Jump to content
ftswartz

Biopower good

Recommended Posts

No link, link turns, perms, remember those things? Pragmatism, what about that? Theres pleanty of smart things you can do against kritiks :S

 

Link turns are generally a bad strategy I think against the K (depends on the K, but at least for biopower). But you can defend the way in which you arrived at your conclusion (empiricism proves, shit like that) to answer flawed methodology arguments. But it really depends on the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link turns are generally a bad strategy I think against the K (depends on the K, but at least for biopower). But you can defend the way in which you arrived at your conclusion (empiricism proves, shit like that) to answer flawed methodology arguments. But it really depends on the K.

well rorty gives some good link turns, and james gives good validation/empiricism arguments. pragmatism is an amazing concept, just like a kritik itself :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:S:

 

funny. except with basic reading comprehension skills and not taking my post out of context by deleting lines, you could see that the post I am responding too (Antonucci) is not the post to which I said "I didn't read the whole post" (Sean's).

 

lol, read antonuccis post. Your predictions good cards wont apply if you conceed the way in which you predict stuff is bad. You need to answer their reason why the way you reach your specific prediction is bad.

 

I'm not saying you should read Washington Post cards that say China is a threat. I'm saying read theoretical/methodological defenses of threat construction/predictions/truth claims (i.e., the way that you predict stuff). I.E. security should be the ethical goal of the state, making contingent truth claims based upon specific fact analysis is possible, "security dilemma" wrong, etc.

 

No link, link turns, perms, remember those things? Pragmatism, what about that? Theres pleanty of smart things you can do against kritiks :S

 

Really? I'd never heard of those arguments before.

 

Hence, a diverse 2ac should include a combination of these attacks on the alt. Impact defense + attack against the alternative (of which pragmatism/Rorty is one) + a defense of the methodology of your aff + a defense of the outcome of your aff/DA to outcome of the alt (impacts/impact turns) + permutations, etc.

 

Even to go for pragmatism, you still have to have a defense of truth claims/etc. So in order to win against a K you have to A) attack the alt and B) defense the validity of the shit you are saying. After that, it doesnt really matter if you say the alt is bad, your aff is good, or your aff solves their impact. Pick any strategy you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying you should read Washington Post cards that say China is a threat. I'm saying read theoretical/methodological defenses of threat construction/predictions/truth claims (i.e., the way that you predict stuff). I.E. security should be the ethical goal of the state, making contingent truth claims based upon specific fact analysis is possible, "security dilemma" wrong, etc.

 

Yea, I was responding to synergy, which interpreted your post to mean "I should read my predictions (not threat con, GENERIC predictions) good cards. IE the kurasawa shit he posted above. This we both agree is inadequate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, I was responding to synergy, which interpreted your post to mean "I should read my predictions (not threat con, GENERIC predictions) good cards. IE the kurasawa shit he posted above. This we both agree is inadequate.

 

Kurasawa definitely answers the "uncertainty inevitable" components of most threat construction arguments/security kritiks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CONCLUSION FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

 

If you impact turn, you must impact turn well. This involves a few different components.

 

1) Terminal Impact Defense

 

2) A link from their alternative to your impact or a reason their alternative doesn't solve your original case impact

 

3) A defense of the way you evaluate your impact. Predictions/threat construction good or contingent truth claims possible or whatever

 

Really, all of you are just trying to say that when the aff answers a K, they should answer all parts of a K.

 

Antonucci is right in the sense that if a team is just like "TURN-HEGEMONY YO" they will probably lose. Likewise if the neg just says "YO THAT SHIT IS A LINK" they will probably lose. In order to win.... you have to debate well. This requires responding to all the levels of your opponents arguments.

 

The 2AC on a K should never just all-in on one thing like impact turn. A diversity of defenses of your affirmative and its methodology combined with both theoretical and substantive attacks on the negative's alternative and methodology is essential if you want to win.

