Jump to content
jdsmith1000

Critical Affs on the Topic

Recommended Posts

you could run schopenhauer, freeing them for the illness of life by killing them all

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this thread, I'm taking it that not too many people are familiar with postcolonial theory (except for one mention of Fanon). Looking into that might be of great insight... not just for debate, but, you know, understanding the world in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting really fucking sick of reading these bratty, racist posts. Why isn't anyone calling out these "kill them all" dolts?

 

It seems like a lot of people are trying to find ways to skate around "helping" Africa and to see how they can go for squirrelly stuff instead. That kinda seems to defeat the purpose of the resolution. But if we look at the issues with Africa we really see some of the roots of racism in the US or anywhere in the world today, because it's the same basic problem.

 

...I don't know much about critical affs or kritiks or anything like that, but it just seems like a lot of people are saying "will the resolution be changed any?" and "do we have to help people?" and this seems to be beside the whole point of the resolution.

 

~(I'm reading your book.)~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting really fudging sick of reading these bratty, racist posts. Why isn't anyone calling out these "kill them all" dolts?

 

 

how is killing everyone who is sick racist, in theory it could function as a perfictly legit case, it's not like i would ever read something like that however, freeing people who are sick from there illness is OK, it is similer to mercy killing, cause they are going to die, we just remove all the pain that they would have to endure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freeing people who are sick from there illness is OK, it is similer to mercy killing, cause they are going to die

 

counterplan "only kill people who are asking to be killed but too sick to kill themselves" avoids wholesale murder.

 

"kill them all" posts are not explicitly racist, per se, but one wonders whether solutions to public health assistance for the United States would include "Kill them! Mercy kill!" without second thought or consideration. There's no thought police, but people making these suggestions reveal their stupidity and detachment from common, decent sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you could run schopenhauer, freeing them for the illness of life by killing them all

 

no - schopenhaur wouldn't really be down with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no - schopenhaur wouldn't really be down with that

 

why would that be? i have never read any Schopenhaur, but it seemed to be a good idea considering what i have seen/hit when it was run against me

 

counterplan "only kill people who are asking to be killed but too sick to kill themselves" avoids wholesale murder.

 

"kill them all" posts are not explicitly racist, per se, but one wonders whether solutions to public health assistance for the United States would include "Kill them! Mercy kill!" without second thought or consideration. There's no thought police, but people making these suggestions reveal their stupidity and detachment from common, decent sense.

 

In no way was i advocating this, however the thread title is "critical affs on the topic" and so i thought of an aff, mind u i think that it is bad as well however that does not mean that i should be allowed to post it or that it reveals stupidity on my part, all i was attempting to do was to provide an idea, and see if other people thought it was good or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like a good debate. Best when both sides are prepared.

 

Plan: The United States shall ratify subpoints 13 and 14 of the U.N.'s Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

 

Sweet. So subpoints 13 and 14 are just rhetoric about how colonialism and slavery was bad. How does that increase public health assistence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweet. So subpoints 13 and 14 are just rhetoric about how colonialism and slavery was bad. How does that increase public health assistence?

 

Well, you have to defend a critical framework, obviously. The basic premise is that we're the ones who need health assistance -- mental health assistance. Once we start getting treated, it could be argued, then the victims of our illness can start to get better.

 

There's quite a bit of literature about how the first step in anti-racism work is admitting, essentially, that you're a racist. Or, at very least, that you benefit from a system borne on a legacy of racism. There's also some stuff out there (Howard French's "A Continent for the Taking" comes to mind) about how all of Africa's problems stem from the original injustices of slavery and colonialism.

 

Obviously this is all in the early idea stage. There are a number of directions you could take it. You could go toward a self-sufficiency idea, meaning we need to stop patronizing and controlling people in other countries -- even through acts of supposed benevolence -- because the evidence suggests we make things worse. We need to look at our own problems before we solve other folks'. We need to stop exporting American racism.

 

There's even, I suppose, the possibility of a discussion about reparations, though that would seem extra topical, at least at first blush.

 

Also, I want to say that the "kill them all" plan ideas are not strategically wise, because I know there are quite a few judges, like me, who would vote it down in a second. Basically, all the other team would have to do is say, "I don't think that's a good idea," and they'd get my ballot. Then, after the tournament is over, I would write a formal letter to the team's principal, superintendent, school board and hometown paper and complain about how they're teaching kids to say we should kill Africans. In fact, I would do that even if I heard about it being run at a tournament where my students are competing. So you might want to consider those possibilities if you were to run that case. (and that is a direct critical response to the idea of that case, so don't you dare censor me; a forum allowing for discussion about cases can't exclude posts about the potential downside of such cases.)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you have to defend a critical framework, obviously. The basic premise is that we're the ones who need health assistance -- mental health assistance. Once we start getting treated, it could be argued, then the victims of our illness can start to get better.

