The affirmative ought to be real pressed starting the debate off with no

solvency. We need kick this party off with a quare perspective.

BUTCH QUEENS ON THE AFF HAVE NEVER WALKED VOGUE AND WOULDN’T KNOW
HOW TO BEAT THEIR FACES IF THEIR TEN’S DEPENDED ON THEM. THEY PRODUCE
KNOWLEDGE IN THE SAME VIOLENT WAY JUDY JUSTICE HOLDS MY SISTERS DOWN IN
THE BIG HOUSE.

Toni Morrison 1993 , author and literary theorist, Nobel Prize in Literature Lecture,
(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1993/morrison-lecture.html)

Speculation on what (other than its own frail body) that bird-in-the-hand might signify has always been attractive to me, but especially so now thinking,
as I have been, about the work I do that has brought me to this company. So I choose to read the bird as language and the woman as a practiced
writer. She is worried about how the language she dreams in, given to her at birth, is handled, put into service, even withheld from her for certain
nefarious purposes. Being a writer she thinks of language partly as a system, partly as a living thing over which one has control, but mostly as agency -
she thinks of
as an act with consequences. So the question the children put to her: "Is it living or dead?" is not unreal because
language as susceptible to death, erasure; certainly imperiled and salvageable only by
an effort of the will. She believes that if the bird in the hands of her visitors is dead the custodians are responsible for the
corpse. For her a dead language is not only one no longer spoken or written, it is
unyielding language content to admire its own paralysis. Like statist language,
censored and censoring. Ruthless in its policing duties, it has no desire or
purpose other than maintaining the free range of its own narcotic narcissism, its
own exclusivity and dominance. However moribund, it is not without effect for it
actively thwarts the intellect, stalls conscience, suppresses human potentia l.
Unreceptive to interrogation, it cannot form or tolerate new ideas, shape other thoughts, tell another story, fill baffling silences. Official language
smitheryed to sanction ignorance and preserve privilege is a suit of armor polished to shocking glitter, a husk from which the knight departed long ago.
Yet there it is: dumb, predatory, sentimental. Exciting reverence in schoolchildren, providing shelter for despots, summoning false memories of stability,
harmony among the public.She is convinced that when language dies, out of carelessness, disuse, indifference and absence of esteem, or killed by
fiat, not only she herself, but all users and makers are accountable for its demise. In her country children have bitten their tongues off and use bullets
instead to iterate the voice of speechlessness, of disabled and disabling language, of language adults have abandoned altogether as a device for
grappling with meaning, providing guidance, or expressing love. But she knows tongue-suicide is not only the choice of children. It is common among
the infantile heads of state and power merchants whose evacuated language leaves them with no access to what is left of their human instincts for they
speak only to those who obey, or in order to force obedience.The systematic looting of language can be recognized by the tendency of its users to
Oppressive language does more than
forgo its nuanced, complex, mid-wifery properties for menace and subjugation.
represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it
limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of
mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or
the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of
law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities,
hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek - it must be rejected, altered and
exposed. It is the language that drinks blood, laps vulnerabilities, tucks its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it
moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind. Sexist language, racist language, theistic language - all are typical of the policing
languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas .

The performance of the 1AC is a reflective performance of the self. Our fabulous
performance of the self seeks to infiltrate debate with Quare.
Johnson 16 (Patrick E. Johnson is Doctor of Philosophy at Howard University. “Put a Little Honey in My
Sweet Tea: Oral History as Quare Performance” Vol. 44, No. 3 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44474062)
pp. 51-67)
 (1991, 2). In other words, the narration is not only a recollection of historical events and facts in
relation to an "authentic" self or "identity"; it is also a phenomenological experience - the moment of
storytelling itself is an epistemological and embodied experience of the self as same, the self as other,
and the intersubjectivity between teller and listener, the performance frame also exposes not only the
erotic’s in/ of narration, but also the erotic tension between the researcher and the teller, which has
enormous implications for queer history. Rather than a "transhistorical and cross-cultural interpretation
of history that conflates same-sex behavior with the ipso facto existence of sexual identities" (Boyd
2008, l), the performance approach to oral history resists linear, progressive, or stable renderings of any
one "history" by what Delia Pollock calls "making history go" (1998, 1 ). Since I have responded in my
earlier work to some of the anxieties about queer historiography that Boyd expresses, in this essay I
wish to engage a different set of methodological conundrums based on my current research. Tentatively
titled "Honeypot: Black Southern Women Who Love Women," this work focuses on the oral histories of
African American women who express same-sex desire who were born, reared, and continue to reside in
the American South. It is meant as a companion text to Sweet Tea. As with Sweet Tea, my desire in
"Honeypot" is that the oral histories collected account for not only the way the narrators embody and
relay historical material about race, region, class, sexuality, and gender, but also for how storytelling as a
mode of communication is simultaneously a quotidian form of self-fashioning and theorizing. While they
do not always overcome the challenges of being black quare Southern women, their oral narratives
stand as testaments to the power of voicehood, self-determination, and tenacity in how one
simultaneously navigates and mediates the conflicting, complicated, and confounding ideologies of the
South while at the same time indexing a quare history of same-sex desire.