 

I didn't really read his whole post, but it seems like Sean was just saying this in more detail.

 

Yeah I think I'm saying the same thing- you're just being more succinct and readable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurasawa definitely answers the "uncertainty inevitable" components of most threat construction arguments/security kritiks.

yeah, the card is way sweet for sure

 

To defend the methodology aspect of the K, I've got: karusawa, truth good, and a butler card on humanism good, and rorty card (I obviously have more stuff for other parts of the K) thanks for all the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurasawa definitely answers the "uncertainty inevitable" components of most threat construction arguments/security kritiks.

 

I mean, kinda? Its not really specific to security at all, it says we can predict crisis, but 1NC security cards seem to be a lot more specific. That card does not really have many specific warrants for why predicting security scenarios are accurate. I guess it gets the job done, but it seems like there are better alternatives. I find the kurasawa cards to be better against general predictions bad / can't determine consequences.

 

But really my post was about how predictions good is not really responsive to biopower K's and how that interacts with your methodolical / ontological flaws the neg will argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, kinda? Its not really specific to security at all, it says we can predict crisis, but 1NC security cards seem to be a lot more specific. That card does not really have many specific warrants for why predicting security scenarios are accurate. I guess it gets the job done, but it seems like there are better alternatives. I find the kurasawa cards to be better against general predictions bad / can't determine consequences.

 

But really my post was about how predictions good is not really responsive to biopower K's and how that interacts with your methodolical / ontological flaws the neg will argue.

 

I don't think anyone ever said you should just randomly roll predictions good vs the biopower K.

 

This argument arose in the context of, if you impact turn a biopower k with something like hegemony, you should also read a defense of predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? There is no absolute truth and therefore we shouldn't evaluate the aff's impact? That's ridiculous. It's probably a good idea to predict scenarios and evaluate consequences. And you bite this just as hard - think about your impact. What Nooch described to me sounds just like threat con, not foucault. It's empirically true that certain things cause war. You have to bear in mind foucault was writing about stuff like the governemnt's control of knowledge about the fact that HIV was a disease. Foucault didn't think HIV was real. He was wrong and he died. Most people and modern science agree AIDS is real and it's probably good that the democratic government stopped it.

 

Also subsumes means incorporates. "A global nuclear war outweighs a nuclear war between China and Russia because it subsumes it."

 

 

 

 

Here's a predictions good card:

Kurasawa 04

 

A radically postmodern line of thinking, for instance, would lead us to believe that it is pointless, perhaps even harmful, to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. If, contra teleological models, history has no intrinsic meaning, direction, or endpoint to be discovered through human reason, and if, contra scientistic futurism, prospective trends cannot be predicted without error, then the abyss of chronological inscrutability supposedly opens up at our feet. The future appears to be unknowable, an outcome of chance. Therefore, rather than embarking upon grandiose speculation about what may occur, we should adopt a pragmatism that abandons itself to the twists and turns of history; let us be content to formulate ad hoc responses to emergencies as they arise. While this argument has the merit of underscoring the fallibilistic nature of all predictive schemes, it conflates the necessary recognition of the contingency of history with unwarranted assertions about the latter’s total opacity and indeterminacy. Acknowledging the fact that the future cannot be known with absolute certainty does not imply abandoning the task of trying to understand what is brewing on the horizon and to prepare for crises already coming into their own. In fact, the incorporation of the principle of fallibility into the work of prevention means that we must be ever more vigilant for warning signs of disaster and for responses that provoke unintended or unexpected consequences (a point to which I will return in the final section of this paper). In addition, from a normative point of view, the acceptance of historical contingency and of the self-limiting character of farsightedness places the duty of preventing catastrophe squarely on the shoulders of present generations. The future no longer appears to be a metaphysical creature of destiny or of the cunning of reason, nor can it be sloughed off to pure randomness. It becomes, instead, a result of human action shaped by decisions in the present – including, of course, trying to anticipate and prepare for possible and avoidable sources of harm to our successors. Combining a sense of analytical contingency toward the future and ethical responsibility for it, the idea of early warning is making its way into preventive action on the global stage.

