Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Piano Man
...

 

funny joke you just did there

 

 

No. I was listing an argument you can (and probably should) make, without bothering to post my actual frontline. You are just asserting things that aren't useful or inteligible. If there's a specific reason why this counterplan is bad, why don't you name it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NB to this PIC is a borders / states bad argument, correct? It seems like any team prepared to beat that K while unattached to a PIC should be able to beat it despite the plan link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, unlike the actual k the CP doesn't even attempt to solve for the implication of geopower, all it does is avoid a link meaning the NB is non-unique/inevitable so ANY risk of a solvency deficit or ANY risk of offense on the cp is a reason to vote aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, unlike the actual k the CP doesn't even attempt to solve for the implication of geopower, all it does is avoid a link meaning the NB is non-unique/inevitable so ANY risk of a solvency deficit or ANY risk of offense on the cp is a reason to vote aff.

 

I don't understand this statement at all. Can you please explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, unlike the actual k the CP doesn't even attempt to solve for the implication of geopower, all it does is avoid a link meaning the NB is non-unique/inevitable so ANY risk of a solvency deficit or ANY risk of offense on the cp is a reason to vote aff.

 

 

This goes back to the silly econ/budget disads coupled with the plan minus 1 dollar CP.

 

There is a reason these disappeared......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, unlike the actual k the CP doesn't even attempt to solve for the implication of geopower, all it does is avoid a link meaning the NB is non-unique/inevitable so ANY risk of a solvency deficit or ANY risk of offense on the cp is a reason to vote aff.

 

can you actually even articulate a solvency deficit and/or offense though??

 

doubt it.

 

if you can, i'm impressed. let's hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb arg, with strategic benefits. But 2 ways the surprised aff should be able to create offense.

 

1. More likely, less link to the net benefit, is heg good. We need to be consider the united states, the nation, the ruler of the world. And imperialism good and that shit. The aff, if it links to the net benefit, probably has a productive goal that would be furthered by an exceptionalist understanding of the United States. Also, you could frame it as the US or the EU, read some EU heg bad, and try to put some spin.

 

2. Grammar. I don't think you can say US without the "the," and impact that. Given that your opponents won't be able to win uniqueness or a sizable link to their net benefit, and you control the 2AR impact calculus, you just need to phrase the grammatical impact of not using the definite article. Harder to generate and explain the impact though. You could try to make this a plan flaw arg too.

 

A friend of mine was hit with this while running a big-stick heg aff. He said the first one, but I forget what the other team's response was.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb arg, with strategic benefits. But 2 ways the surprised aff should be able to create offense.

 

1. More likely, less link to the net benefit, is heg good. We need to be consider the united states, the nation, the ruler of the world. And imperialism good and that shit. The aff, if it links to the net benefit, probably has a productive goal that would be furthered by an exceptionalist understanding of the United States. Also, you could frame it as the US or the EU, read some EU heg bad, and try to put some spin.

 

2. Grammar. I don't think you can say US without the "the," and impact that. Given that your opponents won't be able to win uniqueness or a sizable link to their net benefit, and you control the 2AR impact calculus, you just need to phrase the grammatical impact of not using the definite article. Harder to generate and explain the impact though. You could try to make this a plan flaw arg too.

 

A friend of mine was hit with this while running a big-stick heg aff. He said the first one, but I forget what the other team's response was.

 

Your 2AC against the PIC is impact turning heg and saying grammar outweighs geopolitics?

 

 

The three smartest strategies against the Word PIC:

 

1) Perm. You win functional competition is good and textual competition is bad. You would go for "Perm: do the CP." To win this, you also need to win "discourse/langauge no shape reality" and a disad to language focus (marxism, pomo bad, etc.)

 

2) Impact Turn the NB. If they imperialism bad, and you have a heg good adv - say that heg is good and link the word PIC into destroying heg. Or explain why the NB can't solve since it'd preserve material heg.

 

3) Disad to language censorship. Butler, etc.

 

 

Note that you can go for all three of these together. If you've already done the impact work on a DA in the block, it doesn't take long to extend the 2nd option. and it's not like Butler's arg is all that complicated. You'd need to develope the discussion of textual vs. functional competition.

 

For most judges, the first argument is intuitively true, and there's no risk of them weighing anything. I'm fairly convinced that's the smartest approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb arg, with strategic benefits. But 2 ways the surprised aff should be able to create offense.

