Jump to content
TheHutt

[RFD] [M] Round 219: [ENERGY] TheHutt (aff) vs. DA MACHINE (neg)

What should TheHutt do?  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. What should TheHutt do?

    • Concede the round and post video of him singing "Barbie Girl" by Aqua
    • Continue round and post at 11:59:59pm with an incomplete 2NR, then lose badly but retain sanity


Recommended Posts

Ok so how does getting simply getting access to russia nuke technology technology provide an incentive for the US to develop nuclear energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has much more knowledge and expertise when it comes to advanced fast reactor design elements, including reprocessing, separation, transmutation, and waste isolation procedures. When US nuclear firms gain access to this technology through cooperation with Russia, they are incentivized to commercially develop such reactors because they are much more beneficial in comparison with conventional reactor designs. Additionally, our solvency evidence indicates that the plan would incentivize US nuclear firms by opening up the Russian market for US services, thereby increasing the United State's production of nuclear equipment and materials and substantially increasing the viability of the industry as a whole within the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 off

 

Interpretation

 

United States - a republic of South America, 121,075,667; 3,286,170 sq. mi.; Capitol Brasilia, Portuguese and Spanish, Official name; United States of Brazil.Random House Dictionary of the English Language Second Edition, 1987, pg. 202

 

Violation - The Affirmative case’s agent of action is the America, not the United States of Brazil.

1.) Education- We already know about America. We live here. Our definition allows for a greater increase in education.

2.) Limits-We provide the fairest division of ground. America could do nearly an infinite amount of things to provide AE. Brazil has more limited resources meaning that the number of possible aff cases is cut down.

3.) Ground-They destroy all our links to Brazilian government actions.

 

D. Voters for reasons above.

 

NEXT

 

A. Definitions

 

1. Alternative energy is a naturally generated renewable resource

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition, no date given, "alternative energy," http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861685359

naturally generated energy source: any form of energy obtained from the Sun, wind, waves, or another natural renewable source, in contrast to energy generated from fossil fuels

 

2. US law says nuclear power it NOT alternative energy

U.S. Code, 1/2/06, 26 USC Sec. 7701, "Internal Revenue Code; Procedure and Administration; Definitions," http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+2474+2++%28%27alternative%20energy

%27%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term "alternative energy facility" means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.

 

B. Violation: Nuclear power is not a naturally generated renewable resource - even its advocates admit it

 

Ben Geman, Greenwire senior reporter, 10-23-06, Greenwire, "NUCLEAR POWER: Is nuclear 'renewable'? Bush's remarks spur debate," l/n

 

But critics say the claim ranges from inaccurate to ludicrous. "It is completely absurd. It is based on a finite resource: uranium," said Michele Boyd, legislative director for Public Citizen. "It is absolutely not renewable, and we keep trying to challenge that." She and other critics also cite the reactors' production of waste and other issues to attack the nuclear-as-renewable claim.

Bossong said renewables advocates he works with are considering a fresh attack on the Bush claim. He said the new planned statement or letter would provide a more detailed refutation of the claim than a brief letter that a host of activists sent the White House shortly after Bush's comments in the Wall Street Journal.

Even some supporters of nuclear power question the "renewable" claim. Verrastro believes nuclear must be part of the energy mix in the future but notes that it not without challenges and problems. "Reprocessing is clearly a positive, but there are challenges as well -- like proliferation and security threats plus the environmental and safety consequences of nuclear waste," he said.

Anyway, is it renewable? No, Verrastro said. "You can recycle motor oil as well," he noted, "but that doesn't make it renewable."

[Matt note: Verrastro = Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]

 

C: Reasons to vote neg:

 

1. Predictable limits- limiting alternative energy to renewable energy from a natural source creates a predictable limit that excludes traditional energy sources like clean coal, natural gas and nuclear power and limits it true alternative energy like wind, solar, hydro, and biomass- this creates ample aff ground but enough predictability for competitive equity.

 

2. US law- the US code, the final and complete source of law in the US, states that nuclear energy is not alternative energy and is in the same class as oil, gas and coal. This overwhelms any evidence they have and means there’s zero reason to predict that nuclear energy should be part of the topic.

 

3. Education- the whole point of this topic is to break away from the traditional energy sources and chart a new path- nuclear energy just re-affirms the same old order- we’re not learning about anything new, we’re learning about the most popular source of energy outside of coal and gas.

 

D: Topicality is a voting issue for competitive equity, education and jurisdiction- all the reasons are above

 

NEXT IS DA K

 

The affirmative insulates the liberal-democratic ruling consensus by succumbing to the temptation to act, intervening directly in the given situation while neglecting a critique of its very coordinates. The affirmative is complicit with a system that tolerates conservative acts that fail to challenge hegemonic ideology while suppressing any revolutionary gesture.

 

Slavoj Zizek, Professor of Sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana University, 2002, Revolution at the Gates, p. 167-172

 

