Kinney,+Darrell

Surveiller et tyrannie: The afterbirth of the PRISM

" Kinney's intellect is likened to a well of knowledge upon which one could infinitely draw upon and ceaselessly obtained gold" Gabe Gangoso

Darrell Kinney was born in Pinole, CA in 1982. He learned from books and the world wide web; served as the director of debate at El Cerrito high school, and at Skyline high school, Oakland; and wrote frequently for facebook and tabroom.com. At the time of his re-birth in 1984 the topic was not being debated and Winston Smith had given in to enhanced interrogation and Donald Trump was president of this toxic waste dump.

Kinney, Darrell

This portion intentionally left blank

DEDICATED TO Darren, Mike Jaron, and Kevin

Table of Contents

PROLOGOMENA TO A TRADITION

It's a hard world to get a break in All the good things have been taken

The aNiMaLs - It's My Life

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2006 edition revised I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC. I am currently the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA. Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA. I love the community I coach in. We have had great success in the past few years in both UDL and national Circuit competition but it is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

//Note the top of this paradigm will me K heavy because I tend to get pref'd highest by Kritik, performance teams/non-usfg action tams. I will cover other issues in the bottom.//


 * Strengths: Open-mindedness** - I've been around the debate activity for almost two decades. On a pre-political level I think it is a valuable space for students to develop and explore their voice. I am comfortable with different rhetorical styles and strategies. I have no bias for or against speed but i think it is always important to have ethos, logos, and pathos.

Foucault, Black/Africana authors (not my social location but I coach/teach some of these arguments), Marxism/Capitalism K, Orientalism, (I know a lot about the near east/south asia, islam, world religions, etc) decoloniality, Rodriguez (Prison abolition), Judith Butler. Ask me about an author or position if it isn't listed here.
 * Literature I know pretty well**


 * Honesty -** I'll tell you after the round or before the round if I don't get something. I'm at the point in my life where I'm not their to impress, deceive or lie about my knowledge base. So with that in mind I do lean slightly towards needing to hear meta-level framing issues from the judges not because i'm not flowing or comprehending the line by line, but because I'm not in the drivers seat in the debate round. If you can connect the dots on the flow you should be able to provide me a summary analysis of the nexus question in the debate. I want to hear something FROM THE DEBATERS that I can remember in the debaters. Voting issues with clear warrants and reasons to believe it's important. I hate the sound of my own voice in RFD's. I'm hear to judge, not teach or debate. There are certainly teachable moments but I want to err towards observer and evaluater. We can talk after rounds if we want to go deeper. If you have a position you are feeling unsure about me being able to handle then ask me before the round.

__**Weaknesses**__

Here are some areas where I don't have 100% confidence and I'm only saying this because I've read a lot of books and heard a lot of jargon and even have real world experiences learning from others but from my social position I want you to at least do work for me and keep me as much out of the debate as possible so that I am not instrumentalizing my privilege as a white cis male in the round.

__**Arguments I need to become more versed in**__

Queer theory/Trans arguments - Your ethos, sincerity, and willingness to analyze the lit for me will be helpful.

Baudrillard (crazy post-modernity) - I'm not default against hearing this stuff but sometimes I feel like I've left the world of theory and have more been thinking about american, local politics, education, issues of race and economics. Real world activism. Please do major link work and don't give me throw away nonchalant sounding alts. Do mad crazy work just like you would on any other K.

Anthro - Not always ran in a way that makes sense to me. Still don't understand what object oriented ontology is. Probably not a huge issue on this topic.

Affirmatives based on books/literature - Love the, but still learning how to evaluate these. I haven't read a lot of literary theory either.

Ask me about an author or position if it isn't listed here.


 * __CHAPTER !!__**

"And these children that you spit on As they try to change their worlds Are immune to your consultations They're quite aware of what they're going through" Bowie - Changes

__**Worldview as an educator/coach**__

I don't think it matters anymore for me to set a paradigm when the debate community is so diverse and adapted and since all teams seem to have explored some aspect of all of the terrain. I support the inclusion of radical argumentation in the debate community but also love a IR vs. Climate change debate. Even if I think you are winning the default framework, if it is used to exclude/police/punish rather than engage into a discussion, you might lose. Let me give you an example; the idea that Kritik debate is inaccessible coming from the mouths of a big school is pretty unconvincing. It is pretty hard for small or urban schools to keep up with myriad counterplans as well. So be cognizant of the way your opponents approach politics, especially if they are coming from a non traditional perspective. They have put a lot of work and thought into their arguments and aren't just aiming for a cheap win. Many of them have even tried the traditional route. So rather than making over-genralized arguments about what debate should be, how about more specific arguments about how you should be. What's integral about the way we present or perform ourselves. Even policy-making is a performance. Decisions are made together; even if your opponents should lose the round, it's not because they should have never been in it. Tell me what they can do differently with what they did, not what they should have done. Ultimately everyone in the world has a philosophy or critical paradigm that informs the way they approach relating to others. Clash is possible in all rounds, even if you occupy the strategic position. Kritik doesn't exist without policy-making, but policymaking needs to check it's assumptions and re-evaluate the warrants we use to justify status quo. I want my students to know the way things were done, are being done, and could be done.

