Overviews

Lets be honest – K debaters love to rant especially in overviews. Unfortunately often times dedicating your time to an extensive overview filled with poorly executed quotes from movies, accusations of Hitler-ism, and words that no one really understands are not getting K debaters very far. I would like to outline when and how to have a good K overview.

WHEN TO OVERVIEW – not every 2NC/1NR needs an overview – especially when all the relevant work can be done on the line-by-line. I think there are only a few situations that warrant an overview:

1)   YOUR CRITICISM WARRANTS EXPLANATION – if you’re running the classic cap k you probably don’t have to spend too much time explanation the general thesis of your K; however, if you are running an argument people might not be familiar with or if you play with debate norms in a way that needs explaining then an overview is entirely justifiable. 

2)    THE AFFIRMATIVE DROPS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE K – if the aff makes a strategic blunder and doesn’t respond to an important part of the K (maybe an epistemology argument or root cause maybe the alt etc) then an overview makes sense because you want to make sure to frame that debate early.

3)    YOUR JUDGE PREFERS OVERVIEWS – some judges like every K to have an overview to “explain” your argument. If this is the case a short efficient overview could be helpful in the neg block.

4)    THE 2NR – a well structured and thought out overview in the 2NR can win K debates. They are essential to having an efficient and well-structured 2NR. The 2NR overview gives you the opportunity to frame the debate and write a ballot for the judge.

HOW TO CONSTRUCT AN OVERVIEW – once you decided you need an overview its time to start thinking about how to construct the overview – here’s some tips:

1)    STRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT – clearly label and structure your overview – no ones got time for a long rambling overview and judges want to know what to flow. Start each section with a clearly articulated 2 to 4 word label so judges know what to listen for and what to write down.

2)    EFFICIENCY – In order to maximize efficiency you should do the explanatory work on the overview (explain the thesis of the arguments you’re highlighting in the overview) and say the specific application for the line by line. This assures that you are not saying too much in the overview and not repeating too much when you get to the line by line.

3)    PICK YOUR FRAMING ARGUMENTS – the overview should help guide a judge in making their decision. Instead of including all the arguments in the debate in an overview (we will win this debate for 60,000 reasons!) make sure to narrow the debate and pick the central framing arguments you’d like the judge to considering first and foremost when making their decision. Controlling the framing of the ballot is essential to “writing the ballot” for the judge.

4)    GOLDILOCKS APPROACH – Striking the perfect balance is essential to a good overview. Make sure your overview sufficiently explains necessary arguments but that it doesn’t ramble on for minutes. Dedicate a short amount of time to your overview and efficiently explain your arguments to make sure you are not going overboard. But also remember that you should only include arguments you can sufficiently explain in the overview. 2 well explained points of reference in an overview are always more helpful than 6 tag line extensions of things you think you’re winning.  

Reader Centered Blogging

In line with Student Centered Learning I'd like to engage Reader Centered Blogging. I will continue to post content I think of but would love any suggestions for content from readers of the blog. Any particular posts you'd like to see? Leave a comment and I can work on including suggestions!

thanks!

Great Article on Student Centered Learning

"That’s why a new breed of educators, inspired by everything from the Internet to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and AI, are inventing radical new ways for children to learn, grow, and thrive. To them, knowledge isn’t a commodity that’s delivered from teacher to student but something that emerges from the students’ own curiosity-fueled exploration. Teachers provide prompts, not answers, and then they step aside so students can teach themselves and one another. They are creating ways for children to discover their passion—and uncovering a generation of geniuses in the process." - Wired Magazine 

"How a Radical New Teaching Method Could Unleash a Generation of Geniuses" is an excellent article that explores the potential of a radical student center learning model. Interesting stories and studies that support a move away from traditional teaching methodologies.

Core Questions

The Mean Green K Lab will guide students in answering three core questions:

1)         What is debate and why do we do it?

2)         What are the different forms and content areas addressed in critical debate and how do they       apply to the topic?

3)         How do students enact criticism in the debate space?

