly quotable” British guests. “He has been known far longer to the RT audience than most of the British electorate,” Russia Today claims’ (31 March 2014).
Populist parties like Mr. Farage’s Ukip are on the rise across Europe, and have earned their popularity in large part because of their status as outsiders, as alternatives to an unresponsive and overbearing ‘political elite’ (Panizza 2005: p. 9). RT supports this narrative in at least two ways. First it lends support to their case against mainstream politicians by presenting them as corrupt, manipulative and deceiving; and second it gives them and their views extensive positive coverage in their programing. These parties all represent political ‘alternatives’ and typically alternatives in line with Russia’s interests. As Grätz concludes,
For Putin, these new anti-mainstream parties represent a huge opening for his effort to undermine the EU. They are exactly the force that he needs for realizing his goals: they are mostly opposed to the US and NATO, while advocating stronger ties with Russia. In most cases, they also want to dismantle the EU, striving for a Europe of self-sufficient sovereign nation states instead of rules-based integration… [And even] if such parties do not come to power they will lead to a more cautious approach in the EU… as they will be a credible threat to existing elites. (2015 p. 42)
Strengthening the position and the plausibility of these alternatives within Europe has direct and obvious implications for Russia’s aspirations to global multipolarity, and applied postmodernism as I have described it provides Russia with just the set of tools it needs to do this.
But as I have said, Russia’s promotion of alternative perspectives is not limited to fringe political groups; through RT it also engages in the promotion of ‘subjugated knowledges’ in the form of conspiracy theories. In fact, these form a regular part of its coverage, especially on shows like The Truthseeker (Yablokov 2015: p. 306). On one episode of the show, for instance, its host claims that ‘investigation finds the FBI practically behind every so-called terrorist plot in the United States. Agents find someone poor enough to bribe and set up the plot for them from start to finish’ (quoted in Bruk 2014: p. 12). And, as Weiss and Pomerantsev report, one of RT’s Spanishlanguage programs recently ‘considered whether the US was behind the Ebola outbreak’, while ‘during the Syrian conflict… RT broadcast programs about an alleged massacre by rebel forces at Adra—a massacre that appears never to have taken place’ (2014: p. 16).
While RT often voices open support for conspiracy theories, as in the cases above, at other times it brings conspiracy theorists on as guests and lets them do the talking. One frequent guest, for example, is British ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theorist Peter Eyre. In one interview on the war in Syria, Eyre is introduced as a ‘middle east consultant’ before espousing his view that the wh

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.