 

Maybe you're just trying to provide an example, but it's still kinda cheesy to cut incomplete paragraphs, especially when dude doesn't seem to be talking about traditional, realism style international security politics so much, which is the impression that your version appears to be on about:

 

"When engaging in the labor of preventive foresight, the first obstacle that one is likely to encounter from some intellectual circles is a deep-seated skepticism about the very value of the exercise. A radically postmodern line of thinking, for instance, would lead us to believe that it is pointless, perhaps even harmful, to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. If, contra teleological models, history has no intrinsic meaning, direction, or endpoint to be discovered through human reason, and if, contra scientistic futurism, prospective trends cannot be predicted without error, then the abyss of chronological inscrutability supposedly opens up at our feet. The future appears to be unknowable, an outcome of chance. Therefore, rather than embarking upon grandiose speculation about what may occur, we should adopt a pragmatism that abandons itself to the twists and turns of history; let us be content to formulate ad hoc responses to emergencies as they arise.

 

While this argument has the merit of underscoring the fallibilistic nature of all predictive schemes, it conflates the necessary recognition of the contingency of history with unwarranted assertions about the latter’s total opacity and indeterminacy. Acknowledging the fact that the future cannot be known with absolute certainty does not imply abandoning the task of trying to understand what is brewing on the horizon and to prepare for crises already coming into their own. In fact, the incorporation of the principle of fallibility into the work of prevention means that we must be ever more vigilant for warning signs of disaster and for responses that provoke unintended or unexpected consequences (a point to which I will return in the final section of this paper). In addition, from a normative point of view, the acceptance of historical contingency and of the self-limiting character of farsightedness places the duty of preventing catastrophe squarely on the shoulders of present generations. The future no longer appears to be a metaphysical creature of destiny or of the cunning of reason, nor can it be sloughed off to pure randomness. It becomes, instead, a result of human action shaped by decisions in the present – including, of course, trying to anticipate and prepare for possible and avoidable sources of harm to our successors.

 

Combining a sense of analytical contingency toward the future and ethical responsibility for it, the idea of early warning is making its way into preventive action on the global stage. Despite the fact that not all humanitarian, technoscientific, and environmental disasters can be predicted in advance, the multiplication of independent sources of knowledge and detection mechanisms enables us to foresee many of them before it is too late. Indeed, in recent years, global civil society’s capacity for early warning has dramatically increased, in no small part due to the impressive number of NGOs that include catastrophe prevention at the heart of their mandates.17 These organizations are often the first to detect signs of trouble, to dispatch investigative or fact-finding missions, and to warn the international community about impending dangers; to wit, the lead role of environmental groups in sounding the alarm about global warming and species depletion or of humanitarian agencies regarding the AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, frequently months or even years before Western governments or multilateral institutions followed suit. What has come into being, then, is a loose-knit network of watchdog groups that is acquiring finely tuned antennae to pinpoint indicators of forthcoming or already unfolding crises."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you're just trying to provide an example, but it's still kinda cheesy to cut incomplete paragraphs, especially when dude doesn't seem to be talking about traditional, realism style international security politics so much, which is the impression that your version appears to be on about:

 

"When engaging in the labor of preventive foresight, the first obstacle that one is likely to encounter from some intellectual circles is a deep-seated skepticism about the very value of the exercise. A radically postmodern line of thinking, for instance, would lead us to believe that it is pointless, perhaps even harmful, to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. If, contra teleological models, history has no intrinsic meaning, direction, or endpoint to be discovered through human reason, and if, contra scientistic futurism, prospective trends cannot be predicted without error, then the abyss of chronological inscrutability supposedly opens up at our feet. The future appears to be unknowable, an outcome of chance. Therefore, rather than embarking upon grandiose speculation about what may occur, we should adopt a pragmatism that abandons itself to the twists and turns of history; let us be content to formulate ad hoc responses to emergencies as they arise.