These represent the three stages of the K Lab. Each question will be explored using lecture series, activities, demonstrations, multimedia presentations, skills work, and debates, all of which will follow the student-led methodology. The instructors will use their experience and knowledge of the topic and critical literature to guide and assist students in constructing their own curriculum and developing the necessary skills to apply the knowledge gained throughout the lab. The instructors represent the best of the best in critical debate and have a proven record of success in training some the best k debaters in both high school and college circuits.  

Low Theory or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Have Fun With Theory

“This book uses “low theory” (a term I am adapting from Stuart Hall’s work) and popular knowledge to explore alternatives and to look for a way out of the usual traps and impasses of binary formulations. Low theory tries to locate all the in-between spaces that save us from being snared by the hooks of hegemony and speared by the seductions of the gift shop. But it also makes its peace with the possibility that alternatives dwell in the murky waters of a counterintuitive, often impossibly dark and negative realm of critique and refusal. And so the book darts back and forth between high and low culture, high and low theory, popular culture and esoteric knowledge, in order to push through the divisions between life and art, practice and theory, thinking and doing, and into a more chaotic realm of knowing and unknowing.”

- Judith Halberstam The Queer Art of Failure

The Mean Green K Lab will utilize movies, television shows, music and other instruments of popular culture to explain and explore traditional philosophical concepts. This method of using popular culture has been branded “low theory” which I find to be a welcome break from the “high theory” that often plagues critical debate. Judith Halberstam, professor of English, American Studies and Ethnicity and Gender Studies at the University of Southern California, defines low theory as the “theoretical knowledge that works at many levels at once, as precisely one of these modes of transmission that revels in the detours, twists, and turns through knowing and confusion, and that seeks not to explain but to involve” (Halberstam, 15). In seeking to involve students in their understanding of critical authors students will be given a very basic outline of a philosophical theorist or concept and then will become involved in figuring out the contours of the theory via critical reading of film and other popular culture. With the proper guidance Kung Fu Panda can help students navigate the complexities of Nietzsche’s theory of ressentiment, The Brave Little Toaster can provide a new perspective on the emerging field of Object Oriented Ontology and Lady Gaga can provide a helpful introduction to performance theory. Helping students see the fun in theory, and helping them map their own encounters with philosophical concepts gives a more complete understanding of the arguments that they run and answer in debates.

Reference:

Halberstam, Judith The Queer Art of Failure Durham & London: Duke University Press 2011

Mean Green Workshop Website

For more information on the Mean Green Workshop at UNT visit  http://www.meangreenworkshops.com/

Topic K Card!

I will be periodically posting topic k cards I cut to give an example of the quality of evidence we will produce in the Mean Green K Lab. Enjoy this Cuba specific representations matter evidence!

In the context of Cuba representations shape political realities è domination of Cuba

Brenner professor of international relations at American University 2010 Philip “The Power of Metaphor: Explaining U.S. Policy toward Cuba” Diplomatic History 34.2 wiley online

The central premise of Cuba in the American Imagination is first that the metaphors U.S. officials used to describe Cuba defined their reality regarding Cuba. Second, while the depictions of Cuba changed over time, their messages were roughly constant: the United States is superior to Cuba, has a natural right to possess it, and is morally responsible for shaping Cuba's affairs.

Political leaders do not use metaphors merely to make their speeches more lively. They are an efficient means of communicating a complex reality in commonly accepted terms that then provide the basis for acceptable action. As George Lakoff observes, they “limit what we notice, highlight what we do see, and provide part of the inferential structure that we reason with.”1 While officials may not always use metaphors with intentionality, Pérez notes, in the case of Cuba they “were not deployed randomly. . . . Metaphorical constructs provided a normative grounding for a version of reality and validation of conduct” (p. 36). The domination of Cuban affairs became the “reasonable discharge of North American moral conduct.” This mode of relating to Cubans became so normal that Americans rarely questioned whether it was appropriate, which Pérez argues provides “corroboration of the power of metaphor to reproduce premise as proof” (p. 22).

Metaphors alone do not explain U.S. policy. But they are an appropriate starting point for considering political and economic factors, because nearly all of the metaphors, Pérez concludes, “functioned in the service of U.S. interests. . . . Americans came to their knowledge of Cuba principally by way of representations entirely of their own creation” (p. 22). Their Cuba, he remarks, “was, in fact, a figment of their own imagination and a projection of their needs” (p. 23).