In academic politics today, the idea of dealing with Lenin immediately gives rise to two qualifications: yes, why not, we live in a liberal democracy, there is freedom of thought . . . provided that we treat Lenin in an “objective, critical and scientific way”, not in an attitude of nostalgic idolatry, and, furthermore, from a perspective firmly rooted in the democratic political order, within the horizon of human rights — that is the lesson learned painfully through the experience of twentieth-century totalitarianism. What are we to say to this? The problem lies in the further implicit qualifications which can easily be discerned by a “concrete analysis of the concrete situation”, as Lenin himself would have put it. “Fidelity to the democratic consensus” means acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus, which precludes any serious questioning of the way this liberal-democratic order is complicit in the phenomena it officially condemns, and, of course, any serious attempt to imagine a different sociopolitical order. In short, it means: say and write whatever you like — on condition that you do not actually question or disturb the prevailing political consensus. Everything is allowed, solicited even, as a critical topic: the prospect of a global ecological catastrophe; violations of human rights; sexism, homophobia, anti-feminism; growing violence not only in faraway countries, but also in our own megalopolises; the gap between the First and the Third World, between rich and poor; the shattering impact of the digitalization of our daily lives ... today, there is nothing easier than to get international, state or corporate funds for a multidisciplinary research project on how to fight new forms of ethnic, religious or sexist violence. The problem is that all this occurs against the background of a fundamental Denkverbot: a prohibition on thinking. Today’s liberal-democratic hegemony is sustained by a kind of unwritten Denkverbot similar to the infamous Berufsverbot (prohibition on employing individuals with radical Left leanings in the state organs) in Germany in the late 1960s — the moment we show a minimal sign of engaging in political projects which aim seriously to challenge the existing order, the answer is immediately: “Benevolent as it is, this will inevitably end in a new Gulag!” The ideological function of constant references to the Holocaust, the Gulag, and more recent Third World catastrophes is thus to serve as the support of this Denkverbot by constantly reminding us how things could have been much worse: “Just look around and see for yourself what will happen if we follow your radical notions!” What we encounter here is the ultimate example of what Anna Dinerstein and Mike Neary have called the project of disutopia: “not just the temporary absence of Utopia, but the political celebration of the end of social dreams”.2 And the demand for “scientific objectivity” amounts to just another version of the same Denkverhot: the moment we seriously question the existing liberal consensus, we are accused of abandoning scientific objectivity for outdated ideological positions. This is the “Leninist” point on which one cannot and should not concede: today, actual freedom of thought means freedom to question the prevailing liberal-democratic “post-ideological” consensus — or it means nothing. The Right to Truth The perspective of the critique of ideology compels us to invert Wittgenstein’s “What one cannot speak about, thereof one should be silent” into “What one should not speak about, thereof one cannot remain silent”. If you want to speak about a social system, you cannot remain silent about its repressed excess. The point is not to tell the whole Truth but, precisely, to append to the (official) Whole the uneasy supplement which denounces its falsity. As Max Horkheimer put it back in the l930s: “If you don’t want to talk about capitalism, then you should keep silent about Fascism.” Fascism is the inherent “symptom” (the return of the repressed) of capitalism, the key to its “truth”, not just an external contingent deviation of its “normal” logic. And the same goes for today’s situation: those who do not want to subject liberal democracy and the flaws of its multiculturalist tolerance to critical analysis, should keep quiet about the new Rightist violence and intolerance. If we are to leave the opposition between liberal-democratic universalism and ethnic/religious fundamentalism behind, the first step is to acknowledge the existence of liberal fundamentalism: the perverse game of making a big fuss when the rights of a serial killer or a suspected war criminal are violated, while ignoring massive violations of “ordinary” people’s rights. More precisely, the politically correct stance betrays its perverse economy through its oscillation between the two extremes: either fascination with the victimized other (helpless children, raped women . . .), or a focus on the problematic other who, although criminal, and so on, also deserves protection of his human rights, because “today it’s him, tomorrow it’ll be us” (an excellent example is Noam Chomsky’s defence of a French book advocating the revisionist stance on the Holocaust). On a different level, a similar instance of the perversity of Political Correctness occurs in Denmark, where people speak ironically of the “white woman’s burden”, her ethico-political duty to have sex with immigrant workers from Third World countries — this being the final necessary step in ending their exclusion. Today, in the era of what Habermas designated as die neue Unubersichtlichkeit (the new opacity),~ our everyday experience is more mystifying than ever: modernization generates new obscurantisms; the reduction of freedom is presented to us as the dawn of new freedoms. The perception that we live in a society of free choices, in which we have to choose even our most “natural” features (ethnic or sexual identity), is the form of appearance of its very opposite: of the absence of true choices. The recent trend for “alternate reality” films, which present existing reality as one of a multitude of possible outcomes, is symptomatic of a society in which choices no longer really matter, are trivialized. The lesson of the time-warp narratives is even bleaker, since it points towards a total closure: the very attempt to avoid the predestined course of things not only leads us back to it, but actually constitutes it — from Oedipus onwards, we want to avoid A, and it is through our very detour that A realizes itself. In these circumstances, we should be especially careful not to confuse the ruling ideology with ideology which seems to dominate. More then ever, we should bear in mind Walter Benjamin’s reminder that it is not enough to ask how a certain theory (or art) positions itself with regard to social struggles — we should also ask how it actually functions in these very struggles. In sex, the true hegemonic attitude is not patriarchal repression, but free promiscuity; in art, provocations in the style of the notorious “Sensation” exhibitions are the norm, the example of art fully integrated into the establishment. Ayn Rand brought this logic to its conclusion, supplementing it with a kind of Hegelian twist, that is, reasserting the official ideology itself as its own greatest transgression, as in the title of one of her late non-fiction books: “Capitalism, This Unknown Ideal”, or in “top managers, America’s last endangered species”. Indeed, since the “normal” functioning of capitalism involves some kind of disavowal of the basic principle of its functioning (today’s model capitalist is someone who, after ruthlessly generating profit, then generously shares parts of it, giving large donations to churches, victims of ethnic or sexual abuse, etc., posing as a humanitarian), the ultimate act of transgression is to assert this principle directly, depriving it of its humanitarian mask. I am therefore tempted to reverse Marx’s Thesis 11: the first task today is precisely not to succumb to the temptation to act, to intervene directly and change things (which then inevitably ends in a cul-de-sac of debilitating impossibility: “What can we do against global capital?”), but to question the hegemonic ideological co-ordinates. In short, our historical moment is still that of Adorno: To the question “What should we do?” I can most often truly answer only with “I don’t know.” I can only try to analyse rigorously what there is. Here people reproach me: When you practise criticism, you are also obliged to say how one should make it better. To my mind, this is incontrovertibly a bourgeois preiudice. Many times in history it so happened that the very works which pursued purely theoretical goals transformed consciousness, and thereby also social reality. If, today, we follow a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space — it will be an act within the hegemonic ideological coordinates: those who “really want to do something to help people” get involved in (undoubtedly honourable) exploits like Mediecins sans frontieres, Greenpeace, feminist and anti-racist campaigns, which are all not only tolerated but even supported by the media, even if they seemingly encroach on economic territory (for example, denouncing and boycotting companies which do not respect ecological conditions, or use child labour) — they are tolerated and supported as long as they do not get too close to a certain limit.6 This kind of activity provides the perfect example of interpassivity:7 of doing things not in order to achieve something, but to prevent something from really happening, really changing. All this frenetic humanitarian, Politically Correct, etc., activity fits the formula of “Let’s go on changing something all the time so that, globally, things will remain the same!”. If standard Cultural Studies criticize capitalism, they do so in the coded way that exemplifies Hollywood liberal paranoia: the enemy is “the system”, the hidden “organization”, the anti-democratic “conspiracy”, not simply capitalism and state apparatuses. The problem with this critical stance is not only that it replaces concrete social analysis with a struggle against abstract paranoiac fantasies, but that — in a typical paranoiac gesture — it unnecessarily redoubles social reality, as if there were a secret Organization behind the “visible” capitalist and state organs. What we should accept is that there is no need for a secret “organization-within-an-organization”. the “conspiracy” is already in the “visible” organization as such, in the capitalist system, in the way the political space and state apparatuses work.8 Let us take one of the hottest topics in today’s “radical” American academia: postcolonial studies. The problem of postcolonialism is undoubtedly crucial; however, postcolonial studies tend to translate it into the multiculturalist problematic of the colonized minorities’ “right to narrate” their victimizing experience, of the power mechanisms which repress “otherness,” so that, at the end of the day, we learn that the root of postcolonial exploitation is our intolerance towards the Other, and, furthermore, that this intolerance itself is rooted in our intolerance towards the “Stranger in Ourselves”, in our inability to confront what we have repressed in and of ourselves — the politico-economic struggle is thus imperceptibly transformed into a pseudopsychoanalytic drama of the subject unable to confront its inner traumas. . . . (Why pseudo-psychoanalytic? Because the true lesson of psychoanalysis is not that the external events which fascinate and/or disturb us are just projections of our inner repressed impulses. The unbearable fact of life is that there really are disturbing events out there: there are other human beings who experience intense sexual enjoyment while we are half-impotent; there are people submitted to terrifying torture.. . . Again, the ultimate truth of psychoanalysis is not that of discovering our true Self, but that of the traumatic encounter with an unbearable Real.) The true corruption of American academia is not primarily financial, it is not only that universities are able to buy many European critical intellectuals (myself included — up to a point), but conceptual: notions of “European” critical theory are imperceptibly translated into the benign universe of Cultural Studies chic. At a certain point, this chic becomes indistinguishable from the famous Citibank commercial in which scenes of East Asian, European, Black and American children playing is accompanied by the voice-over: “People who were once divided by a continent ... are now united by an economy” — at this concluding highpoint, of course, the children are replaced by the Citibank logo. The great majority of today’s “radical” academics silently count on the long-term stability of the American capitalist model, with a secure tenured position as their ultimate professional goal (a surprising number of them even play the stock market). If there is one thing they are genuinely afraid of, it is a radical shattering of the (relatively) safe life-environment of the “symbolic classes” in developed Western societies. Their excessive Politically Correct zeal when they are dealing with sexism, racism, Third World sweatshops, and so on, is thus ultimately a defence against their own innermost identification, a kind of compulsive ritual whose hidden logic is: “Let’s talk as much as possible about the necessity of a radical change, to make sure that nothing will really change!” The journal October is typical of this: when you ask one of the editors what the title refers to, they half-confidentially indicate that it is, of course, that October — in this way, you can indulge in jargonistic analyses of modern art, with the secret assurance that you are somehow retaining a link with the radical revolutionary past.. . . With regard to this radical chic, our first gesture towards Third Way ideologists and practitioners should be one of praise: at least they play their game straight, and are honest in their acceptance of the global capitalist co-ordinates — unlike pseudo-radical academic Leftists who adopt an attitude of utter disdain towards the Third Way, while their own radicalism ultimately amounts to an empty gesture which obliges no one to do anything definite. There is, of course, a strict distinction to be made here between authentic social engagement on behalf of exploited minorities (for example, organizing illegally employed chicano field workers in California) and the multiculturalist/postcolonial “plantations of no-risk, no-fault, knock-off rebellion” which prosper in “radical” American academia. If, however, in contrast to corporate multiculturalism”, we define “critical multiculturalism” as a strategy of pointing out that “there are common forces of oppression, common strategies of exclusion, stereotyping, and stigmatizing of oppressed groups, and thus common enemies and targets of attack,” I do not see the appropriateness of the continuing use of the term “multiculturalism”, since the accent shifts here to the common struggle. In its normal accepted meaning, multiculturalism perfectly fits the logic of the global market.

