Jump to content
Shuffy

Beat up on my aff thread.

Recommended Posts

First, if you're claiming that your critical discourse is important, there are reasons why that are bad. Mainly, though, your critique in the round does nothing to prevent what's happening. If anything, I would turn that argument, saying you're just masking the problem by claiming that talking about it in a debate round will solve it, while you know your plan will never happen.

 

1. Our critique is a swift kick in the ass to the debate community, debate is about education. PERIOD, it all comes down to that. Our 1ac situates the status qou as a un-educational apathetic privitized politics. Under this critcism is the debate community itself.

A. un-educational- The same topicality arguements with the same standards that we have known since novice year are round round after round. THAT is not key to education, T/ we argue that that is detremental to education because it prevents focus on things that are actually happening.

B. Apathetic- the debate community on the most part doesnt not allow true politics to enter the public sphere (the round) most teams run affirmatives that do nothing to challenge the dominations of power the permeate our community and the united states in general. The academy, debate, and average people dont give a fuck about politics. Or even if they do it is only within the walls of the institutions or institutions like debate. Our affirmative brings down theorists and other graduates and forces them to the local level into the shit they critique about. And through this this critical pedagogy our ev argues that this re-invigorates people to become political. And through the lift of the ban, people are able to situate these new ideas in the vehicle of civic engagement.

C. Privitization- Its all about money in politics in spheres like debate. Small schools cannot win, they cant even get a fucking chance against debate juggernauts who will always win a fair, predictable, and any debate where they get their ground. These schools have assistants that cut their evidence for them, they do the debate for them, they are paid massive sums of money to do this. Therefor keeping a assortment of assistants to cut the really sweet files requires money. Look, at northwestern they can cut entire negative strats from scratch in 30 minutes. And in a world of fair, predictable debate, they will always win. It is the point where smaller schools cant compete.

2. Under your turn, then every affirmative would be subject to this turn. Its about what you can justify. Our arguement is not meant to spike out of post-plan arguements but, that if we win that the plan would be good for society regardless of whether or not it will function within the confines of the type of politics we critique.

3. Just because fiat doesnt exist doesnt mean we wont defend plan passage.

4. Even if they win this its no reason to vote them up. They have no alternative framework to evaluate the round, therefore it doesnt really matter.

5. The arguement that its a solvecny take out links to our critique of topicality arguement that mooting the entire 1AC because you dont think congress gives a shit about the plan, is exactly the type of political idealogy that is apathy Dont take this chance because Congress might not like it, it might destroy the perfect fucking "democrcy" we have now.

6. Discourse in the round is all that is actaully tangible within the round itself. Why should we not base our strategy of that fact.

 

 

Second, critiquing theory will get you nowhere. What does it matter if the impact is education? It's not "education" in the sense of what your 1AC talks about - it's just education in terms of being able to actually learn something useful from the round. If you're going to critique education from the round, you just need to critique debate because the goal is to teach critical thinking skills and help students learn.

 

1. Aha but your wrong. Kin theory is awesome because its based on the same merits of topicality. Somethin the judge can vote for without evaulaing the politics of teh 1AC.

2. But, we do K the debate community x apply my analysis from above.

3. Read your second sentence of your arguement above. We agree that its all about in-round education. Your theory arguement fucks that up because your muting, and avoiding a critique of of the community of which you are a member. This proves our apathy claims and functions as a link to the 1AC K

4. if you link to the 1AC k then we will argue that the judge must weigh the terminal impacts of each arguement against each other and weigh turns etc.

5. We i/t ur notoin of education.

 

Third, you said you would say that the theory is just a way out of discussing this. First - how can you prove that is true? Second - that doesn't change whether your plan is good for debate or not. If you were to read a plan to give money to Africa and then read a narrative of a starving child, should we ignore topicality just because it's a way out of discussing it?

 

1. Because its the ability to "pull the triggger right now" to end the debate and just look at a theoretical arguement. thats what an independant voter is.

2. All our evidence is specific as to why the puclic sphere like debate is fucked, and how even forms of debate that are progressive dont address the education of others to challenge institutions. if we win our inherency we are technically winning that debate is fucked up. your conceding this so it goes away.

3. You could, but that would be blatantly non-topical rather than fx or xtra topical. Big difference. We dont advocate the abolition of T, our evidence criticizes the way topicality is deployed in debate.