 

There's quite a bit of literature about how the first step in anti-racism work is admitting, essentially, that you're a racist. Or, at very least, that you benefit from a system borne on a legacy of racism. There's also some stuff out there (Howard French's "A Continent for the Taking" comes to mind) about how all of Africa's problems stem from the original injustices of slavery and colonialism.

 

Obviously this is all in the early idea stage. There are a number of directions you could take it. You could go toward a self-sufficiency idea, meaning we need to stop patronizing and controlling people in other countries -- even through acts of supposed benevolence -- because the evidence suggests we make things worse. We need to look at our own problems before we solve other folks'. We need to stop exporting American racism.

 

There's even, I suppose, the possibility of a discussion about reparations, though that would seem extra topical, at least at first blush.

 

Also, I want to say that the "kill them all" plan ideas are not strategically wise, because I know there are quite a few judges, like me, who would vote it down in a second. Basically, all the other team would have to do is say, "I don't think that's a good idea," and they'd get my ballot. Then, after the tournament is over, I would write a formal letter to the team's principal, superintendent, school board and hometown paper and complain about how they're teaching kids to say we should kill Africans. In fact, I would do that even if I heard about it being run at a tournament where my students are competing. So you might want to consider those possibilities if you were to run that case. (and that is a direct critical response to the idea of that case, so don't you dare censor me; a forum allowing for discussion about cases can't exclude posts about the potential downside of such cases.)

 

 

Joe, if it is ok that i call you by such name, i agree in all matters of such topic. as a current high school, and hopefully, a future collegiate debater, i i believe that it is absurd to hear such comments on such a serious topic. i understand that such a forum as the one we are participating in is based solely on the freedom of speech, i believe that no person shall be allowed to make such indecent comments about a populatiion who has undergone so much strife for centuries. i realize to those who read this will comment with phrases such as "dont tell me what to say" or "if you dont like it then get off", my response to those are:

the forums original purpose was to allow debaters around the nation to congregate and educate one another on the topic of that year or the topics in which lie ahead, by telling one another about plans to kill a population we are only advocating death rather than educating on how to preserve life.

 

thanks,

Belton Nolen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it kind of saddens me that nobody (that I have seen, sorry if I skipped it somewhere) has brought up the most obvious of all kritikal affs on this topic. Stop exploiting Africa economically. I mean honestly, people. You'll encounter a lot less resistance, a lot more substance, and a lot more quality of debate with something as common-sense as that.

 

Hell, unlike most of the affs proposed here, it's very easily topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, there was supposed to be a post before this. Basically, I agree with Joe completely. I admire his resolve and his ability to articulate the shock with which any reasonable person would be afflicted upon hearing such an advocacy (even if intended to be satire/mocking/over-ID), in any context.

 

Those of you who would even consider advocating on ANY level, seriously or not, that mass murder or wholesale "euthanasia" is a good thing - especially when targeted at a specific geographical area - should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

That said, all such kritikal affs are terribly unstrategic, not just because non-Ivory-Tower judges will simply sign the ballot neg and ask who wants the 1, but also because you open yourself to all sorts of counter-criticism, most of which have a clearer link than any I've ever seen before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really much of a chance of a non-critical Aff doing that well? It seems to me that almost all plain Affs that advocate generic public health help for Africa would be vulnerable to so many Ks, particularly ones about imperialism or racism. Granted, a well-prepped Aff could easily beat those arguments, but it seems like you would almost want to run a K every round against a non-critical aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's even, I suppose, the possibility of a discussion about reparations, though that would seem extra topical, at least at first blush.

 

That seems extra topical? And the rest of your plan is T?

 

Then, after the tournament is over, I would write a formal letter to the team's principal, superintendent, school board and hometown paper and complain about how they're teaching kids to say we should kill Africans.

and that is a direct critical response to the idea of that case, so don't you dare censor me; a forum allowing for discussion about cases can't exclude posts about the potential downside of such cases.

 

Does anyone else think this is pretty ironic? "Censorship is bad unless it's an idea I find offensive!"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not at all ironic. He's not advocating censorship on any level, from what I see. He's advocating that the education system should teach kids that it's pretty much wrong to advocate that kind of thing on any level. If anything, actually, Joe's advocating a more active dialogue - instead of limiting our discourse to a classroom in a high school, let's let the public in on it.

 

Moreover, it's not ironic because of the difference in the natures of the two positions. One is a proposed change to the status quo which is uniquely offensive because of its stated end as well as the means by which it achieves that end. The other is an explanation of why he's taking offense and why the advocacy is wrong. I think there's a unique difference between censoring proposed changes to the status quo (especially if that change involves intentional material harm to others) and censoring arguments against it. Especially if the contested advocacy is more or less intended solely to shock people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That seems extra topical? And the rest of your plan is T?

 

I realize this wouldn't make sense to you. I and my squad approach T from an entirely different perspective than you.

 

 

 

 

Does anyone else think this is pretty ironic? "Censorship is bad unless it's an idea I find offensive!"