 

The Affirmative is a healthy dose of ideology instead of coming to terms with the irrational nature of the international relations they only attempt to secure the international arena making sure nothing ever really changes. Unfortunately their hope sustained in security guarantees is misplaced a capitalist ideology only operates by never fulfilling its promise of security. The result is only the creation of more threats to be secured by the West, and more justification for capitalist dominance.

 

Zizek & Daly, 2004, (Glyn,Slavoj, Risking the Impossible, http://www.lacan.com/zizek-primer.htm) SRM

 

Zizek has been concerned crucially to demonstrate the way in which ideology serves to support reality as a concrete fully integrated totality - reality cannot be reproduced without initial ideological mystification. Ideology does not conceal or distort an underlying positivity (the way things really are), but quite the opposite. What ideology attempts to do is provide a certain positive consistency against the distorting and traumatizing effects of the Real (Zizek, 1989: 45).

 

All ideology presents reality as a full ontological totality, and in this way tries to repress the traumatic fact that the latter is ultimately a delusion; it tries to eliminate all traces of (Real) impossibility (Zizek, 1989: 49). The exemplary figure here is that of the cynic. The typical cynic is someone who is "pragmatic", who distances themselves from sincerely held beliefs, dismisses alternative visions of social existence as so much juvenile nonsense...and who, for all that, relies even more deeply on some absolutist conception of an independent fully-formed reality.

 

The cynic is the very model of an ideological subjectivity insofar as s/he is radically dependent on the idea of an externally ratified reality ("human nature", "the way it is" etc.). What the cynic fears most is that they might lose the support of this independent (Other) reality and consequently their sense of "place" in the world. The cynic gets involved in a certain short-circuiting procedure that is, in fact, generic to all ideological functioning: s/he is cynical towards every kind of ideological belief except his/her own fundamentalist belief in objectivist reality.