 

Also, your argument that the federal government has controls over private schools is simply incorrect. The federal government can set just about zero mandates on independent schools. Of course, if the federal government finances it, they have leverage, but if not, they've got no say. A mandate for a senior thesis in college is just something that most colleges have as a policy, not something regulated by the state.

 

alright, well i guess this is next on blocking list.

 

And yes, biopolitics would outweigh unconstitutionality if I didn't have the counterplan. The counterplan solves your plan and solves unconstitutionality by being... constitutional. What could you possibly say against that?

 

look alllllll the way up to where i first answered the CP and how is doesnt solve for bio-politics. No-one has given answers or reason why it specifically does.

 

I could say.

1. Constitutionality is ever changing there are new interpretations of it often. Why cant our affirmative be a mission to change that.

2. if we win that our affirmative works outside of constitutionality then why shouldnt the constitution adapt, if our version of poltics is better than the current "constitutional" politics. Why should changes be made to allow aff plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counterplan does solve for biopolitics. It essentially does the same thing yours does.

 

Also, I'm not going to respond to everything you said, I'm just going to make one point. The fact remains that your plan is not passed, so every single argument you can make about how your discourse is necessary for education is stupid. If debate is about education, then the reason is that it teaches critical thinking skills. Your claims that people are apathetic links right back to you - just because you claim to have some cool discourse against biopower doesn't mean anything special - I can just claim that my discourse on how unconstitutional plans are really bad for debate is just as good. How can you say my discourse isn't good for debate?

 

You don't change anything in a debate round. The purpose is to determine whether the affirmative plan upholds the resolution and is a good policy. But since the plan is never actually passed in the real world, your discourse means nothing. Why don't you just read straight out of a Foucault book or something? Debate is meant to put this type of discussion in a specific forum.

 

Simply put, it's ridiculous to think that just because you're critiquing the debate community, you should win. You have to prove why that's actually good - and you are preaching to the choir in a debate round. Of anyone, debaters are familiar with biopower arguments - who are you educating if you just reiterate these beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apology for double post....its late

 

the fact that you pointed out that it links to some stuff means jack shit. it's easy to win that your aff is totally unpredictable in that it changes the way the national service organizations function. this means you jack negative ground for attacking these organizations. this abuse occurs in strat skew, unpredictable adv. the fact that there is ground against it doesn't mean it's predictable.

 

1. Wrong, links have impacts thus you ahve to weigh the impacts of the 1AC or whatever min-k we run in the 2ac to your topicality arguement.

2. Our affirmative is not unpredictable

a. a camp wrote it, you should know camp files and neg strats before the first tournament, dont blame me cuz ur lazy.

b. Its about americoprs and lsa, how predictable do you need it to be princess?

3. Even if it is.

apredictablity is fucked up. cross apply my number 1.c from the prior post. Predictable debate supports only a slect few who are able to defeat anything that is predictable. (nw example). This type of debate turns your education voters and standars. because the only thing we learn from preditable debate is what team cut the better evidence, or more evidence, and we learn that small schools cant compete with the sheer cutting ability of big time schools with massive bidgets. This favoring a few, the few who are finacially stuffed, thats our NEW link to the neo-liberalism impacts of the status qou. is predictable debate worth being complict with genocide?

b. Predictable debate discourages teams from working outside the 'norms' of policy debate. It destroys creativity, and innovations. These norms are the exact type of apolitical bullshit that community supports. Your aff is right, but i can object to it and make it all go away. APATHY, new link to biopoltics.

4. Your ground arguement is based of the fact that we critique americorps. Why should we be stuck defending a type of politics that is utterly fucked up. You have your ground, there are so many strats against this case. and damn good ones too, marxism, foucault, coercsion w/ cp, spending, foucault w/ cp, heidigger, cosmo k, nationalism k, nationalism turns.

A. we dont take away generic ground, its all still there. Prove the abuse

B. Specific link ground, there are specific links to a critical pedagogy, the idea nationalism, giroux our author, the fact that we spend a fuckload of money.

c. You garner just as much offense of xtra t debate as we do. Look, you ran xtra T....its offense. Just because you dont take advantage of that doesnt mean we should be punished.

