Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blade66609

Looking for help

Recommended Posts

The argument I basically want to make is this:

 

You save [these people (people in Africa, Asia, Native Americans or whatever)]. Do you solve for death/starvation/rape/etc entirely? No? You are saying that [these people] are more valuable than anyone else, and you are therefore creating a pseudo-normative circle of people to save and anyone outside that circle is screwed. The K is basically solve for everyone or solve for no one because when we pick and choose who lives and dies we play god. I know Foucault talked about this kind of stuff, but he mainly applied it to social institutions (psychology, prison, etc). Is there anyone who I could use and is this even an original/good argument?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault doesnt even really make that analysis, and that is just a link of omission. the Aff is mandated by the res to help some people, why not do that and help others too. Plus, the perm, help everybody by doing Aff global is competitive and makes the Aff even better than it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foucault doesnt even really make that analysis, and that is just a link of omission. the Aff is mandated by the res to help some people, why not do that and help others too. Plus, the perm, help everybody by doing Aff global is competitive and makes the Aff even better than it was.

 

I know Foucault doesn't say anything about this specifically, but he does give analysis of why normalization and exclusion is bad. I was just using him as an example. Also, unless the Aff can prove that they help EVERYONE IN THE WORLD that doesn't work. All we have to do is prove that they are excluding any one group and we are unique so they can't perm.

 

Ok, well how about this:

 

When the government gets to decide who lives and dies bad things happen.

 

Almost the same argument, just slightly reworded.

Edited by Blade66609

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Foucault doesn't say anything about this specifically, but he does give analysis of why normalization and exclusion is bad. I was just using him as an example. Also, unless the Aff can prove that they help EVERYONE IN THE WORLD that doesn't work. All we have to do is prove that they are excluding any one group and we are unique so they can't perm.

 

Ok, well how about this:

 

When the government gets to decide who lives and dies bad things happen.

 

Almost the same argument, just slightly reworded.

A couple of pretty general rules about strategic K debate:

1) K should not operate based on a link of omission; this is mentioned above but dude your entire K link is based on the notion that they don't help everyone. Think of it in the context of a Counterplan and its net benefit -

a) there's bad shit happening in the balkans

B) the aff only operates with Natives

c) Balkans escalates - extinction

 

Counterplan text: The United States federal government will...<insert aff text> on a global level.

 

The permutation solves the link to your argument so you have dick offense against them.

(Finally I'd like to note I sincerely doubt you're ready to get into a debate about artificial competition especially since you don't have some of the arbitrary limiting arguments that Consult counterplans can minimize aff offense with).

 

2) The links to the aff should operate on two levels:

a) a link to the plan justification

B) a link to the physical plan action (the plan text)

Not having a link to both of these makes it absurdly easy for affs to go for a textual/functional competition argument and go for the permutation or it justifies shit like perm do the alt.

 

3) unless you got some serious ones you should probably read a critique that cheats more - you're brushing on some epistemological questions but you need to make these issues specific. The critique being isolated as a criticism of aff epistemology or ontology not only allows for some pretty sweet cop outs to their justifications of whatever you're criticizing but it makes it far easier for the K to operate as a floating PIC.

 

4) the alternative probably shouldn't advocate a material action unless you're feeling ballsy - it's got some more pull if your alternative does something in the material world but its a bitch to defend as most K debaters are not ready to go toe to toe on a debate involving say disads to the alt because the alt actually does something. In the context of the counterplan example I gave above it would be like reading disads to eliminating caspian oil drilling.

 

5) if you are going to advocate material action shady cop outs are probably still required (ie the Leap of Faith evidence for the Zizek debate).

 

There's probably some more but they escape me at present.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh all the cool kids say Cap Bad.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The links to the aff should operate on two levels:

a) a link to the plan justification

B) a link to the physical plan action (the plan text)

Not having a link to both of these makes it absurdly easy for affs to go for a textual/functional competition argument and go for the permutation or it justifies shit like perm do the alt.

 

i both agree and disagree with this. its best to be able to say both, but sometimes you simply can't (you're reading a generic k about taking action in a specific context such as biopower, cap, nietzsche, any zizek k, etc.). the k should link to one at the very least and have to prove why that relates to the other. for instance, reading epistemology arguments about why the plan exists solely because of the justifications. or reading method arguments about how we create the solution and then establish the problem to justify the action. thats a way of relating to both without having specific evidence on both. i think saying that the k should operate on both at the same time is kind of a high standard that would more or less make reading k's pretty difficult.

 

and no alex, the cool kids aren't reading cap.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i both agree and disagree with this. its best to be able to say both, but sometimes you simply can't (you're reading a generic k about taking action in a specific context such as biopower, cap, nietzsche, any zizek k, etc.). the k should link to one at the very least and have to prove why that relates to the other. for instance, reading epistemology arguments about why the plan exists solely because of the justifications. or reading method arguments about how we create the solution and then establish the problem to justify the action. thats a way of relating to both without having specific evidence on both. i think saying that the k should operate on both at the same time is kind of a high standard that would more or less make reading k's pretty difficult.

 

and no alex, the cool kids aren't reading cap.

Fair enough I suppose but at the very least we can agree that striving or this ideal is the best coarse of action. I would also contend if you're rolling with just links to one it better be some hot ass link evidence. And you're right Juan the cool kinds in general aren't reading cap. Just the cool kids that win.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...