 

While this argument has the merit of underscoring the fallibilistic nature of all predictive schemes, it conflates the necessary recognition of the contingency of history with unwarranted assertions about the latter’s total opacity and indeterminacy. Acknowledging the fact that the future cannot be known with absolute certainty does not imply abandoning the task of trying to understand what is brewing on the horizon and to prepare for crises already coming into their own. In fact, the incorporation of the principle of fallibility into the work of prevention means that we must be ever more vigilant for warning signs of disaster and for responses that provoke unintended or unexpected consequences (a point to which I will return in the final section of this paper). In addition, from a normative point of view, the acceptance of historical contingency and of the self-limiting character of farsightedness places the duty of preventing catastrophe squarely on the shoulders of present generations. The future no longer appears to be a metaphysical creature of destiny or of the cunning of reason, nor can it be sloughed off to pure randomness. It becomes, instead, a result of human action shaped by decisions in the present – including, of course, trying to anticipate and prepare for possible and avoidable sources of harm to our successors.

 

Combining a sense of analytical contingency toward the future and ethical responsibility for it, the idea of early warning is making its way into preventive action on the global stage. Despite the fact that not all humanitarian, technoscientific, and environmental disasters can be predicted in advance, the multiplication of independent sources of knowledge and detection mechanisms enables us to foresee many of them before it is too late. Indeed, in recent years, global civil society’s capacity for early warning has dramatically increased, in no small part due to the impressive number of NGOs that include catastrophe prevention at the heart of their mandates.17 These organizations are often the first to detect signs of trouble, to dispatch investigative or fact-finding missions, and to warn the international community about impending dangers; to wit, the lead role of environmental groups in sounding the alarm about global warming and species depletion or of humanitarian agencies regarding the AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, frequently months or even years before Western governments or multilateral institutions followed suit. What has come into being, then, is a loose-knit network of watchdog groups that is acquiring finely tuned antennae to pinpoint indicators of forthcoming or already unfolding crises."

 

 

He didn't omit anything from the text he provides, and it doesn't really change the context. He never claimed that the card was about realism, he just said "here is a predictions good card." This type of argument is good against nihilism style kritiks like nietzsche that make args like "you shouldn't try and control the world because conflict and difference are inevitable and humanity can never overcome that" whatever. Its probably not always relevant vs the biopower K, but a lot of people read Der Derian as their security K if you say heg vs their K and thats a Nietzschean K, so its often a pretty useful card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't omit anything from the text he provides, and it doesn't really change the context.

 

Aside from the fact that the first part of this sentence is just categorically untrue, you seem to nullify it with the second ("I swear I didn't eat your lunch! But it really didn't taste that good anyways...").

 

He never claimed that the card was about realism, he just said "here is a predictions good card." This type of argument is good against nihilism style kritiks like nietzsche that make args like "you shouldn't try and control the world because conflict and difference are inevitable and humanity can never overcome that" whatever. Its probably not always relevant vs the biopower K, but a lot of people read Der Derian as their security K if you say heg vs their K and thats a Nietzschean K, so its often a pretty useful card.

 

Right, I never said he claimed it was about realism either, I said it appeared to be asserted in the context and as a defense of realism style traditional security politics, which we'll all agree this article just doesn't have too much to do with. I don't think that it's that wild of an assumption to make either, especially when this was put forward or at least clarified as a defense of methodology that took place for the sake of securing all the "heg good, judge" arguments against the "kritik subsumes" business that others were talking about. So even if you think the context of the card remains the same, the inclusion of the rest of the third paragraph at least gives the other side the chance to challenge that belief and say things like "yeh, uh, this doesn't justify the sort of calculations/predictions they're making though" or generate counter-examples against the type of good predictions the author specifies, like "actually NGOs and the way they try to predict things are fucking terrible". Also, I mean, this is kinda a matter of card cutting 101, you never end or start a card in the middle of a paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want to actually make a substantive contribution to our discussion and provide a response to the card then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you want to actually make a substantive contribution to our discussion and provide a response to the card then?