 

The cynical attitude is more widely reflected in today's predominant inclination towards "postmodern ironizing". The key philosopher is arguably R. Rorty. Rorty wants a world where individuals are free "to pursue private perfection in idiosyncratic ways" (Rorty, 1991: 19) and where the public realm is restricted to minimal functions and is essentially aesthetic in orientation (Rorty, 1989: 125). For Rorty the central obligation is to be sceptical towards any projects of substantial social engagement for fear that it might curtail individual pursuits of happiness and lead towards despotic forms of cruelty in the name of a higher (collective) Truth (see Daly, 1994). The basic inconsistency in Rorty's position is that "we" should exercise an ironic distancing towards every socio-political project except the liberal one: the one true reality whose (private/public) structuring of social relations represents "the last conceptual revolution" (Rorty, 1989: 63) and effectively suspends history.

 

This is why so much of what passes for contemporary postmodern thought should be understood as strictly ideological in character. With all its ironic distancing, disavowals of the authentic gesture and so on, it relies even more heavily on the functioning of the existing order as if it were a naturalistic, or immaculate, Other - a kind of preservation of the ontological dream through symbolic mortification. In other words, it tends to involve the very form of ideological identification which is formulated along the lines of "we know very well that there is no such thing as Reality but nonetheless we believe in it".

So how does ideology deal with its immanent impossibility, with the fact that it cannot deliver a fully integrated social order? Zizek's answer is that ideology attempts to reify impossibility into some kind of external obstacle; to fantasmatically translate the impossibility of Society into the theft, or sabotage, of Society (see Daly, 1999). Transcendental impossibility is projected into some contingent historicised Other (e.g. the figure of "the Jew" in Nazi ideology) in such a way that the lost/stolen object (social harmony/purity) appears retrievable; an object which, of course, "we" have never possessed. By synonymizing the impossible-Real with a particular Other (Jews, Palestinians, Gypsies, immimgrants...), the fantasy of holistic fulfilment through the (imagined or otherwise) elimination/suppression of the Other is thereby sustained.

 

Zizek has recently given this perspective a further more radical twist. Thus ideology not only presents a certain ideal of holistic fulfilment (Plato's Republic of Reason, Habermas' transparent modernity, Rorty's liberal utopia, multiculturalist harmony and so on), it also serves crucially to regulate a certain distance from it. The paradox of ideology is that it advances a particular fantasy of being reconciled with the Thing (of total fulfilment) but with the built-in proviso that we do not come too close to it. The psychoanalytic reason for this is clear: if you come too close to the Thing it either fragments irretrievably (like a digitally produced image) or, as in the Kantian sublime, produces unbearable anxiety and psychical disintegration.

 

The point is that ideology is always already engaged reflexively with its own impossibility. Impossibility is articulated through ideology and in such a way that it both structures reality and establishes the very sense of what is considered possible. Here we have a double inscription. First there is the basic operation of translating impossibility into an external obstacle (an Other). But second, there is a further deeper stage whereby the ideological objective itself is elevated to the status of impossibility precisely as a way of avoiding any direct encounter with it (see Zizek & Daly, 2003).

 

Ideology seeks to maintain a critical distance by keeping the Thing in focus but without coming so close that it begins to distort and fragment (see Daly, 1999: 235). The paradigmatic example is of someone who fantasises about an ideal object (a sexual scenario, a promotion, a public performance etc.) and when they actually encounter the object they are typically confronted with a de-idealisation of the object; a return of the Real . By keeping the object at a certain distance, however, ideology sustains the satisfaction derived from the fantasy of holistic fulfilment: "if only I had x I could achieve my dream". Ideology is the impossible dream not simply in terms of overcoming impossibility but of constructing the latter in an acceptable way; in a way that itself yields a certain satisfaction of both having and eating the cake. The idea of overcoming impossibility is subsists as a deferred moment of realisation but without having to go through the pain of overcoming as such. Ideology regulates this fantasmatic distance as a way of avoiding the Real in the impossible - the trauma involved in any real change.

 

Let's take the case of Iraq and the so-called New World Order. With extensive military mobilisation, widespread social upheaval and a terrible human cost, the invasion of Iraq was undertaken precisely in order that the underlying structures of Western-U.S. socio-economic power can continue to function in a relatively undisturbed way. While the invasion was initially justified on the grounds of international security this has, subsequent to a profound lack of evidence, been largely rearticulated in terms of a project of emancipation. And it is here that we get the ideological twist: "we are here to liberate/democratise Iraq...while recognising that a full implementation of the latter is impossible under present (any) circumstances". Thus the occupation of Iraq continues in full force. The message is, "in principle (you can have liberation), yes; in reality, no".

 

It is this hidden clause of deferral that effectively prevents any real attempt to realise the publicly stated objective. Along the lines of Henry Ford's famous declaration ("you can have any colour you like, as long as it's black") we see the same kind of forced choice at play: "the Iraqi people can have all the democracy they want, all the popular control over their oil and natural resources...as long as it is modelled on U.S.-Western liberal capitalism, as long as it does not undermine U.S.-Western interests".

With New World Order discourse we see a similar ideological process. Any genuine attempt to realise such an order would involve massive (traumatic) changes: power sharing, the eradication of poverty and systematic social exclusion, a globalisation of equal rights/participation and so on, as integral reflexive elements. In reality, the New World Order is routinely conjured as an indefinite ideal that serves precisely to prevent any real movement towards it. The same type of ideological clause is secretly functioning: "we are moving towards a New World Order that will not tolerate the Saddam Husseins of this world...while recognising that a true implementation of such an order (one that would be intolerant of all the autocrats and corporate profiteers/dictatorships) is currently/always impossible". In this way, the category of impossibility itself functions as an implicit-obscene ideological supplement in today's realpolitik; in today's cynical assertion of the way things actually are.

 

In order to sustain capitalism’s fantasy of security it requires the elimination of all disorder. This drive for total mastery would justify the nuclear obliteration the 1AC attempts to solve – turning case.