 

1. More likely, less link to the net benefit, is heg good. We need to be consider the united states, the nation, the ruler of the world. And imperialism good and that shit. The aff, if it links to the net benefit, probably has a productive goal that would be furthered by an exceptionalist understanding of the United States. Also, you could frame it as the US or the EU, read some EU heg bad, and try to put some spin.

 

2. Grammar. I don't think you can say US without the "the," and impact that. Given that your opponents won't be able to win uniqueness or a sizable link to their net benefit, and you control the 2AR impact calculus, you just need to phrase the grammatical impact of not using the definite article. Harder to generate and explain the impact though. You could try to make this a plan flaw arg too.

 

A friend of mine was hit with this while running a big-stick heg aff. He said the first one, but I forget what the other team's response was.

 

Your grammar argument is wrong. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about saying USFG instead of The USFG.

 

Running this argument against a hege aff is really stupid. The argument is hypernationalism bad, NOT borders bad (like someone in another post mentioned). Why would you run this CP vs a hege aff? You can just read a K with a hypernationalism link to hegemony which is a much stronger link story than the link to the word "the" and would have a better alternative.

 

Yes, this argument is not necessarily TRUE but it is strategic in the same way that a consult CP is strategic. If you are a very good theory debater and love theory, I would STRONGLY suggest reading this counterplan because the best response to this argument is theory. By that I mean,

 

a) exclusively textual competition bad -- cp must be both text and func --- justifies perm do the CP

 

B) word pics are bad -- think of the way that you respond to the consult CP argument that it pics out of "resolved" and why that is absurd because it can be run on every topic -- same line of thinking here -- in my opinion, the arguments like "your net benefit is retarded" is only truly offense when coupled with these theoretical objections. proving the absurdity/trivial nature of the CP bolsters your theoretical claim.

 

c) no solvency advocate -- yes even though the evidence for why "the nation" is bad is shockingly good, it doesn't prescribe the CP as being the solution

 

yes, the very right wing impact turns are responsive but i do not think that these are positions that so obviously favor the affirmative in terms of truth value like the theoretical objections.

 

if you dismiss this argument and are not prepared to debate it, you WILL lose. it is as simple as that. i have received multiple bids running this argument against very good teams. they may have been better than i am, but they were unprepared for this argument so do NOT be caught off guard.

 

EDIT: much of my post overlaps with ziegler's post. my bad, his post had not appeared while i was posting. but he is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this statement at all. Can you please explain?

 

You are going to win 100% that geopower is inevitable, an actual k would claim to sovle for the implication of geopower, this cp doesn't because it's just the same as your plan minus the "the". The only benefit is that it avoids a link to an impact that's non-unique /inevitable anyways in the world of the CP - no unique reason to vote neg, and if you happen to get a judge that votes solely on defense you might win the debate just on this or even argue to flat out vote aff on presumption, but any amount of solvency defecit or offense on the CP would be enough to make the plan better than the CP.

 

can you actually even articulate a solvency deficit and/or offense though??

 

doubt it.

 

if you can, i'm impressed. let's hear it.

 

There's always the grammar argument - not saying "the" is not proper grammar, and then if this was a proposed plan to a policy maker than they might not know what you mean. For instance you could argue that just saying "united states federal government" could mean any federal government that happens to be made up of a bunch of states, the "the" is critical because it's definate article that references the USFG we typically use - without it there is a doubt on what the actor is.

 

This might normally seem like a dumb argument, but the judge probably wouldn't give the neg any leeway on this argument either, if the neg purposely made the CP grammaticaly incorrect than a plan flaw argument should be given the full weight. And CA above - if there is any doubt the CP won't solve than it would be enough to vote aff.

 

Also, borders good.

Edited by Kratos_99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always the grammar argument - not saying "the" is not proper grammar, and then if this was a proposed plan to a policy maker than they might not know what you mean. For instance you could argue that just saying "united states federal government" could mean any federal government that happens to be made up of a bunch of states, the "the" is critical because it's definate article that references the USFG we typically use - without it there is a doubt on what the actor is.

 

This might normally seem like a dumb argument, but the judge probably wouldn't give the neg any leeway on this argument either, if the neg purposely made the CP grammaticaly incorrect than a plan flaw argument should be given the full weight. And CA above - if there is any doubt the CP won't solve than it would be enough to vote aff.

 

Also, borders good.

 

Read thread before being a tool.