 

Uhhh, I don’t understand why you continue to get annoyed at me in a way that seems to be more angry at someone filling in the omissions of a card than the card’s intellectual dishonesty. I think exposing that fact by filling in the omitted parts with the original text is probably on a definitional level, well, substantive…

 

I mean, I don’t mean to single out synergy if that’s what you’re getting angry about, this sort of shady business seems to be pretty prevalent throughout the cards posted on this thread, for example:

 

this articles pretty good too.

BIOPOWER KEY TO SURVIVAL.

NOORANI, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, 2K5

The Rhetoric of Security, CR: The New Centennial Review 5.1 (2005) 13-41

 

Reshaping the world order means above all the exertion of greater control and surveillance over individuals worldwide. For the rhetoric of security is at bottom a discourse of our own redemption from the irrational tendencies that threaten collective existence, which is the whole purpose of creating civil authority in the first place. Now that individuals who have succumbed to irrationality are capable of destroying civilization, national existence must be organized not just to fend off the threat of other nations but the threat of any individual. This means that the internal moral struggle of all individuals all over the world comes under the purview of U.S. national security. As we have seen, the ultimate threat "lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology" (National Security 2002, ii). "Radicalism" here simply means the irrational desire for violence, and "technology" is the dangerous power that can free us or enslave us. The United States has superior technology. This technology enables the United States to wage wars against tyranny with minimal injury to the innocent and to its own forces, and to neutralize the desire for violence and the fear that inhabit everyone. So long as morally disordered individuals may possess inordinate power, we all come under their thrall due to the fear that we feel. But the world authority that we have erected has the capacity to remove violence and irrationality from the political realm and restore to us our agency, without which we are as good as dead.

 

The fact that this comes from The New Centennial Review should tip everyone off, but for folks who don’t have journal access this can look like the author is actually making these arguments instead of reiterating the rhetoric of Bush in one of his 2002 speeches in order to better analyze and critique it, in the next few paragraphs of the same article, it reads:

 

“It is important to recognize that the rhetoric of security with its war on terrorism is not a program for action, but a discourse that justifies actions. The United States is not bound to take any specific action implied by its rhetoric. But this rhetoric gives the United States the prerogative to take whatever actions it decides upon for whatever purpose as long as these actions come within the rhetoric's purview. Judged by its own standards, the rhetoric of security is counterproductive. It increases fear while claiming that the goal is to eliminate fear. It increases insecurity by pronouncing ever broader areas of life to be in need of security. It increases political antagonism by justifying U.S. interests in a language of universalism. It increases enmity toward the United States by according the United States a special status over and above all other nations. The war against terror itself is a notional war that has no existence except as an umbrella term for various military and police actions. According to a report published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army, "the global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious" (Record 2003, 41). This assessment assumes that the actions comprehended under the rubric of the "war on terrorism" are designed to achieve a coherent military objective. The impossible "absolute security," feared by the report's author to be the "hopeless quest" of current policy (46), may be useless as a strategic objective, but it is eminently effective in organizing a rhetoric designed to justify an open-ended series of hegemonic actions.”

 

also

 

This is always fun.

