Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The K

Aff Disease Survaillance

Recommended Posts

Guest svfrey

on a lighter note

there's probably not many "US key" warrants for this case

just go like japan/china/UN do the plan.

then go generic $, tix, aid trade-off, country-specific relations DA

should be all set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only arguments this case will lose to are kritiks. The policy lit is absolutely amazing.

 

On that note, be forewarned that kritiks will be insanely well blocked out for this case, especially biopower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only arguments this case will lose to are kritiks. The policy lit is absolutely amazing.

wut?

 

a. international agent counterplan [sorry, the u.s. key warrants are by no means good]

b. T: assistance [sorry, a card saying youre PHA doesn't win the violation]

c. CASE IMPACTS BLOW

d. so win a generic disad.

 

On that note, be forewarned that kritiks will be insanely well blocked out for this case, especially biopower.

:eek: YOU?!?! POSTING ABOUT BIOPOWER?!?!?!?!?!?! hah.. kidding dawg.

 

 

but for real care to explain why the policy lit is so unbeatable?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're running this case, the arg you need to be making on the biopower flow is:

11. THEY ARE IN A DOUBLE BIND- EITHER-

 

A.) THE ALTERNATIVE IS STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERTHROW BIOPOLITICS IN WHICH CASE THE PERM SOLVES AND THE RESIDUAL LINKS AREN’T IMPORTANT.

OR

B.) THEIR LINK ARGUMENTS TO THE PERM ARE TOO STRONG AND OVERWHELM THE SOLVENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVE; THIS IS BECAUSE BIOPOWER AND BIOPOLITICS EXTEND FAR BEYOND THE EXPANSES OF THE AFF.

 

12. THEY’RE IN ANOTHER DOUBLE BIND- EITHER-

 

A.) THE LINKS INTO BIOPOLITICAL CONTROL ARE SO BROAD AND MULTIPLE THAT WE CAN NEVER STOP ALL REDEPLOYMENTS OF BIOPOWER MEANING THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE UNIQUELY OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY OUR REDEPLOYMENT OF BIOPOLITICAL CONTROL IS BAD.

OR

B.) THE AFF’S UNIQUE REDEPLOYMENT OF BIOPOLITICAL CONTROL FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SOLVENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIFICITY.

 

Throw in some prag cards to support the 12 point.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, you know, all those really specific cards that say this form of surveillance isn't a bad form of biopower. Or the link turns that we integrate the african populace into their own disease control. The evidence that says this is an unmet want in africa (surprisingly, african people don't want to be blown up in a bioweapons attack or killed by bird flu any more then we do).

 

But aside from that, sure, just use your generic double bind on the alt cards and prag. Because good foucault debaters will NEVER have specific links.

 

 

The policy lit is good because of the huge amount of impacts, the non-uniquing of the DA's, and the huge hugeness of the impacts. Timeframe cards are a dime a dozen too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unwarranted assertions. i'm glad debate taught you so much. apparently genetic weapons, bioterror, and bird flu aren't big impacts anymore. who knows. i guess Warsh is an idiot. so is Repko apparently

 

yes. the fact that i disagree with the aforementioned notion that this case is unbeatable from a policy perspective CLEARLY means that i think warsh and repko are idiots. i am quite ecstatic that whoever left this is so potent on the internal link debate. this must be why they can reach claims like genetic weapons or bioweapons through this case, and probably why they think the bird flu is actually a serious threat/debate impact to use. whoever left this is clearly leagues above me in debate, and life in general; and i can only hope they're halfway as adept at interpreting thinly veiled sarcasm, because if they aren't, that would be so terribly unfortunate.

 

s/he prolly didn't notice your sarcasm, i didn't, you shouldn't assume sarcasm in a post on the internet is wholly visible. and s/he's still beating you in terms of providing a warrant, for anything. that person's arrogant, but you're probably worse

lol okay now this is kind of funny. in a sad way. but funny.

to beat someone in terms of providing a warrant, you must provide a warrant. while i have never claimed to do that in this thread, nobody else on this discussion has either. it's cross-x.com. i assume people will make stupid claims like a case having "huge hugeness of impacts" or a case being "unbeatable" by policy strategies. i don't type support for my statements until they're challenged. it's kind of the norm...

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, you know, all those really specific cards that say this form of surveillance isn't a bad form of biopower. Or the link turns that we integrate the african populace into their own disease control. The evidence that says this is an unmet want in africa (surprisingly, african people don't want to be blown up in a bioweapons attack or killed by bird flu any more then we do).

 

But aside from that, sure, just use your generic double bind on the alt cards and prag. Because good foucault debaters will NEVER have specific links.

 

 

The policy lit is good because of the huge amount of impacts, the non-uniquing of the DA's, and the huge hugeness of the impacts. Timeframe cards are a dime a dozen too.

I disagree with the link turns. The link, isn't the place to allocate your time. The links into biopower are so far and many that it isn't worth your time. The link turn is a new link in a lot of new ways. I think the time is best spent on the alternative and impact debate because the alt is either vague(and probably a moving target), or utopian.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahhh we gotta love the biop double binds...

 

theres no US key warrents appart from bwc - counterplan out of that if you want a generic strat

 

a better one would be to reserach one of the 94827 things that are in their plan text and prep an impact turn - doubt they'll see that one comming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

ppl will prolly try and go over-i.d. on this case

like TIPS from last year

ughhh, more zizek debates on aff....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i honestly think disease sec is more better strat than biopower. though this case in general is a walking K link, the biopower link isn't as strong, the alts tend to be worse.

 

on the other hand, we are the epitome of disease securitization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahahahahaha

dude

a walking K link?