 

Stavrakakis, Ideology and Discourse Analysis Program in the Department of Government at the University of Essex, 1999 ( Yannis, Lacan and the Political, Ruteledge Press, 87-88)

 

In order to realise the problematic character of the utopian operation it is necessary to articulate a genealogy of this way of representing and making sense of the world. The work of Norman Cohn seems especially designed to serve this purpose. What is most important is that in Cohn’s schema we can encounter the three basic characteristics of utopian fantasies that we have already singled out: first, their link to instances of disorder, to the element of negativity. Since human experience is a continuous battle with the unexpected there is always a need to represent and master this unexpected, to transform disorder to order. Second, this representation is usually articulated as a total and universal representation, a promise of absolute mastery of the totality of the real, a vision of the end of history. A future utopian state is envisaged in which disorder will be totally eliminated. Third, this symbolisation produces its own remainder; there is always a certain particularity remaining outside the universal schema. It is to the existence of this evil agent, which can be easily localised, that all persisting disorder is attributed. The elimination of disorder depends then on the elimination of this group. The result is always horrible: persecution, massacres, holocausts. Needless to say, no utopian fantasy is ever realised as a result of all these ‘crimes’—as mentioned in Chapter 2, the purpose of fantasy is not to satisfy an (impossible) desire but to constitute it as such. What is of great interest for our approach is the way in which Cohn himself articulates a genealogy of the pair utopia/demonisation in his books The Pursuit of the Millennium and Europe’s Inner Demons (Cohn, 1993b, 1993c). The same applies to his book Warrant for Genocide (Cohn, 1996) which will also be implicated at a certain stage in our analysis. These books are concerned with the same social phenomenon, the idea of purifying humanity through the extermination of some category of human beings which are conceived as agents of corruption, disorder and evil. The contexts are, of course, different, but the urge remains the same (Cohn, 1993b:xi). All these works then, at least according to my reading, are concerned with the production of an archenemy which goes together with the utopian mentality.

Capitalist ethics justifies extermination through genocide and mass violence. Capitalism is a system of systematic violence; nuclear war and the Holocaust are all justified with the calculating logic of the capitalist machine – history proves.

Internationalist Perspective in 2000 (“Capitalism and Genocide,” Issue #36, spring 2000. http://www.geocities.com/wageslavex/capandgen.html)-mikee

 

Mass death, and genocide, the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings, have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death, but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch. In that sense, I want to argue that the Holocaust, for example, was not a Jewish catastrophe, nor an atavistic reversion to the barbarism of a past epoch, but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism itself. Moreover, Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not "past", but rather futural events, objective-real possibilities on the Front of history, to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected, the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent, are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millenium. Indeed, it is just such a death-world that constitutes the meaning of one pole of the historic alternative which Rosa Luxemburg first posed in the midst of the slaughter inflicted on masses of conscripts during World War I: socialism or barbarism! Yet, confronted by the horror of Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima, Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. While I am convinced that there can be no adequate theory of mass death and genocide which does not link these phenomena to the unfolding of the logic of capital, revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one. Worse, the few efforts of revolutionary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust, for example, as I will briefly explain, have either degenerated into a crude economism, which is one of the hallmarks of so-called orthodox Marxism, or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial; the former being an expression of theoretical bankruptcy, and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. Economism, which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or travesty) of Marxist theory, in which politics, for example, can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base, in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class, and in the case of the capitalist class, the immediate need to extract a profit, shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. Thus, in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -- Jewish -- part so as to save the rest, an undertaking welcomed by big capital, which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. Quite apart from an economism which simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand, and the political and ideological on the other (about which more later), such an "explanation" asks us to conceive of genocide not as the complex outcome of the unfolding of the operation of the law of value in the diverse spheres of social life, but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of the petty bourgeoisie and big capital. Auschwitz, the veritable hallmark of the fundamental irrationality of late capital, is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit interests on the part of the capitalists. However, an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war, simply cannot, in my view, be comprehended on the basis of a purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal bases for its adequate theorization, the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe, such as Pierre Guillaume, constitutes a political betrayal of the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. For Guillaume, Auschwitz can only be a myth, a fabrication of the allies, that is, of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war, because it so clearly serves their interests in mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy; on the alter of anti-fascism. Hence, La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible, including the most fraudulent. For the evidence of genocide is just so many deceptions, so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality, designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve." It is quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class, and that the Holocaust has been routinely wielded for more than a generation by the organs of mass manipulation in the service of the myth of "democracy" in the West (and by the state of Israel on behalf of its own imperialist aims in the Middle-East). And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries. Nonetheless, this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial, which not only cannot be dissociated from anti-Semitism, but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production, of the very barbarism of capitalism, and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its potential victims. This latter, in its own small way, is the despicable contribution of La Vieille Taupe, and the basis for my conviction that it must be politically located in the camp of capital. Marxism is in need of a theory of mass death and genocide as immanent tendencies of capital, a way of comprehending the link (still obsure) between the death-world symbolized by the smokestacks of Auschwitz or the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and the unfolding of the logic of a mode of production based on the capitalist law of value. I want to argue that we can best grasp the link between capitalism and genocide by focusing on two dialectically inter-related strands in the social fabric of late capitalism: first, are a series of phenomena linked to the actual unfolding of the law of value, and more specifically to the completion of the transition from the formal to the real domination of capital; second, are a series of phenomena linked to the political and ideological (this latter understood in a non-reductionist sense, as having a material existence) moments of the rule of capital, specifically to the forms of capitalist hegemony. It is through an analysis of the coalescence of vital elements of these two strands in the development of capital, that I hope to expose the bases for the death-world and genocide as integral features of capitalism in the present epoch. The real domination of capital is characterized by the penetration of the law of value into every segment of social existence. As Georg Lukács put it in his History and Class Consciousness, this means that the commodity ceases to be "one form among many regulating the metabolism of human society," to become its "universal structuring principle." From its original locus at the point of production, in the capitalist factory, which is the hallmark of the formal domination of capital, the law of value has systematically spread its tentacles to incorporate not just the production of commodities, but their circulation and consumption. Moreover, the law of value also penetrates and then comes to preside over the spheres of the political and ideological, including science and technology themselves. This latter occurs not just through the transformation of the fruits of technology and science into commodities, not just through the transformation of technological and scientific research itself (and the institutions in which it takes place) into commodities, but also, and especially, through what Lukács designates as the infiltration of thought itself by the purely technical, the very quantification of rationality, the instrumentalization of reason; and, I would argue, the reduction of all beings (including human beings) to mere objects of manipulation and control. As Lukács could clearly see even in the age of Taylorism, "this rational mechanisation extends right into the worker's `soul'." In short, it affects not only his outward behavior, but her very internal, psychological, makeup. The phenomenon of reification, inherent in the commodity-form, and its tendential penetration into the whole of social existence, which Lukács was one of the first to analyze, is a hallmark of the real domination of capital: "Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a `phantom objectivity', an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people." Reification, the seeming transformation of social relations into relations between things, has as one of its outcomes what the German-Jewish thinker H.G.Adler designated as "the administered man" [Der verwaltete Mensch]. For Adler, when human beings are administered, they are treated as things, thereby clearing the way for their removal or elimination by genocide. The outcome of such a process can be seen in the bureaucractic administration of the Final Solution, in which the organization of genocide was the responsibility of desk killers like Adolf Eichmann who could zealously administer a system of mass murder while displaying no particular hatred for his victims, no great ideological passion for his project, and no sense that those who went to the gas chambers were human beings and not things. The features of the desk killer, in the person of Eichmann, have been clearly delineated by Hannah Arendt. He is the high-level functionary in a vast bureaucratic organization who does his killing from behind a desk, from which he rationally plans and organizes mass murder; treating it as simply a technical task, no different than the problem of transporting scrap metal. The desk killer is the quintessential bureaucrat functioning according to the imperatives of the death-world. As a human type, the desk killer, that embodiment of the triumph of instrumental reason, has become a vital part of the state apparatus of late capitalism. Here, the Lukácsian concept of reification, the Adlerian concept of the administered man, and the Arendtian portrait of the desk killer, can be joined to Martin Heidegger's concept of das Gestell, enframing, in which everything real, all beings, including humans, are treated as so much Bestand, standing-reserve or raw material, to be manipulated at will. This reduction of humans to a raw material is the antechamber to a world in which they can become so many waste products to be discarded or turned into ashes in the gas chambers of Auschwitz or at ground zero at Hiroshima.

