Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are cards out there (not sure of the authors) that say "the" is an imperialist word and should be rejected. its a very stupid argument, especially when you know they'll say "the" over 100 times in the debate. Plus its not functionally competitive.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In essence, Cade is correct that using the word "the" is geopolitical, which in turn is imperial. But what he/she doesn't understand is that the only word "the" that is omitted is in front of the words "United States federal government". It's not a stupid argument because Tuthail 2000 - the first card of the NB - says that using the phrases like (and I quote) "...'the prime minister', 'the nation'..." perpetuates geopower aka an us - them dichotomy via borders. I can go more in depth, and PM you the cards if you're interested.

 

Additionally, it can be argued that it is functionally competitive via "Language shapes reality" arguments.

Edited by ShreeBuck
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In essence, Cade is correct that using the word "the" is geopolitical, which in turn is imperial. But what he/she doesn't understand is that the only word "the" that is omitted is in front of the words "United States federal government". It's still a stupid argument despite Tuthail 2000 - the first card of the NB - says that using the phrases like (and I quote) "...'the prime minister', 'the nation'..." perpetuates geopower aka an us - them dichotomy via borders. I can go more in depth, and PM you the cards if you're interested.

 

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you review historical documents, you will see how the usage around "United States of America" has changed over the years. Prior to the civil war, you'll see the term conjugated as a plural, and indeed, "United States" is a plural term. And indeed, it was a campaign of nationalism led by a newspaper man which led the US into its first major imperialist endeavour (Spanish American War). If you examine the history of the civil war at all, it is apparent that the "Union" army was really constructed of units grouped by state. The very idea of singular USA is an invention of war propaganda.

 

What I don't understand is why teams feel like they need to do something silly like PIC out of "the" to get to that argument. Frankly a states CP is a better alt if you want to hae a policy alt for this K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this here..

 

Thrift 2k – Nigel, Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick and a leading academic in the field of human geography, "Its's the Little Things" Geopolitical Traditions. A Century of Geopolitical Thought: in Atkinson, D., Dodds, K. (eds) Page 383-385

 

Let us finally come to one more arena: the arena of words. After all, here we might be thought to have the clearest example of representation at work, the word. Yet, what we do not get from critical geopolitics is a clear enough sense of how words function to bring about geopolitical change and it is not possible to do so as long as geopolitical forces continue to be framed as "big" and "commanding" (with all the masculine overtones.) Some of the most potent geopolitical forces are, I suspect, lurking in the 'little' 'details' of people's lives, what is "carried" in the specific variabilities of their activities' (Shotter and Billig 1998: 23), in the context of utterances. And these variabilities have immediate consequences. Thus, As Bakhtin notes, and is confirmed by the work in conversational analysis, 'we sensitively catch the smallest shift in intonation, the slightest interruption of voices in anything of importance to us in another person's practical everyday discourse. All those verbal sideward glances, reservations, loopholes, hints, thrusts do not slip past our ear, are not foreign to our own lips' (Bakhtin 1984: 201). And we in turn show our stance to what they do or say also in fleeting bodily reactions, facial expressions, sounds of approval or disapproval, etc. Indeed, even in the continuously responsive unfolding of non-linguistic activities between ourselves and others - in a dance, a handshake, or even a mere collision on the street - we are actively aware of whether the other's motives are, so to speak, 'in tune' or 'at odds' with ours. And in our sense of their attunement or lack of it, we can sense their attitude to us as intimate or distant, friendly or hostile, deferential or arrogant, and so on. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 23). Thus, very effective work has been done in disciplines like anthropology and discursive psychology (Billig 1995, 1997) which attempts to provide a sense of how national identity and an accompanying geopolitical stance are inscribed through the smallest of details. Thus, for example, national identity is not accomplished in grand displays which incite the citizen to wave the flag in a fit of patriotic fervour. Instead, it goes on in more mundane citations: it is done unobtrusively on the margins of conscious awareness by little words such as 'the' and 'we'. Each day we read or hear phrases such as 'the prime minister', 'the nation', or 'the weather'. The definite article assumes deictically national borders. It points to the homeland: but while we, the readers or listeners, understand the pointing, we do not follow it with our consciousness - it is a 'seen but unnoticed' feature of our everyday discourse. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 20). Such work goes some way towards understanding the deep, often unconscious aggressions which lurk behind so much geopolitical 'reasoning', which through small details build a sense of 'us' as not like 'them', and from which political programmes then flow as infractions are identified and made legible. In these few brief comments, I hoped to have outlined a parallel agenda for critical geopolitics, one still based on discourse, but on discourse understood in a broader way, and one which is less taken in by representation and more attuned to actual practices. In turn, such an agenda leads us away from interpretation of hyperbolic written and drawn rhetorics (which, I suspect, are often read by only a few and taken in by even fewer) towards the (I hesitate to say 'real') work of discourse, the constant hum of practices and their attendant territorializations within whcih geopower ferments and sometimes boils over.

 

I don't really think there is a link. The USFG refers to an actor, its not a way of implying geopolitical grouping like "the nation". Thrift says that through using terms like "the nation" that identify us as part of a group tied to geopolitical boundaries, we subconciously inscribe a national identity. Saying the USFG doesn't imply any membership in a group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why wouldnt Perm - do CP solve the cp other than the fact that its severance?

 

What are good answers to this CP?

 

Also i dont see how the use of the word "the" uses geopower can someone explain it in further detail?

 

What about the last part of the resolution "in the united states"? what would you do there?

Edited by Abu Sharu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this counterplan stupid conceptually, oh hell yes. Is it stupid strategically, no not even a little bit. The very real problem is that the neg controls almost 100% of the offense in this debate and the general consensus in the community is that PICs are good so its kind of difficult to win they aren't despite the reality that that's basically the aff's only offense against the CP.

 

Barring the virtual impossibility that you find some badass "The" good cards.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest plzz
severance bad.

Perm's a test of competition, you just wasted time making arguments why severance is bad.

 

The argument for the perm is that counterplans have to be both functionally and textually competitive, which solves all offense for why textual competition is good, and puts a heavier burden on the negative to win why the perm is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also i dont see how the use of the word "the" uses geopower can someone explain it in further detail?
It doesn't. It is indicative of a worldview in which people can be convinced of their own national superiority and righteousness. Without being so convinced, it is very difficult for leaders to convince a populace to mobilize for war.

 

What about the last part of the resolution "in the united states"? what would you do there?
Replace "the" with "these."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this counterplan stupid conceptually, oh hell yes. Is it stupid strategically, no not even a little bit.

At least in areas where I travel, this logic is why debate is dying.

 

Also, shouldn't the link be if the resolution said "the federal government" because that presumes we can identify which federal government is "us" rather than "them?" If it uses "the United States" isn't that just identifying a unique proper noun? There are no other countries in the world with that term in the name. You are just attacking grammar and the use of articles at this point.

Edited by giantchkn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least in areas where I travel, this logic is why debate is dying.

 

debaters don't care about the status of debate while they're in it, they just wanna win

  • Upvote 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...