 

"this aff that monitors diseases links more then all the other disease affs"

haha wow

 

in an extension of what Msacko was stating, a team would probably need to do that to get out of terminal uniqueness questions, i.e. disease spread inevitable in a world without the plan - the idea that there is some 'out there' disease that could 'mutate at any time' and must be addressed before any other cause are probably the way they would characterize your advantages. they might also read a couple of cards on case stating that 'disease impacts are overblown and exhaderated (sp)' in order to prevent any discursive or fiated case outweighs arguments

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i honestly think disease sec is more better strat than biopower. though this case in general is a walking K link, the biopower link isn't as strong, the alts tend to be worse.

 

on the other hand, we are the epitome of disease securitization

how wouldnt foucault criticize that lol =o

 

The concept that we can bring to them purity and free them from disease, sounds alot like the repressive hypothesis haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea but the giant war released by the econ collapse from bird flu will :P

 

seriously...disease sec is a pain in the ASS! at least we reduce the clinical gaze somewhat...but sec links hard. and the impact turns link harder. It turns into a gaint yuhhuh nuhuh debate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously - Malthus this shit up - put some case D on the terminal impacts then conceded the small impacts that squo kills like 2-4 billion without the plan - then you just say thats good, key to solve the crunch...

 

like disease = key natural death checks...

 

or you could be really cool and have a biopower throw down... i dont think that everyone is really giving biopower the credit it deserves here... like , everyone has blocks to biopower, and its not like the presence of blox loses you the debate... you can go 8 minutes all out on this case and it will be a solid debate all the time - they cant no link you, so the arguments will really flesh out welll...

 

EDIT - i know 2-4 billion deaths isnt that small... but you know what i mean...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't give biopower as much street cred as disease sec for several reason

 

1. If run as a shallow arg among many it is often given little weight by judges and tends to be tough to win unless the aff makes a mistake.

 

2. If run as a deep (5-8 minutes of the 1NC) K it runs into the problems aforementioned. These include some wiggle room for the aff on the link, a significant amount of alt lit that if well developed will rip apart most standard reject biopolitical action alts, and a good impact/impact turn debate to be had by the aff - who of course will have a good block. The neg has a solid chance of winning because of course, they have the block, but this is not an advantage of biopower over disease sec.

 

I like disease sec against this case for a couple of reasons

 

1. You win the link. Period. You might even get away with reading no more than 2 or 3 link cards all round (the 1NC links...assuming you went 1 off K or 2 off K and T)

 

2. The impact debate is an interesting one, but every impact turn is another link, which is great if you have a judge who likes Ks or if you just want to make them fight for their ground. However, the potential weakness is here - because the assumption security justifies violence is hotly contested and rather oversimplified.

 

3. The alternative debate is much easier for the neg. Because the magnitude of the link is so large, reject surv. might actually end the trend toward securitizing disease in Africa.

 

Other advantage includes easier access to tactical and technical tools like the floating PIK (just pass plan with the security reps) and blocking/turning their impacts (the cards that say securitization doctrine results in exaggerated impacts for the purposes of competing for funding/aid/attention are amazing)

 

as for what jordan was saying - he is right. The aff revolves entirely around security concerns. That is why the impact turn debate is a good one, but you force them into an impact debate running a K and you are halfway to a ballot.

 

perhaps it would be strategic to run a malaria advantage or something as an add on so at the end of the round we have a systemic impact that is by no means securitized, then just kick the other reps and go for framework + case outweighs if necessary. That advantage BLOWS though, not to mention that it is a good malthus link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
Seriously - Malthus this shit up - put some case D on the terminal impacts then conceded the small impacts that squo kills like 2-4 billion without the plan - then you just say thats good, key to solve the crunch...

 

like disease = key natural death checks...

 

or you could be really cool and have a biopower throw down... i dont think that everyone is really giving biopower the credit it deserves here... like , everyone has blocks to biopower, and its not like the presence of blox loses you the debate... you can go 8 minutes all out on this case and it will be a solid debate all the time - they cant no link you, so the arguments will really flesh out welll...

 

EDIT - i know 2-4 billion deaths isnt that small... but you know what i mean...

 

 

sweet, a new word has just been verbed

i cam't wait to use "to malthus" in my everyday conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't give biopower as much street cred as disease sec for several reason

 

1. If run as a shallow arg among many it is often given little weight by judges and tends to be tough to win unless the aff makes a mistake.

 

2. If run as a deep (5-8 minutes of the 1NC) K it runs into the problems aforementioned. These include some wiggle room for the aff on the link, a significant amount of alt lit that if well developed will rip apart most standard reject biopolitical action alts, and a good impact/impact turn debate to be had by the aff - who of course will have a good block. The neg has a solid chance of winning because of course, they have the block, but this is not an advantage of biopower over disease sec.

 

I like disease sec against this case for a couple of reasons

 

1. You win the link. Period. You might even get away with reading no more than 2 or 3 link cards all round (the 1NC links...assuming you went 1 off K or 2 off K and T)

 

2. The impact debate is an interesting one, but every impact turn is another link, which is great if you have a judge who likes Ks or if you just want to make them fight for their ground. However, the potential weakness is here - because the assumption security justifies violence is hotly contested and rather oversimplified.

 

3. The alternative debate is much easier for the neg. Because the magnitude of the link is so large, reject surv. might actually end the trend toward securitizing disease in Africa.

 

Other advantage includes easier access to tactical and technical tools like the floating PIK (just pass plan with the security reps) and blocking/turning their impacts (the cards that say securitization doctrine results in exaggerated impacts for the purposes of competing for funding/aid/attention are amazing)

 

I don't see how any of the reasons you give makes disease securitization different from any other criticism. Yes, if the affirmative knows how to debate it will be harder to win a biopower critique. But the same thing applies to disease securitization....you concede yourself that the alternative to disease sec. is weak/link debates are the easiest thing to win when you run a critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...