 

 

 

Our alternative is to do nothing by rejecting the Affirmative’s call for capitalist action. Acts under the system always maintain the status quo, refuse the endorsement existing political frameworks. Truly radical act are ones that are done outside of the current paradigms and spheres of normatively. Our refusal of the neoliberal politics of the 1AC will allow us to open up for a new kind of activity, true revolutionary politics.

 

Slavoj Zizek, Slovenian Badass, 2004, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, p. 71-74

 

The stance of simply condemning the postmodern Left for its accommodation, however, is also false, since one should ask the obvious difficult question: what, in fact, was the alternative? If today’s ‘post-politics’ is opportunistic pragmatism with no principles, then the predominant leftist reaction to it can be aptly characterized as ‘principled opportunism’: one simply sticks to old formulae (defence of the welfare state, and so on) and calls them ‘principles’, dispensing with the detailed analysis of how the situation has changed – and thus retaining one’s position of Beautiful Soul. The inherent stupidity of the ‘principled’ Left is clearly discernible in its standard criticism of any analysis which proposes a more complex picture of the situation, renouncing any simple prescriptions on how to act: ‘there is no clear political stance involved in your theory’ — and this from people with no stance but their ‘principled opportunism’. Against such a stance, one should have the courage to affirm that, in a situation like today’s, the only way really to remain open to a revolutionary opportunity is to renounce facile calls to direct action, which necessarily involve us in an activity where things change so that the totality remains the same. Today’s predicament is that, if we succumb to the urge of directly ‘doing something’ (engaging in the anti-globalist struggle, helping the poor . . .), we will certainly and undoubtedly contribute to the reproduction of the existing order. The only way to lay the foundations for a true, radical change is to withdraw from the compulsion to act, to ‘do nothing’ — thus opening up the space for a different kind of activity. Today’s anti-globalization movement seems to be caught in the antinomy of de- and reterritorialization: on the one hand, there are those who want to reterritorialize capitalism (conservatives, ecologists, partisans of the nation-state and champions of local roots or traditions); on the other, there are those who want an even more radical deterritorialization, liberated from the constraints of capital. But is this opposition not too simple? Is it not ultimately a false alternative? Is not the capitalist ‘territory’ (everything must pass through the grid of market exchange) the very form and vector of radical deterritorialization — its operator, as it were? (And does the same not go for the nation-state, this operator of the erasure of local traditions?) Positivity and negativity are inextricably intertwined here, which is why the true aim should be a new balance, a new form of de- and reterritorialization. This brings us back to the central sociopolitical antinomy of late capitalism: the way its pluralist dynamic of permanent deterritorialization coexists with its opposite, the paranoid logic of the One, thereby confirming that, perhaps, in the Deleuzian opposition between schizophrenia and paranoia, between the multitude and the One, we are dealing with two sides of the same coin. Were the Left to choose the ‘principled’ attitude of fidelity to its old programme, it would simply marginalize itself. The task is a much harder one: thoroughly to rethink the leftist project, beyond the alternative of ‘accommodation to new circumstances and sticking with the old slogans. Apropos of the disintegration of ‘state socialism’ two decades ago, we should not forget that, at approximately the same time, Western social-democratic welfarist ideology was also dealt a crucial blow, that it also ceased to function as the Imaginary able to arouse a collective passionate following. The notion that ‘the time of the welfare state has past’ is a piece of commonly accepted wisdom today. What these two defeated ideologies shared was the notion that humanity as a collective subject has the capacity somehow to limit impersonal and anonymous sociohistoric development, to steer it in a desired direction. Today, such a notion is quickly dismissed as ‘ideological’ and/or ‘totalitarian’: the social process is perceived as dominated by an anonymous Fate which eludes social control. The rise of global capitalism is presented to us as such a Fate against which we cannot fight — either we adapt to it or we fall out of step with history, and are crushed. The only thing we can do is to make global capitalism as human as possible, to fight for ‘global capitalism with a human face’ (this, ultimately, is what the Third Way is – or, rather, was – about).