 

There's no censorship suggested in my post. I'm all for kids having the right to say on here, or in a debate round that we should kill all Africans. But I'm not for protecting them from the reasonable consequences of their free speech. If you want to offer that as a plan in debate round, by all means, go ahead. But be aware that a lot of judges will vote you down. And that if it happens at a tournament thatm y squad is at, I'll exercise my free speech rights and write a formal letter to your principal, superintendent, school board and hometown paper. If all those folks think that advocating for the mass murder of Africans gibes with their education philosophy, if they feel that it's an appropriate way for students to represent their school and district, than you should be all good, and I'll come off as an insane gadfly.

 

But at any rate, free speech will remain safely guarded. No censor me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there really much of a chance of a non-critical Aff doing that well? It seems to me that almost all plain Affs that advocate generic public health help for Africa would be vulnerable to so many Ks, particularly ones about imperialism or racism. Granted, a well-prepped Aff could easily beat those arguments, but it seems like you would almost want to run a K every round against a non-critical aff.

 

Not if you make the plan really small and specific to one area of Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think the mass killing affs are easily beat by levinas...don't know why you want to be on the wrong side of that debate

There's two ways out of that debate. If this is a Zizek aff then cut The Neighbor and spam shit out of that there are great cards in there, I also highly reccomend cutting Zizek's articles "We Show Respect to Holocaust Victims by Laughing", "Smashing the Face of the Other", and "On Jews, Christians, and Other Monsters".

The other way is the rev out of the 2ac. Some teams decide to claim not that their plan would be done but that it would be attempted and the revolution comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops, there was supposed to be a post before this. Basically, I agree with Joe completely. I admire his resolve and his ability to articulate the shock with which any reasonable person would be afflicted upon hearing such an advocacy (even if intended to be satire/mocking/over-ID), in any context.

 

Those of you who would even consider advocating on ANY level, seriously or not, that mass murder or wholesale "euthanasia" is a good thing - especially when targeted at a specific geographical area - should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

That said, all such kritikal affs are terribly unstrategic, not just because non-Ivory-Tower judges will simply sign the ballot neg and ask who wants the 1, but also because you open yourself to all sorts of counter-criticism, most of which have a clearer link than any I've ever seen before.

 

kritikal fem-ale brewing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's two ways out of that debate. If this is a Zizek aff then cut The Neighbor and spam shit out of that there are great cards in there, I also highly reccomend cutting Zizek's articles "We Show Respect to Holocaust Victims by Laughing", "Smashing the Face of the Other", and "On Jews, Christians, and Other Monsters".

The other way is the rev out of the 2ac. Some teams decide to claim not that their plan would be done but that it would be attempted and the revolution comes.

 

The best way to deal with is Zizek is to attack his credibility. There's a wonderful New Yorker article from 2004 (i think) that says:

 

1. He's of interest to, and only has influence over, so-called radicals who are harmlessly esconced in the academy.

 

2. You'd have to be nuts to make policy decisions based on what he says.

 

3. Zizek agrees that you'd have to be nuts to listen to him.

 

The first two can be easily impact turned, especially point 1.

 

Not a guaranteed win every time, but the best strategy for handling confusing Zizek stuff is to ignore the weird, confusing details and marginalize him entirely from the discussion by discrediting him entirely from the discussion. Think of it as something like a "qualifications T." In other words, point out that he's an ineffective drunk whose observations aren't the least bit germaine to the matters at hand.

 

(that last point, too, can be impact turned many, many ways.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best way to deal with is Zizek is to attack his credibility. There's a wonderful New Yorker article from 2004 (i think) that says:

 

1. He's of interest to, and only has influence over, so-called radicals who are harmlessly esconced in the academy.

 

2. You'd have to be nuts to make policy decisions based on what he says.

 

3. Zizek agrees that you'd have to be nuts to listen to him.

 

The first two can be easily impact turned, especially point 1.

 

Not a guaranteed win every time, but the best strategy for handling confusing Zizek stuff is to ignore the weird, confusing details and marginalize him entirely from the discussion by discrediting him entirely from the discussion. Think of it as something like a "qualifications T." In other words, point out that he's an ineffective drunk whose observations aren't the least bit germaine to the matters at hand.

 

(that last point, too, can be impact turned many, many ways.)

Yeah indicts are probably a good way. Although frankly any Zizek team that has actually prepped their shit will have answers to most authors that indict him (so fyi if you're hitting a good Zizek team it's probably not a great idea to waist time reading cards from Richard Tormey or Andrew Robinson).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah indicts are probably a good way. Although frankly any Zizek team that has actually prepped their shit will have answers to most authors that indict him (so fyi if you're hitting a good Zizek team it's probably not a great idea to waist time reading cards from Richard Tormey or Andrew Robinson).

 

The key phrase here is "good __________ team." Probably doesn't matter much what you fill in the blank with. If they're good, they're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...