Jump to content
heggo

Derrida and the Specter of Marx

Recommended Posts

goof garen and tristan morales ran a kritikal affirmative based on this book too - needless to say, with great success.

 

As I remember, Tristan and Garen ran a critique of the death penalty (epitomizes state killing) and demanded the US ratify some treaty to ban the death penalty (I think.... either way the US would not execute prisoners post-plan). I don't think they ever mentioned the New International till the 2AC. The only evidence they read from the Specters of Marx claims they can change international law (at least that is the way they tag it). Then they used banning the Death penalty as a link to the New International and the movement itself to solve Ks and other stuff.

 

You could run the aff that way if you could find a link to the New International.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazzarone, do you know what exactly Northwestern (Tristan and Jim Lux and Tristan and Branson) meant when they claimed, "We ask you to affirm that" before their plan text. I am not sure if it is analogous to "we demand" or we stand resolved." I am not sure if you know, but I have been wondering for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not having ever seen their first affirmative, it's difficult for me to say. my hunch is that it conceptualizes the signing of the ballot as an intellectual endorsement and as an affirmative act in terms of their resolutional burden. i classified their case (perhaps inappropriately) as a 'we demand affirmative' strictly in the sense that the assumed agent isn't the federal government, but the advocates themselves, as well as those who - after being asked - agree that their stance has merit. as garen wrote to edebate:

 

"To be clear: we have never said "we don’t have to defend our plan." Rather, we say "we don’t have to defend our plan as implemented by fiat; instead we must defend it as an activist demand." ... The fiat model of debate asks us to pretend that the federal government implements a policy. This eliminates the hard questions of how we, as everyday folks, might change the moral climate in such a way as to get the government to implement policy[.]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was a way to get rid of this federal government focus. Even if the federal government is bad, it does not mean that the federal government shouldn't do the plan. Also, having the USFG do one more plan does not link to it's embeddedness, or legitimization. When the link is this small - a molecular level link - I wonder whether it should be considered at all.

 

Kritiks of the Federal Government are like counterplans, only 'alternatives' are just undigested and unevolved plan planks of a counterplan waiting to happen.

 

I kinda like kritiks without alternatives. I think kritiks with alternatives are just counterplans that have yet to evolve. Sometimes theory comes full circle, which is what seems to be happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...