5. No unique abuse scenario

6. Dont vote on abuse. b/c then you b complict with genocide

7. When they go for it, it means the concede that the affirmative as a whole is a good idea cross apply role fo the ballot. And that they dont want to talk about it

A. role of the ballot they ahve no other competeing f/w we met ours, vote us up

b. their arguement links to he criticism, weigh the impacts. Which we will win that debate.

c. We impact turned their only impact to theory/t in the round THEY ARE FUCKED.

8. Predictable ground very bad. cross apply from above.

 

Your left with no outs. Each T arguements ahs turns on it, the fact that you go for it is a link, there is external offense, you ahve to outweigh all the case impacts, and the fact that in the end the affirmative is pretty damn close to a bullseye on how poltics works in the status qou. Its one of the few affs, that i have looked at and thought, damn this is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from my partner from camp:

 

There are some fundamental misunderstandings about this affirmative that i will address in the order that i remember.

 

1) The K of theory, or more specifically T, is constructed around the idea that debate is in itself un-equal, and that terminal impacts of predicatability help out some teams more than others like schools with more coaches. This goes hand in hand with the idea that the 1ac functions as a disad to T, in that saying our plan isn't topical so you can win easier is the reason why people are politically apathetic, or at least less engaged in politics (there is a giroux card about this specifically). With this arguement should be some good we meets to prove that its just a quick win for the negative.

 

2) We fiat. We don't argue that discourse is good in itself, we argue that discourse of our plan in action is good because it exposes things like political apathy and things like that.

 

3) The answer to federalism is Rights Malthus. no this doesnt also turn case, we recognize there is good and bad BP, authoritarianism being the better of the two and that bushs BP is the bad kind.

 

4) Spending is non-unique as hell.

 

5) the counter-plan doesn't solve for the plurality of political viewpoints that would only come from smarties like grad students. theres no evidence about this which is lame, but i think its still a good point to make.

 

6) policy strats are best for engaging the affirmative. its pretty much 8 minutes of K pre-empts, hence the BP advantage.

 

7) this isnt extra topical. the inherency (people kicked out, funding cut) is implicitly reverse causal. both planks are independantly topical.

 

8) constitutionality is answered back by rimal.

 

 

EDIT: this is Shuffy now. Major thanks goes out to my camp debate partner, for starting me on this aff and spending hours trying to explain it to me...even when were not at camp, like now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I just have one thing to say about topicality and theory - if you can say topicality is a way to avoid politics and continue apathy, can't I just say you're using this discourse crap to avoid having a real debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well thats why you have to make the we meets very good. because then we have proven that your arguement isn't attempting real debate. but that strat doesnt work so well with disads and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside form the fact that we have carded evidence that states that exactly what you are doing to avoid debating the aff (yes the ev specifies the aff), becasue of this you cant access it to turn our position.

 

Plus, we argue that discourse is debate, and if you say that discourse isnt debate or itsnt political i swear to god, i have to say its a new link to the 1ac criticism. If not that then a great link to a foucault criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a substantive answer - if you meet the topicality definition, then it really doesn't matter.

 

It's completely arbitrary to say topicality is just an attempt to screw the affirmative team - the same can be said about the aff using critical discourse and essentially claiming it's more important than anything the neg can do.

 

Shuffy - having "carded evidence" doesn't mean you automatically win the debate. I don't care if I link to your argument about trying to avoid debating the aff, I'd say your discourse is a way to avoid debating the neg because you are trying to preclude things like disads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not a substantive answer - if you meet the topicality definition, then it really doesn't matter.

 

Ok, thats the point. If we meet then it provs our abuse/apathy arguements because they were just bullshit in the first place

 

It's completely arbitrary to say topicality is just an attempt to screw the affirmative team - the same can be said about the aff using critical discourse and essentially claiming it's more important than anything the neg can do.

 

1. it not abitrary, u hit an aff u have no good strat against...u try to avoid debating the aff cuz its sweet and hide behind T.

2. We arent like the shitty K teams youve heard before, i apologize about my rant on discourse i was way off track...look at the post by my partner.

We arent say what we do is important we are saying what you do and what you justify and what you are complict with is bad.

 

Shuffy - having "carded evidence" doesn't mean you automatically win the debate. I don't care if I link to your argument about trying to avoid debating the aff, I'd say your discourse is a way to avoid debating the neg because you are trying to preclude things like disads.