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Status of the alt?

2. Text to the alt?

3. Explain the alt in your own words.

4. Explain the Zizek/Daly 04 link evidence in your own words - how is the plan an instance of capitalism?

5. On the first T, what were those sweet Brazil arguments in the tub that you couldn't run? Can you show me the 1NC cites to that awe-inspiring disad you must have?

6. How the fuck is a debate on Brazil in any way predictable for the aff?

7. Did you know what a Section 123 agreement was before I posted the 1AC?

8. Second T - so renewable energy is topical?

9. Don't we impact-turn your education standard by introducing new forms of nuclear power to the energy arena?

10. Doesn't the US Code say "for the purposes of subsection A"? How is this "subsection A" at all relevant to this debate?

 

More to come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Status of the alt?

 

condo

 

2. Text to the alt?

 

We don't have a specific text, it's impossible to describe our alternative in a single sentence, like "engage in meditative thinking" or some shit like that. But we can clearly describe to you what our alternative does. We won't add actions to our alternative that we didn't say we would do. And we will defend that "doing nothing" (in the context of the kritik) and everything stated in the tagline.

 

I can clarify more on the alternative if you ask questions about it.

 

3. Explain the alt in your own words.

 

The tagline was my own words. But simply, current actions re-entrench capitalist politics, whether it be to stop catastrophe or through attempts to stand against capitalism, as described by the link evidence. In order to create an authentic revolution that isn't done on the backdrop of capitalism, we must "do nothing" as a way to stop re-affirming neo-liberal politics, by doing nothing it allows us to open up the space for revolutionary poltiics.

 

4. Explain the Zizek/Daly 04 link evidence in your own words - how is the plan an instance of capitalism?

 

Capitalism functions with the Fantasy of security. Your aff is a replicate of that ideology, you attempt to achieve security through your plan. Zizek and Daly talk about how ideology funtions by having a goal, but the ideological pleasure comes from you trying to achieve that goal, ideology always puts your goal a little ahead of you, so that you can never reach it, but live under the Fantasy of the possibility of it, you simply get pleasure out of trying to achieve it. This happends because of ideology's fear of any real change. Zizek connects this with US millitarism, the US attempts to achieve absolute security justified the US political dominance and transformation of Iraq into a capitalist state. But because changing the Middle East into a perfect state involves real changes, it ends up failing and playing right into Zizek's discription, an attempt to achieve something but ensuring that nothing actually changes.

 

Now how this connects to your aff? You continue your drive for total security by attempting to secure relations with Russia, contain the middle east, whatever...just the whole "SHIELDS UP, RED ALERT - IRAN IS ON THE BRINK OF THE BOMB " thing. Now apply the whole Zizek analysis on ideology, ensuring security is impossible because of it's fear of change, meaning that your attempt at security fails, but only maintains the capitalist status quo. Your aff is just part of capitalism's pleasure at its attempt to achieve security.

 

5. On the first T, what were those sweet Brazil arguments in the tub that you couldn't run? Can you show me the 1NC cites to that awe-inspiring disad you must have?

 

We aren't obligated to give you the cites of evidence that we didn't read, but we lose very very very very very valuable disads such as our Brazil heg DA's, Brazil spending and econ, and the United States counterplan.

 

6. How the fuck is a debate on Brazil in any way predictable for the aff?

 

What are you talking about? You have the first speech. We are suppose to be prepared to answer your 1AC, not the other way around.

 

7. Did you know what a Section 123 agreement was before I posted the 1AC?

 

I don't see the relevance of this question.

 

8. Second T - so renewable energy is topical?

 

Yes.

 

9. Don't we impact-turn your education standard by introducing new forms of nuclear power to the energy arena?

 

No, nuclear energy already exists, and our evidence clasifies it under the class of coal and oil.

 

10. Doesn't the US Code say "for the purposes of subsection A"? How is this "subsection A" at all relevant to this debate?

 

Subsection A needed the definition of alternative energy clarified, and the US code define alternative energy. It's not taken out of context, the US code still defines nuclear power as not alternative energy. Not sure what you are trying to get at.

 

More to come later.

 

.

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tagline was my own words. But simply, current actions re-entrench capitalist politics, whether it be to stop catastrophe or through attempts to stand against capitalism, as described by the link evidence. In order to create an authentic revolution that isn't done on the backdrop of capitalism, we must "do nothing" as a way to stop re-affirming neo-liberal politics, by doing nothing it allows us to open up the space for revolutionary poltiics.
- How do these revolutionary politics prevent a collapse in US-Russia relations and stop Iran from proliferating?

- What does the world look like post-alternative?

Capitalism functions with the Fantasy of security. Your aff is a replicate of that ideology, you attempt to achieve security through your plan. Zizek and Daly talk about how ideology funtions by having a goal, but the ideological pleasure comes from you trying to achieve that goal, ideology always puts your goal a little ahead of you, so that you can never reach it, but live under the Fantasy of the possibility of it, you simply get pleasure out of trying to achieve it. This happends because of ideology's fear of any real change. Zizek connects this with US millitarism, the US attempts to achieve absolute security justified the US political dominance and transformation of Iraq into a capitalist state. But because changing the Middle East into a perfect state involves real changes, it ends up failing and playing right into Zizek's discription, an attempt to achieve something but ensuring that nothing actually changes. Now how this connects to your aff? You continue your drive for total security by attempting to secure relations with Russia, contain the middle east, whatever...just the whole "SHIELDS UP, RED ALERT - IRAN IS ON THE BRINK OF THE BOMB " thing. Now apply the whole Zizek analysis on ideology, ensuring security is impossible because of it's fear of change, meaning that your attempt at security fails, but only maintains the capitalist status quo. Your aff is just part of capitalism's pleasure at its attempt to achieve security.

- What is the fantasy of security?

- What is the "goal" that you talk about? Why is it impossible for us to obtain it?

- Why does the ideology of security prevent the plan from solving this specific instance? Even if total security is out of reach why is it not a good idea to prevent three separate scenarios of extinction?