We need to view debate with Quare shades. What we talk about in debate, fractures
around the Quare body leaving Quare people on the periphery of every discussion we
have. And that’s the tea sis!
Warren 17 (Calvin Warren is assistant professor of American studies at George Washington University.
“Onticide” Vol 23 Num 3. Duke University Press. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/659880#back . pg. 391-413)

The term “black queer” is a philosophical conundrum, or problem space, precisely because it
carries this antagonism, the ethical dilemma of humanism, within its discursive structure. It brings two
crises into juxtaposition creating somewhat of a theoretical fatality, a devastating crime scene. At the
site of this fatality lies a mutilated, supine black body we cannot quite place within the symbolic of
identity, politics, history, sociology, or law. In cases like these, we put “theory” and “philosophy” into
service to figure out who did “it,” what was the murder weapon, and what was the injury—if we can
even call it an injury. This situation frustrates the researcher (researcher as detective, philosopher, and
medical examiner all at once) in that he lacks a coherent grammar to make this suffering legible, the
assaulting party is more like a structural phenomenon, and the fatality is a precondition of the world
itself. In this sense, the fatality is rendered banal, diurnal, and quotidian, as it sustains the very field of
existence. The theoretical and philosophical instruments that we have to examine and explain this
scenario—which I will call “queer theory” and “Afro-pessimism”—fracture around the “black queer,”
endlessly encircling it, but never able to approach it. In fact, queer theory and Afro- pessimism are
located in different philosophical registers, which are incompatible and irreconcilable. These discourses
collide, or crash, at the site of the “black queer”—the black queer becomes a blind spot distorting the
field of vision for both discourses, and the result is fatal. The desire to find synthesis and common
ground between the two enterprises often results in theoretical misrecognition, false analogies, and
impoverished ethics. The “black queer,” then, is theoretically homeless and vulnerable to the impact of
discourses traveling at high velocity. Perhaps we ask too much of theory and philosophy. This essay
meditates on this itinerancy.

Thus, we the legendary queens say the girls should take yass pills boots the house
down.

The overkilling and brutalized violence of the kids on the street face can never be
addressed by the house of the Affirmative. For the affirmative to come through, we
need to see the affirmative through Quare lens.
Warren 17 (Calvin Warren is assistant professor of American studies at George Washington University.
“Onticide” Vol 23 Num 3. Duke University Press. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/659880#back . pg. 391-413)

In “Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture,” Eric Stanley provides a
perspicacious reading of this brutality as “overkill.” This is a violence that exceeds the logic of utility—a
violence whose “end” is simply to reproduce the panicked pleasure that constitutes it. Physical death,
then, is not sufficient satiation; even after the biological functioning of the body ceases (e.g. the heart
stops, brain incapacitated, breathing stops, etc.), the aggressor continues to mutilate the body,
postmortem, as ending “biological life” is not the real aim of this sadistic drive. This “surplus violence”
attempts an impossible existential objective—“to push [queers] backward out of time, out of History,
and into that which comes before, ” according to Stanley. Given the impossibility of the existential
“ends” that sets this violence into motion, the brutality must continue past death, outside of “the
normative times of life and death,” beyond utility and reason, and incessantly encircle the impossible
object of its drive. Overkill, then, is the social materialization of the drive—it is surplus violence (and
surplus pleasure) that is caught in the circuit of failure, and the disavowal of such a failure—where
failure is registered as success—each additional stab, laceration, puncture, and dismemberment brings
one “closer” to achieving the unachievable. Thus, this excessive violence is the symptom of an
impossible existential aim. The problematic that Stanley brilliantly articulates invites us to consider the
functionality of violence on the onto-existential horizon and the inadequacy of humanist instruments to
address, and redress, these violations (e.g. “rights,” “equal protection,” “citizenship,” etc.). One simply
cannot rely on “rational instruments” to resolve an irrational dilemma, especially when these very
instruments depend on the destructive kernel of irrationality to sustain them. In other words, the horror
of overkill is not so much the spectacular violence of mutilated flesh, but that any “solution” or
“corrective” to this problem would also have to reside “outside of the normative times of life and death”
and outside of reason itself. Overkill is the violence that sustains society, and without it, liberal
democracy and its institutions would cease to exist. This, I believe, in the final analysis, is the conundrum
that frustrated Frantz Fanon, and it is the lingering problem of humanism in society.
The affirmative cannot get away from perpetuating the same boa of whiteness that
surrounds the necks of the Boys on the Hill. The nation no longer cares for the
sustainability of the black body because it was never meant to live here.
Warren 17 (Calvin Warren is assistant professor of American studies at George Washington University.
“Onticide” Vol 23 Num 3. Duke University Press. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/659880#back . pg. 391-413)

