Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Aff we are an affirmation of contingency which solves for the dominant systems that cause violence in

the status quo because of their conceptualizations of sex workers that relies on heteronormative and
cisgendered views that define sexual deviance and create the structures that react violently to this
deviance specifically, a marooned space away from the academy allows for alternative systems of
knowledge that solve for the domination and exclusion inherent in sexual deviance
Ext 2
nd
halberstam aff opens up a marooned space that places us outside of the
academy, this is key to moving beyond assimilatory institutions and embracing
contingency dissidents to challenge political structures of oppression and disallows
commodification by the university that has predetermined paths of knowledge we
purposely go the wrong way and lose ourselves to

Fw
C/I talk about one or more areas of the topic sets limits but also allows critical approach solves all
their limits standards
We meet we affirm the deviancy of sex workers as an affirmation of sex work in general, this still
allows them access to literature and doesnt preclude clash or ground, because were still a part of the
topic that any neg should be ready to talk about
Vote on reasonability makes sure teams arent punished for getting spread out on a framework
debate, forces the team to engage with the affs arguments and ideas
Were reasonably topical because we exist within the overarching discussion of sex work, and are
directionally topical
Competing interps is bad encourages a race to the bottom to get the most limiting interpretation,
makes exclusion inevitable because there will always be an interp that precludes the aff
Predictable Limits - their interp excludes all AFFs with a critical focus this kills diversity and nuanced
research policy education is stale and dried up
Education: the entire 1ac is proof that questions of sexual deviancy are key to better policy education
about sex work.
Ext Foucault discourse has been produced by universities thus constructing the knowledge that we
implement in our politics, which means they reproduce power systems that oppress but, the same
space and language that is used to oppress can create a reverse discourse of subjugated knowledge that
has been disqualified by institutions as a starting point for resistance this means their framing
argument reproduces the power structures that we criticize working outside of their framework is key
to dismantle these power systems This means the case is an impact turn to FW
And their form of dissent is undercut by the contradiction of reading FW and Cap they have
normalized the institutions that they critique
1AR A2: T Version
Their attempt to integrate the aff in the topic precludes our ability to critique the
dichotomous topology of the political that is produced from the limitation of politics
to the law
Thomas Lemke. 2011. Former assistant professor of sociology at Wuppertal U and research fellow at
the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. Biopolitics: an advanced introduction. P 31-2.

Biopolitics cannot simply be labeled a specific political activity or a subfield of politics that deals with the regulation
and governance of life processes. Rather, the meaning of biopolitics lies in its ability to make visible
the always contingent, always precarious difference between politics and life, culture and
nature, between the realm of the intangible and unquestioned, on the one hand, and the
sphere of moral and legal action, on the other. It is not enough, then, to dissolve these
distinctions in one direction or another, either as a way of promoting a stronger
delimitation of politics and its adaptation to biological conditions or in order to celebrate the
broadening of the political fielda field that encompasses sets of problems that were once
understood as natural and self-evident facts but that are now open to technological or
scientific intervention. The notion of biopolitics calls into question the topology of the
political. According to the traditional hierarchy, the political is de fined as humanity elevating itself as
zoon politikon above mere biological existence. Biopolitics shows that the apparently stable
boundary between the natural and the political, which both naturalist and politicist approaches must
presuppose, is less an origin than an effect of political action. When life itself becomes an
object of politics, this has consequences for the foundations, tools, and goals of political
action. No one saw more clearly this shift in the nature of politics more clearly than Michel Foucault.