Biopower key to nuclear deterrence[/b]

WILLIAM BOGARD, professor at Whitman College, 1991 [social Science Journal, Vol. 28 Issue 3 p. 325]

Although there are many places in the History of Sexuality that might indicate what Foucault had in mind was indeed what we commonly mean by “deterrence,” the general context remains one of discipline, expanded to encompass the issues of bio-power and the control over life. But there are a number of reasons to believe that such developments raise problems for the economy of power relations that, while related to those of discipline, are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The following appear to me to be the most relevant of those distinctions. With discipline, the problem of power is that of producing and finalizing functions within a human multiplicity, to maximize utility through the strategic ordering of spatial and temporal relations, ultimately to foster or disallow life itself. With deterrence, on the other hand, we might say that the problem is one of reintroducing an asymmetry between opposing forces which have evolved too close to a point of equivalence or parity, or to a saturation point where it is no longer possible to increase their respective utilities. <continued…> Where discipline sets forces in motion, deterrence indefinitely postpones the equivalence of forces. Here again, the case of nuclear deterrence serves as a paradigm, but this is only because it is the most concentrated and extreme form of a whole multiplicity of tactical maneuvers—of postponement, disinclination, destabilization, etc.—that, like the disciplines in the 18th century, have evolved into a general mechanism of domination, and which today pervades the most diverse institutional settings.

 

I mean here, even by just reading the un-underlined part of the card we can pretty much tell that the author is trying to make a distinction rather than connection between the way disciplinary power and detterance works and basically doesn’t mention biopower at all, but this is obscured to a further extent by the omissions that are made inside paragraphs, making the card even more shady and basically intellectually dishonest:

 

“Although there are many places in the History of Sexuality that might indicate what Foucault had in mind was indeed what we commonly mean by "deterrence," the general context remains one of discipline, expanded to encompass the issues of bio-power and the control over life. But there are a number of reasons to believe that such developments raise problems for the economy of power relations that, while related to those of discipline, are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The following appear to me to be the most relevant of those distinctions.

With discipline, the problem of power is that of producing and finalizing functions within a human multiplicity, to maximize utility through the strategic ordering of spatial and temporal relations, ultimately to foster or disallow life itself. With deterrence, on the other hand, we might say that the problem is one of reintroducing an asymmetry between opposing forces which have evolved too close to a point of equivalence or parity, or to a saturation point where it is no longer possible to increase their respective utilities. We need to be clear on this point, for it is easy here to confuse the ideology of deterrence with its practice, and it is the latter in which we are most interested.(n60) As an ideology, deterrence claims as its goal the strategic balance of power relations, which translates into a form of mutual restraint. Here deterrence represents itself as a logic of equivalence, and as a means of insuring peace and stability by the threat of mutual retaliation. But the actual practice of deterrence is something entirely different and follows not a logic of equivalence, but one of expansion and contraction--the expansion of opposing forces asymtotically to a point where each threatens to disappear, followed by an indefinitely prolonged "laying down of arms." The equivalence of forces is not a goal, not even a practical goal, but a problem of the economy of power relations for which deterrence becomes a general solution. What must be deterred (prevented, delayed) is not, as the ideology of deterrence would suggest, the exercise of power but, somewhat paradoxically, the inability to exercise power. (For deterrence never really aims for a balance of power. The reproduction of deterrent practices is only possible given an asymmetry of power relations, no matter how small.) The paradigm case, of course, is 40 years of the arms race which has culminated in the current policy of the Superpowers with regard to nuclear weapons. In one way, the issue here does concern the "end" of power, at least in the sense of asking the question how power can be exercised in a situation where its actual exercise would lead to mutual annihilation. Since reaching a point of parity in the 1960's, the problem of Superpower relations has increasingly become one of finding ways to recapture the utility of these weapons. (Paul Virilio has called deterrence the "last ideology" since the threat of nuclear retaliation in kind as a means of insuring general peace and security is no longer perceived as credible or realistic.)( n61) Hence, it should come as no surprise that today the question of how power can be exercised is articulated today, at least in the sphere of international relations, in terms of disarmament rather than the endless multiplication of forces which have lost their capacity to be used.( n62)