What structured the process of empathy that made Matthew Shepard a potential “referent for
all queer violence” and facilitated the “relative ease of mourning him”? If we pause at the prepositional
phrase “although this might be true,” we realize that this “truth” makes all the difference between the
liminal subject and the object—between the national identification with Matthew Shepard and the
ungrievable (and incommunicable) “loss” of Steen Keith Fenrich. Matthew Shepard becomes a political
synecdoche with humanity; his “queerness” is registered as “part” of a larger whole of the human
family. It is this shared humanity that made it relatively easy to mourn him. National “mourning”
expresses the communicability of this loss. As Judith Butler reminds us, a life must be registered as
liveable to be mourned at all; put differently, it is shared humanity that secures the circuit of
synecdoche, empathy, and grief. If the nation registered this “murder” as a loss, then Matthew Shepard
cannot properly be said to inhabit the “nothingness” of the onto-existential horizon. Without this shared
humanity, even if just a “specter of humanity,” Shepard could not serve as a legible referent for a lost
life, and the circuit of empathy would have been fractured. Humanism attempted to recuperate the
liminal subject anti-queer violence pushed to the limits of subjectivity; this indeed was a failed project,
but failure reveals a deeper truth: the fact that the project of recuperation was “tried at all” is an
indication that the murder did not exist outside of national meaning. The same cannot be said for Steen
Keith Fenrich, or many of the other “people of color” whose murders are ungrievable because they are
inconceivable. These being are excluded from the synecdochal play between “part” and “whole” and
reside in the vacuous space of what Saidiya Hartman and Frank Wilderson call the “unthought.” [19] As
Thomas Glave poignantly notes, “Not everyone’s name, like Matthew Shepard’s, will become a virtual
referent for some sort of queer violence...Steen Fenrich bears little resemblance to Matthew Shepard,
the victim of anti-gay violence who, for whatever reasons, seems to have attracted the most grief, the
most caring, the most consistent moral outrage. Steen Fenrich is not, at least as a black male, no matter
what his sexuality, a candidate for Matthew Shepardhood. In the context of a race-ist United States, no
black person ever can be.” Matthew Shepard assumes a “hagiographic” place within public memory, and
this place is not democratic, inclusive, or universal. It is a space foreclosed to Steen, and this foreclosure
is a premier feature of onticide and the violence it engenders. Unlike Matthew Shepard, the space that
Steen inhabits is outside of public memory, culture, and ethics—it is the “unthought” space cut by the
blunt edges of anti-black violence.

The way we tuck, reshape, and reconfigure this debate is how we change the way
black and LGBTQ debaters access debate.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
An important question for the Resistance movement that was deeply embedded in the larger
debate about Afro-pessimism was exactly how to perform under the white gaze. Several
students felt that a rhythmic form of speaking, hip hop and poetic expression, was one of the
ways to disrupt a white normative framework. The politics of these performances became an
important issue of contention. The students are ultimately placed in a damned-if-you-do /
damned-if-you-don’t position in that if they don’t break the traditional mold they risk
reinforcing standard, white ways of speaking. On the other hand, if they do break the
traditional mold they are easily viewed within a well- worn trope of the anti-intellectual (and
anti-social) black. While some believed that these performances disrupted the white
normative framework of debate, others felt that they reinforced and satisfied white desires by
providing a spectacle that pleased, rather than challenged white sensibilities. Many students
felt that the performances were akin to “tap dancing in front of master” and feeding white
desire to consume the spectacle of black performance. Others felt that the performances
contained the seed of alternative ways of speaking and arguing that were politically
empowering and could open up possibilities of ethical and inclusive engagement.
In this ball room the category is: policy debate with a twist. We challenge the affirmative to
challenge whiteness instead of defending it. The queens that challenge whiteness the best
receive tens across the board.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.