 

1. But it will win me the arguement, and the fact that i have carded evidence that you cant access in the round means that your turn is an analytic arguement based off a card that you cant access...

2. If you dont care that you link to my arguement about avoiding debating the aff...then i have already won the round.

3. We are debating you, you just dont like that our arguements are hella-sweet. We dont preclude disads we have evidence that states that that form of polemics/debate is bad because it cause the harms of the 1AC

4. Counter kritiking and critiquing disads arent not answer the disad, its answer the disad in creative ways.

 

 

Monticello....are you in arkansas, because if you are dont worry about this case i wont run it in arkansas. In fact i think il debate there to get quald for state and thats about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apology for double post....its late

 

 

 

1. Wrong, links have impacts thus you ahve to weigh the impacts of the 1AC or whatever min-k we run in the 2ac to your topicality arguement.

2. Our affirmative is not unpredictable

a. a camp wrote it, you should know camp files and neg strats before the first tournament, dont blame me cuz ur lazy.

b. Its about americoprs and lsa, how predictable do you need it to be princess?

3. Even if it is.

apredictablity is fucked up. cross apply my number 1.c from the prior post. Predictable debate supports only a slect few who are able to defeat anything that is predictable. (nw example). This type of debate turns your education voters and standars. because the only thing we learn from preditable debate is what team cut the better evidence, or more evidence, and we learn that small schools cant compete with the sheer cutting ability of big time schools with massive bidgets. This favoring a few, the few who are finacially stuffed, thats our NEW link to the neo-liberalism impacts of the status qou. is predictable debate worth being complict with genocide?

b. Predictable debate discourages teams from working outside the 'norms' of policy debate. It destroys creativity, and innovations. These norms are the exact type of apolitical bullshit that community supports. Your aff is right, but i can object to it and make it all go away. APATHY, new link to biopoltics.

4. Your ground arguement is based of the fact that we critique americorps. Why should we be stuck defending a type of politics that is utterly fucked up. You have your ground, there are so many strats against this case. and damn good ones too, marxism, foucault, coercsion w/ cp, spending, foucault w/ cp, heidigger, cosmo k, nationalism k, nationalism turns.

A. we dont take away generic ground, its all still there. Prove the abuse

B. Specific link ground, there are specific links to a critical pedagogy, the idea nationalism, giroux our author, the fact that we spend a fuckload of money.

c. You garner just as much offense of xtra t debate as we do. Look, you ran xtra T....its offense. Just because you dont take advantage of that doesnt mean we should be punished.

5. No unique abuse scenario

6. Dont vote on abuse. b/c then you b complict with genocide

7. When they go for it, it means the concede that the affirmative as a whole is a good idea cross apply role fo the ballot. And that they dont want to talk about it

A. role of the ballot they ahve no other competeing f/w we met ours, vote us up

b. their arguement links to he criticism, weigh the impacts. Which we will win that debate.

c. We impact turned their only impact to theory/t in the round THEY ARE FUCKED.

8. Predictable ground very bad. cross apply from above.

 

Your left with no outs. Each T arguements ahs turns on it, the fact that you go for it is a link, there is external offense, you ahve to outweigh all the case impacts, and the fact that in the end the affirmative is pretty damn close to a bullseye on how poltics works in the status qou. Its one of the few affs, that i have looked at and thought, damn this is right.

There is no way i'll spend time line by line answering this shit on c-x. but you aren't going to win that t debate on any of those answers, your only out would be the kritik of t. and i'd just go all in on t and framework in the block, and we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Monticello is in New York.

 

Look, it doesn't really matter what kind of wording you use to get around it - you know that your arguments are pointless because plan never gets passed. It's just you claiming that biopower is bad and we should do something, but you know nothing will get done about it. So instead of actually debating a possible policy option and its real-world consequences, you debate about whether we should talk about biopower in the round. It moots the purpose of debate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Monticello is in New York.

 

Look, it doesn't really matter what kind of wording you use to get around it - you know that your arguments are pointless because plan never gets passed. It's just you claiming that biopower is bad and we should do something, but you know nothing will get done about it. So instead of actually debating a possible policy option and its real-world consequences, you debate about whether we should talk about biopower in the round. It moots the purpose of debate...

 

 

Ok, what if we defend it as a policy option and defend fiat. Ur arguements go away right...