If the abstract formula of discipline is to impose a form of conduct on a human multiplicity, the formula for deterrence is to dissuade through the use of simulations of impending harm or risk (e.g., the scenario of nuclear holocaust, environmental impact assessments, profiles of the "typical" or potential criminal, disease carrier, etc.).( n63) Deterrence is a technology of signs and information (though this does not exclude its operation on bodies or species); of the reproduction of models (which does not discount its effect on conduct). There are other differences. Where discipline aims at certainty (Bentham's "inspection house" was also a house of certainty), deterrent strategies aim at the randomization of potential outcomes, the calculation of probabilities, and the assessment of risks--certainty, even as an ideal, is ruled out from the beginning. If discipline serves as a "corrective" for behavior--i.e., to align conduct more closely to the norm--deterrence serves as a disinclination to depart from a norm already embodied in action: it is not, for example, the criminal who must be deterred, but the law-abiding citizen. Where discipline sets forces in motion, deterrence indefinitely postpones the equivalence of forces. Here again, the case of nuclear deterrence serves as a paradigm, but this is only because it is the most concentrated and extreme form of a whole multiplicity of tactical maneuvers--of postponement, disinclination, destabilization, etc.--that, like the disciplines in the 1 8th century, have evolved into a general mechanism of domination, and which today pervades the most diverse institutional settings."

 

In terms of making arguments to the predictions “card”, unless you mean the actual card, then I’ve already implied those answers, specifically that they have nothing to do with U.S. leadership and the article is probably against that sort of use of predictions as the author identifies himself with the Left and says predictions are good for strengthening a cosmopolitan community and international governance and disaster prevention, which seems to be diametrically opposed to U.S. hegemony. Also, folk can go the route of NGOs and international organizations are bad. For instance in the article dude talks about the ICC as one good example of this sort of predictive prevention through deterring human rights abuse, especially if folk have coaches who debated in college on the treaties topic, this would prolly allow a good amount of leeway for neg debaters to throw down on why these sorts of international institutions are horrible, or human rights bad, or why prisons and punitive justice is bad, etc. etc. etc.

 

But in any case, this type of card cutting is a laughable form of scholarship at best and probably more likely a really lazy and shady way of trying to win rounds, I don’t think holding people to the minimum standard of honest research somehow hijacks the thread from “substantive” discussion, if anything it would provide more opportunity for it...

 

EDIT: The neg rep I got for this post was "quit being a bitch". That's hilarious to me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody ever said Kurasawa was writing about IR or Heg. I said its a good answer to Nietzsche or Nihilism/Futurism Bad style arguments.

 

I don't feel the need to defend the validity of cards I've never read. I'll let whoever shadily cut that shit defend those cards.

 

In terms of making arguments to the predictions “card”, unless you mean the actual card, then I’ve already implied those answers, specifically that they have nothing to do with U.S. leadership and the article is probably against that sort of use of predictions as the author identifies himself with the Left and says predictions are good for strengthening a cosmopolitan community and international governance and disaster prevention, which seems to be diametrically opposed to U.S. hegemony. Also, folk can go the route of NGOs and international organizations are bad. For instance in the article dude talks about the ICC as one good example of this sort of predictive prevention through deterring human rights abuse, especially if folk have coaches who debated in college on the treaties topic, this would prolly allow a good amount of leeway for neg debaters to throw down on why these sorts of international institutions are horrible, or human rights bad, or why prisons and punitive justice is bad, etc. etc. etc.

 

Nobody said you had to read it as a defense of hegemony. What if your aff is a disaster relief aff? Ok, so whoever reads this card should have a defense of NGOs. So basically, you are saying the neg should impact-turn the aff's impact-turns. Good advice, but thats a given.

 

Alright, lets all give Synergy a slap on the wrist for cutting his card with incomplete paragraphs, tell him to cut the full version, move on and get back to the discussion.