Extended case method ethnographers select cases on the basis of their societal significance
rather than their generalizability and transportability to other cases. This often means that
deviant cases are the best cases (Burawoy 2002; Small 2009). Given that white supremacy is
normative and systemic rather than deviant and isolated, the practices that “sustain its
circuituous, contentless logic” could be mapped in virtually any local site or “case .” However,
I argue that policy debate activity has a unique societal significance and that it provides a
fruitful empirical terrain upon which to understand the construction and contestation of
racial meanings and norms. The activity of intercollegiate debate is representative in many
respects but is also deviant and unique. The discourses that circulate in policy debate are
drawn from every corner of the academy as well as from the fields of politics and law and
thus the activity reflects the normative structure of the larger intellectual universe of which it
is a part. Debate is unique, per the explanation above, in that it is structured in such a way to
enable an interrogation of and critical discussion of these norms and values that, for a variety
of reasons, is possible in few other institutional locations. This significance stems from four
main characteristics of the debate activity. First, because the silence around whiteness has
been breached and questions of white power and privilege are made the subject of public
discourse, the debate activity provides a unique opportunity to understand nuances in the
way that “whiteness as a form of power is defined, deployed, performed, policed and
reinvented.” Secondly, this discourse on whiteness is not just engaged by those “shooting
from the hip,” or speculating on a subject about which they have 22 never been forced to
contemplate. On the contrary, in the debate activity, questions of racial power and privilege
have become the subject of research and discussion, not in fleeting moments, but rather over a
sustained period of time. Gary Allan Fine (2001) described competitive policy debate as “a
world of talk,” the participants of which are trained specifically to be effective listeners and
talkers with the confidence to take on a range of contentious issues. Also, Fine argues that
policy debaters tend to be relatively well informed about social issues and current events and
far more liberal than the general society. As an educational activity, policy debate is designed
to foster the skills to effectively navigate civil society, evaluate argumentation and arrive at
solutions to social problems. These characteristics of debaters and the debate activity allow
for identification of more nuanced and sophisticated racial discourse that operates at higher
levels of abstraction than is typical in other social realms. The debate activity thus represents
a limit-case that enables a closer approximation of the limits of civil society in grappling with
and reconciling racial domination. Third, questions of racial power and privilege cannot be
evaded or ignored by the mostly white male participants of the debate activity. In many ways,
the white participants are placed on the defensive as demands are made of them to address
and account for the operation of white supremacy. Failure on the part of debate participants
to muster an adequate and reasonable accounting, based in research and a certain degree of
thoughtfulness not required elsewhere, carries tangible consequences, namely the loss of
competitive success. Additionally, because black students in debate focus their criticisms on
the normal and embedded, rather than deviant and spectacular, operation of racial power in
the banal conduct of daily institutional life, the questions were engaged at a higher level of
abstraction that required their peers to attempt to think about structures of power and
privilege. Finally, students and teachers in the debate space 23 not only have to think about,
conduct research on, and speak about these contentious questions, they have to do so in
dialogical interactions with their black peers in which their accounts and articulations are
criticized. Thus, contestation over the meaning of racial power and privilege can be examined
in situ, in the context of struggle over institutional resources, in specific and sustained
interactions across the colorline.
 Body Politics

A. Interpretation the body not the plan is the focus of the debate
B. Violation – The team doesn’t perform boundary struggles.

C. Standards
1. Presumption – the affirmative doesn’t increase antitrust actions, they only
suggests an increase in antitrust actions which doesn’t resolve any of the 1ACs
impacts – vote neg on presumption
2. Limits – plan-focus and disembodied debates blow the lid off the topic – there
are an infinite amount of hypothetical actions the USFG could take – the USFG
is inherently unpredictable for oppressed groups and policy-focus is unlimited
because there are an infinite amount of levers of power for white people to
oppress – makes restricting the origins of violence more limited and predictable
than how to limit that violence from a government standpoint
3. Neg ground – we can’t get access to our DAs or counter-plans that compete off
of the performance or method of the 1AC because those exist outside the
hypothetical imagining of the plan – this kills neg ground crucial to survival
strategies in debate which culminates in the death of the minority subject in
debate
4. Topic Specific Education – disembodied debate forces aff’s to run to the margins
forcing negatives to run to the margins, both pursuing strategies meant to
undermine substantive discussions of the topic where body-focused debate
forces aff teams to discuss when their particular performance is good and
forces neg teams to argue why the 1AC was a bad idea
D. Voters – Framework is a voting issue for accessibility and reversing the death of the
minority subject in debate – this debate is about competing-interpretations which
means it is what you do AND what you justify