1. Not necessarily grammatically incorrect, that was above.

2. HOLY SHIT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH USFG IT IS?! Wait, that's their argument, geopolitics bad.

3. It's not borders

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read thread before being a tool.

1. Not necessarily grammatically incorrect, that was above.

2. HOLY SHIT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH USFG IT IS?! Wait, that's their argument, geopolitics bad.

3. It's not borders

 

1. Maybe not incorrect, but not proper grammar, you're suppose to use a definate article to reference USFG.

 

2. Probably a pretty big solvency deficit? Oh shit, it's geopolitical? Oh wait, that's inevitable in the world the cp anyway.

 

3. This is the tuathail card that I'm going to assume is part of the 1NC

 

Tuathail 96[Gearoid Professor, Government and International Afffairs, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech Critical Geopolitics: the politics of writing global space Page/s 1-2 GooglePrint]

 

Geography is about power. Although often assumed to be innocent, the geography of the world is not a product of nature but a product of histories of struggle between competing authorities over the power to organize, occupy, and administer space. Imperial systems throughout history, from classical Greece and Rome to China and the Arab world, exercised their power through their ability to impose order and meaning upon space. In sixteenth-century Europe, the centralizing states of the "new monarchs" began organizing space around an intensified principle of royal absolutism. In regions both within and beyond the nominal domain of the Crown, the power of royal authority over space was extended and deepened by newly powerful court bureaucracies and armies. The results in many instances were often violent, as the jurisdictional ambitions of royal authority met the determined resistance of certain local and regional lords. Within the context of this struggle, the cartographic and other descriptive forms of knowledge that took the name "geography" in the earls modern period and that were written in the name of the sovereign could hardly be anything else but political. To the opponents of the expansionist court, "geography" was a foreign imposition, a form of knowledge conceived in imperial capitals and dedicated to the territorialization of space along lines established by royal authority. Geography was not something already possessed by the earth but an active writing of the earth by an expanding, centralizing imperial state. It was not a noun but a verb, a geo-graphing, an earth-writing by ambitious endocolonizing and exocolonizing states who sought to seize space and organize it to fit their own cultural visions and material interests.

More than five hundred years later, this struggle between centralizing states and authoritative centers, on the one hand, and rebellious margins and dissident cultures, on the other hand, is still with us. While almost all of the land of the earth has now, been territorialized by states, the processes by which this disciplining of space by modern states occurs remain highly contested. From Chechnya to Chiapas and from Rondonia to Kurdistan and Fast Timor, the jurisdictions of centralized nation-states strive to eliminate the Contradictions of marginalized peoples and nations. Idealized maps from the center clash with the lived geographies of the margin, with the controlling cartographic visions of the former frequently inducing cultural conflict, war, and displacement. Indeed, the rise in the absolute numbers of displaced peoples in the past twenty-five years is testimony to the persistence of struggles over space and place. In 1993 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that roughly 1 in every 130 people on earth has been forced into flight because of war and state persecution. In 1970 there were 2.5 million refugees in the world; today that figure is well over 18.2 million. In addition an estimated 24 million people are internally displaced within their own states because of conflict. More recently, genocide in Rwanda left over 500,000 murdered and produced an unprecedented exodus of refugees from that state into surrounding states. Refugees continue to be generated by "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in the Balkans; economic collapse in Cuba; ethnic wars in the Caucasus; state repression

 

 

 

Notice the part (whole card) talking about how the geography/maps (or the BORDERS) is/are created by the state so they can view them cartagraphic areas to dominate? How the fuck is "these borders key to solve extinction/genocide/nuclear war/peace" not responsive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest plzz

2. HOLY SHIT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH USFG IT IS?! Wait, that's their argument, geopolitics bad.

So? if that's your only response, then your counterplan doesn't solve and case easily outweighs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The" PIC is grammatically incorrect

 

http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/

 

Does English grammar require the definite article the before Ukraine? Ukraine is the name of an independent country. There are only two groups of countries which require the article in English: Those with plural names such as the United States or the Netherlands. The others have names with adjectival or compound forms which require the article, such as the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, or the Ukrainian SSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can you actually even articulate a solvency deficit and/or offense though??

 

doubt it.

 

if you can, i'm impressed. let's hear it.

 

Minorities are demanding THE usfg to act removing the means you ignore their demand

 

this post brought to you by the Memorial tournament

  • 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...