We aren't obligated to give you the cites of evidence that we didn't read, but we lose very very very very very valuable disads such as our Brazil heg DA's, Brazil spending and econ, and the United States counterplan.
Be honest, how many times have you actually read those arguments in a tournament round, ever?

 

What are you talking about? You have the first speech. We are suppose to be prepared to answer your 1AC, not the other way around.
Let me rephrase - how is the affirmative supposed to predict before the round what your interpretation of what the U.S. is?

 

 

I don't see the relevance of this question.
It's a yes or no question. You've either heard of it before or you haven't.

 

 

No, nuclear energy already exists, and our evidence clasifies it under the class of coal and oil.
So it's not worthwhile to learn about new innovative forms of nuclear energy?

 

Subsection A needed the definition of alternative energy clarified, and the US code define alternative energy. It's not taken out of context, the US code still defines nuclear power as not alternative energy. Not sure what you are trying to get at.
Uh, dur, it is taken out of context - the context of subsection A. What the hell does subsection A talk about and why is it relevant to my specific form of incentive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- How do these revolutionary politics prevent a collapse in US-Russia relations and stop Iran from proliferating?

 

The whole nature of international relations is flawed, if we win that this security ethic is bad whether it turns your case or whatever reason, the attempt at US-Russia relations should just be flat out rejected in favor of the alternative.

 

- What does the world look like post-alternative?

 

What the hell does that mean? Am I suppose to like paint a picture? Zizek has no roadmap for his alternative, thats the whole point. We open ourselves up to new authentic alternatives. Our alternative is an ethic for us to embrace

 

- What is the fantasy of security?

 

The strive for absoute security, when in reality ideology prevents it from being succesful.

 

- What is the "goal" that you talk about? Why is it impossible for us to obtain it?

 

In this case it would be to ensure security. Because you gain pleasure from your attempt to achieve your goal, thus the goal keeps moving away, making it impossible to reach. In capitalism/security, achieving the goal means radical change, but capitalist dominance along the way to achieving the goal gives pleasure, the goal does not want to be achieved, thus nothing actually changes, only more capitalist dominance.

 

- Why does the ideology of security prevent the plan from solving this specific instance? Even if total security is out of reach why is it not a good idea to prevent three separate scenarios of extinction?

 

Answered above. The whole "making sure nothing actualy changes" part.

 

Be honest, how many times have you actually read those arguments in a tournament round, ever?

 

Every tournament I've went to. I don't know what you were thinking, did you not know what the resolution meant or something?

 

Let me rephrase - how is the affirmative supposed to predict before the round what your interpretation of what the U.S. is?

 

You're not, like every team defines words in the resolution differently, that's why we have T deates, to show what the resolution should be. This T isn't any more unpredictable from any other T teams run, like incentives = positive,ect.

 

It's a yes or no question. You've either heard of it before or you haven't.

 

No?

 

So it's not worthwhile to learn about new innovative forms of nuclear energy?

 

No. Same reasons as before.

 

Uh, dur, it is taken out of context - the context of subsection A. What the hell does subsection A talk about and why is it relevant to my specific form of incentive?

 

It's talking about alternative energy facilities, but it has to define what would constitue as facilites that hold alternative energy, so the piece of the code I read describes the kinds that the US code defines as alternative energy, and what isn't. Nucear isnt.

 

 

 

.

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the alternative matter if we're all dead? Does the alternative prevent nuclear extinction somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the alternative matter if we're all dead? Does the alternative prevent nuclear extinction somehow?

 

We argue that the implication of the K justifies the nuclear annihalation that you attempt to solve for multiple reasons. If the political instituions that is the backdrop of your 1AC is flawed, it's impossible to evaluate your impacts. We argue that the ethic of our alternative is a way to confront these problematic instituions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We argue that the implication of the K justifies the nuclear annihalation that you attempt to solve for multiple reasons.
Explain that in English, please. Are you basically insinuating that terminal extinction is okay just because capitalism is bad and total security impossible?

 

If the political instituions that is the backdrop of your 1AC is flawed, it's impossible to evaluate your impacts.
Why? Where's the warrant in your evidence that supports this?

 

We argue that the ethic of our alternative is a way to confront these problematic instituions.

But does that actually do anything to stop the specific impacts of the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain that in English, please. Are you basically insinuating that terminal extinction is okay just because capitalism is bad and total security impossible?

 

It was in english. Re-read the part that said "your impacts are impossible to evaluate".

 

Why? Where's the warrant in your evidence that supports this?

 

The IP evidence talks about how capitalism reduces people into objects, which justified hiroshima, the holocaust ect...and it goes on the mention how more extermination(through nuclear weapons) would be justified under capitalism. The Stavrakakis evidence also mentions how the drive for security will lead to the obliteration of populations.

 

But does that actually do anything to stop the specific impacts of the plan?

 

Yes.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AC will be ready tomorrow night.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I need another day since I was just stacked with homework, plus 300 surveys I had to tabulate, bleh.

Edited by TheHutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for the delay, but I'm leaving for Cat Nats so the 2AC won't be up til next week at the earliest. Be patient and I'll be right back with you.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
My apologies for the delay, but I'm leaving for Cat Nats so the 2AC won't be up til next week at the earliest. Be patient and I'll be right back with you.

 

bump

 

 

 

take his advice, andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looking at the judges, TheHutt will win no matter what.

 

why?

 

holy shit, how long does it take to fucking prep for 3 off? did he really catch you completely off guard with a generic cap k?

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure he's more worried about the US = Brazil T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lolz.

 

i mean, i could see how he might need a little time if you broke some crazy disad/ cp combo that he might not have heard of.. but seriously, this is kind of silly.

 

it's the end of the year, and you can't respond to a zizek cap k with a copy + paste?

 

or does it take you a week to find a card that says "the usfg is the government in washington dc"???

 

 

noob

Well, excuse me if I want to test out a new 2AC block once in awhile :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also DA MACHINE, I counted the 1NC and it was about 2500 words. I'm just going to post a 2500 word 2AC but all subsequent speeches need to be 2200/1300.

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...