__**Worldview as a person:**__ I consider myself a radical in the sense that I believe liberation MUST be achieved for oppressed groups/t (including animals/natural resources. I think all humans probably desire justice but political ideology, economic superstructures, media, etc distort our views of things in such a way that we all suffer from a sickness of the ism's. Because of this in my personal life I chose to pursue a politics of non-coercion and non-violence. There are events in my life that make it impossible for me to advocate human beings killing other human beings. That doesn't mean I won't vote for a violent revolution or a just military action (in debate round) but just keep in mind that I do struggle with the balance of realism and idealism which I believe we all do. This is important because I want you to be careful of how you deploy your rhetoric. Anger is a real emotion it's also a luxury use it well. Sometimes I hear violence advocated against people in oppressed groups because they don't fit the exact agenda of someone's more radical politics. Per formatively this is suspect because in the real world it would make you a pariah, get you shot, or make you more enemies. Love has value. Honest recognition of disagreement but mutual respect has value in destroying the machine. Live and let live! Do your thing but don't become the oppressor.


 * __Topicality__**

Should probably be ran more often. It's a great intro to debating theory. Can evaluate all the standards. Sometimes It gets too blippy/read blocks you wrote. I don't care for super long T shells in the 1NC. I have a high threshold of voting for T. The 2nr should go for it. T shells should have all four parts. I did drop a team for not saying T was a voting issue in the 1nc. Good T debates by both sides will look like a bottleneck. Start small expand in the 2ac to far and then condense down to the clash over competing interpretations about best contextual definitions in the 1nc/2a. T debates should be both about in-round impacts and post-round impacts. I don't buy the argument that any individual affirmative or even a bunch of bad affirmatives will make people quit debate.

__**For Fun and the Tactically Minded**__

Don't just read blocks as a substitute for flowing. Be analytical and add arguments to the blocks. Adapt and take risks. Run D/A's or Kritiks to CP's. Debate case, but hide D/A's and K's. Suprise me by running a Kritik that solves their advantages. Write a Kritik on the spot. Find a Counterplan from the 90's, update the evidence, and run it.

__**CP**:__

Run CP's. Have good evidence. Be creative and adaptable. If you are Aff please have the Neg clarify counterplan during CX or it is your own fault if you aren’t clear on their advocacy or commitment. Plan-inclusive CP's are a necessary irritant. It doesn't seem logical to draw an arbitrary bright line since the community as a whole has expected such a large expansion of negative ground in the past few decades. Nonetheless, the quality of debating can still be apparent. I think it is up for you to demonstrate integrity in your strategy by warranting the importance of doing the PIC. Perms should be written out to be legit, not just a blip on the flow.

I don't have a set opinion on functional versus textual competition and will evaluate it on a case by case basis. Please run, what you think is net beneficial, but be aware that I will pull the trigger on theory at the point where a side the Aff can concvince me the debate has

__**KRITIKS**__

When it comes to specific kritik authors I am open to any argument in the context of a debate round as long as the kritik is run well. In other words I won’t vote down any particular argument a priori, debate is a discourse and I like to see ideas tested in round. __**Links, links, links.**__ **2nc links contextualized to the AfF.** I'm not kidding when I say that Kritik is a link debate. Honestly if the link analysis is AMAZING AND persuasive by the neg I'll vote for it. I debated Krtiks before alternatives or even concerns with uniqueness and framework. It felt most persuasive to focus on the objection and to REALLY press the negative to prove the objection. Kritiks have morphed into D/A's and that amounts to a cooption and forecloses a possibility for real radical change.

"Listen, my soul mission was to rap and get paid too Be someone that these little girls look up to Now I see the game for what it is, a big chess move Playing my cards all how they was dealt I won't blessed with the money so my movement ain't felt"

Rapsody - Believe Me

__**PERFORMANCE**__ I am new to performance debate. My top teams run it. I find it fascinating, intellectually stimulating and legitimate. However, that doesn't mean you will win just be virtue of being peformance. There is a difference between socialization through observation and emulating and authentic voice. I think performance presents either a radical opportunity to enhance the well-being of debate or an avant garde strategy to incorporate social movements occurring in our schools. I do ultimately believe that the aim of radical pedagogy is freedom and I will support student's right to free speech. I try to avoid paranoia and small mind complexes. In a sense, I am looking for debaters to bring in their own voice, more so than emulate performative strategies that they've seen others use.