 

Look at my above posts i apologize for the whole discourse fiat thing, i was talking outside the aff. The aff itself or how i want to run it, does advocate a policy option not a demand. So to you, we claim a policy option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh oh...your case is untopical...

 

Lol, your point. Oh you wanna run T. U know what that means? Yea thats right, your complict with genocide, What?!? WHAT?!?

 

Einstein i take it your not to fond of critical debate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, your point. Oh you wanna run T. U know what that means? Yea thats right, your complict with genocide, What?!? WHAT?!?

 

Einstein i take it your not to fond of critical debate

 

oh i'm scared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critical debate is cool with me, I just think that claiming that taking a stand in the round is critical, is a bad argument.

 

It doesn't matter if you defend a policy option and fiat - I'll still read theory against it and give reasons why discourse does nothing. I'll also argue that your plan essentially does nothing - you acknowledge biopower won't go away, so your plan at best does nothing and at worst simply masks the problem and makes it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Critical debate is cool with me, I just think that claiming that taking a stand in the round is critical, is a bad argument.

 

It doesn't matter if you defend a policy option and fiat - I'll still read theory against it and give reasons why discourse does nothing. I'll also argue that your plan essentially does nothing - you acknowledge biopower won't go away, so your plan at best does nothing and at worst simply masks the problem and makes it worse.

 

agree. we have a team in our league that tries to do that every year. its annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Critical debate is cool with me, I just think that claiming that taking a stand in the round is critical, is a bad argument.

 

It doesn't matter if you defend a policy option and fiat - I'll still read theory against it and give reasons why discourse does nothing. I'll also argue that your plan essentially does nothing - you acknowledge biopower won't go away, so your plan at best does nothing and at worst simply masks the problem and makes it worse.

 

Taking a stand is a bad arguement, always? What about taking a stand against genocide that is actually happening (not a reference to the case).

 

You'll read theory on how discourse does nothing, I would really like to see what that looks like because it sounds like a silly framework arguement. Besides all speech, all debate is discourse, so why is that an issue. Discourse is an overused word for kritik debaters to confuse policy debaters.

 

And, your arguement about how we cant solve case because there will be biopower after the case. Im not going to give you a lesson on foucault or foucault's version of biopoltics, much less how the affirmative contextualizes biopoltics. That, is something i suggest you learn about beofre making uneducated posts about things you dont know about. But, to answer your arguement, we will win the A. we equip people to operate in the public pshere as a site of resistance within every power relation B. that the affirmative plan doesnt prevent biopolitics, But that the affirmative prevents dangerous outcomes of biopolitics. I cant make it any simpler without bastardizing foucaults arguement, so if it doesnt make sense...search a critique thread for it. Look for posts by Zack, and Root115 they know their shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm aware of Foucault's version of biopolitics. I also think claiming to solve for any biopolitics is patently ridiculous.

 

How is it ridiculous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Foucault never presents any solution to biopower; claiming that there is one is impossible.

 

Your plan will never fundamentally change the system. It doesn't matter what the people think, part of Foucault's analysis is that the state is inherently biopolitical. You would have to get rid of the state to solve your claims.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Foucault never presents any solution to biopower; claiming that there is one is impossible.

 

Your plan will never fundamentally change the system. It doesn't matter what the people think, part of Foucault's analysis is that the state is inherently biopolitical. You would have to get rid of the state to solve your claims.

 

Let me guess thats your winning arguement on the kritik flow. Foucault doesnt advocate removal of the state. He is not simply a staist author...Read the "why people look donw their noses at statism" you might learn a thing or two about foucault.

 

Focoualt offers an alternative to the type of poltics that reify biopower and biopoltical control. Its just like a racism arguement, if we win that we "solve" specific instances of biopower are you saying because its not entireyl gone that we cant weigh the impacts of that or that it doesnt matter?

 

Its seem to me that you know nothing of foucault...other than the camp file put out.

 

Just a question, does foucault give any alternatives, no to biopower but to his criticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault does not give any alternatives as far as I know, he is simply an historian.

 

That is not my "winning argument on the kritik flow." I am simply telling you why your arguments don't make a lot of sense. Of course Foucault doesn't advocate removal of the state - that's why it doesn't make any sense to claim to solve for his analysis, because the only way to do that is to remove the state.

 

It is like a racism argument, in that solving for "instances" of racism does nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...