 

All you've essentially done is call out 3 people who cut their cards poorly. You can PM that and be like "PS yo, your card is out of context." It doesnt have to dominate a theoretical or argumentative discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't omit anything from the text he provides, and it doesn't really change the context. He never claimed that the card was about realism, he just said "here is a predictions good card." This type of argument is good against nihilism style kritiks like nietzsche that make args like "you shouldn't try and control the world because conflict and difference are inevitable and humanity can never overcome that" whatever. Its probably not always relevant vs the biopower K, but a lot of people read Der Derian as their security K if you say heg vs their K and thats a Nietzschean K, so its often a pretty useful card.

 

another argument I've been thinking of is humanism inevitable because evolution proves it's part of human nature. I think that would respond to biopolitical/nietzschean Ks likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
another argument I've been thinking of is humanism inevitable because evolution proves it's part of human nature. I think that would respond to biopolitical/nietzschean Ks likes this

 

It is interesting that something that finds its development in the Renaissance is inevitable.

 

Of course if you mean merely being human is inevitable, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
another argument I've been thinking of is humanism inevitable because evolution proves it's part of human nature. I think that would respond to biopolitical/nietzschean Ks likes this

 

Thayer definitely writes cards that realism is inevitable because of evolution. He says that makes violence/power struggles/conflict inevitable. Pretty sure its in an 04/05 book, but I cant remember off the top of my head. Abe (CatSpatHat) would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody ever said Kurasawa was writing about IR or Heg.

 

Right, I don't think that answers my point that it certainly seemed to be asserted and was definitely clarified as a defense of heg.

 

I said its a good answer to Nietzsche or Nihilism/Futurism Bad style arguments.

 

That's a shift from

 

This argument arose in the context of, if you impact turn a biopower k with something like hegemony, you should also read a defense of predictions.

 

The "uhhh, so what" part of all of this is that such a re-clarification wouldn't have happened unless the rest of the card was posted, hence one of the reasons I posted on the thread as opposed to PMing folk, which just seems a little creepy anyways.

 

Ok, so whoever reads this card should have a defense of NGOs. So basically, you are saying the neg should impact-turn the aff's impact-turns. Good advice, but thats a given.

 

Look, aside from examples, the ostensible point of posting cards is that people can either directly use them or formulate ideas and answers against them that will help them in rounds. The specificity and probably even possibility of that sort of impact turning or even defense of that card is not a given if the NGO part of the card isn't posted. Also, you qualified what it means to make a substantive response by saying that I should make a response to the card, which I did, I still don't get how this is a deviation from the discussion.

 

All you've essentially done is call out 3 people who cut their cards poorly. You can PM that and be like "PS yo, your card is out of context." It doesnt have to dominate a theoretical or argumentative discussion.

 

I've answered the PM stuff above, but what argumentative discussion could you possibly be talking about when the shape of those arguments are determined by the completeness, cogency and honesty of the evidence and its deployment. This isn't just about calling people out, it's about forcing folk to make specific defenses of the arguments they're making by finding evidence and warrants that actually apply to what they're saying in order to create a logically sound strategy against kritiks, or biopower, or whatever.

 

Aside from which I think the annoyed posture you're trying to project about the integrity of the thread is pretty disingenuous given the paucity of discussion that was taking place in the last, oh, let's say 5 posts of the thread before I posted.

 

EDIT: I'm actually not trying to initiate a whole long argument here, since that would assume there's something to argue about in what I've presented. Like I said above, providing the rest of the card was for the purposes of people being able to move on in a way that took what the rest of the author is saying into account and then deploy it in the proper contexts. Sorry if this came across as an "ETHICS VIOLATION! LOCK THE THREAD NOW!" type thing, it was more like "here's what the article actually says, also maybe we can increase research standards a little..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, this of everything that foucault says is biopower and say its good

 

FOr example:

 

Heg Good = impact turn to biopower

 

Doctors good

 

Democracy Good

  • Downvote 1

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...