Empire DA

[King_Of_Ks 9]

Hey, I heard that Empires argument can be cut into a DA, how?

 

second, that it has been cut into one, and i am wondering if anyone would like to post a link to where i could find one.

 

And third and finally, what impacts would you run more specifically?

 

Any help would be appreciated, my district is heavy into policy option, and not big into K's, so i want to run it as a DA, one because i like the argument, and two, because teams will be caught a little off guard.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster 164]

This is about as stupid as the Coercion "disad."

[Studley Dudley 814]

This is about as stupid as the Coercion "disad."

 

Yeah, because Seth Gannon and Alex Lamballe were atrociously bad at debate when they ran coercion as a disad.

[nathan_debate 745]

The Coersion Disad and Misunderstandings and Misapplications of Uniqueness Arguments

 

Uniqueness is a cult. Ya'll betta' recognize....

at least as it relates to ethical questions.

 

The same reason that coersion works as disad is that same reason you can't non-unique a morality impact in the 1ac. It would just be silly.

 

And it seems to work better in tandem w/ a counter plan (ie to solve most of the moral concerns of the 1ac), but it works as a disad.

 

This subject would be a great one for the3nr.com.....how uniqueness arguments related to ethics claims and critiques. I think they only work in tandem with other arguments like TURN (not by themselves) and other forms of risk analysis.

 

---

The Empire Disadvantage:

 

My guess for the Empire DA is that its a DA to the way they perceive and attempt to solve the problem. They probably also run the no value to life in your framework means your impacts are meaningless.

 

I could also see it being run as a globalization disad--although you have to have an answer to "globalization inevitable" and "we solve the harms of globalization."

 

I think to gain judge credibility you could even have a card in the 1nc shell that says "they will say non-unique--but thats irrelevant because."

 

I wonder how they frame an alternative--do they run an NGO counterplan or do something with "the multitude" Essentially, i don't see anything particularly messed up with running NGO c/p in the 1nc and extending with "multitude solves" cards from Hardt and Negri--because its almost the same thing.

Edited October 26, 2009 by nathan_debate

[gargamel 1328]

Except HN critique NGO's

[LPCade 74]

i've never heard of this but i can imagine it as a feasible movements disad. Look up the cap movements da's that came out of camp for a reference

[nathan_debate 745]

Except HN critique NGO's

 

Can someone articulate the difference between NGO's and movements vs. the multitude?????

 

And exactly how movements without some organizational and infrastructure are supposed to have:

1) resources

2) shared missions and goals

3) coordination

[gargamel 1328]

Can someone articulate the difference between NGO's and movements vs. the multitude?????

 

And exactly how movements without some organizational and infrastructure are supposed to have:

1) resources

2) shared missions and goals

3) coordination

 

That's sort of the problem. HN talk about how local movements fail precisely because they are incommunicable. They don't have a common language and often (mis)target multiple enemies. HN are very careful NOT to outline concretely any kind of "strategy" or "solution" to the "problem" of Empire. There are, I think, two reasons for this. The first is to do so would be risking more tangible applications of the label "terrorist" to the authors and the second is the risk of cooption.

 

You seem to fall into the same trap HN outline on page 312 of Empire:

Many in fact regard NGOs as synonymous with "people's organizations" because the People's interest is defined in distinction from state interest.

 

By their own definition the multitude is an assemblage of singularities. Identity stripped of identity. An NGO ascribes and attempts to "use" the identity of those it attempts to save. It's this function that HN critique, they go on to say on page 313 of Empire:

Their political action rests on a universal moral call-what is at stake is life itself. In this regard it is perhaps inaccurate to say that these NGOs represent those who cannot represent themselves (the warring populations, the starving masses, and so forth) or even that they represent the global People in its entirety. They go further than that. What they really represent is the vital force that underlies the People, and thus they transform politics into a question of generic life, life in all its generality. These NGOs extend far and wide in the humus of biopower; they are the capillary ends of the contemporary networks of power.

 

I don't think this means a lot in terms of this being a DA/CP combo. At best you'd have to deal with a biopower disad to your counterplan. I've thought a lot about Empire as a debate argument, but I've never thought about it in terms like this so I'm not 100% solid on the implications of these things.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Gargamel

[nathan_debate 745]

Props for your answer....

 

Thanks for the honesty and explanation...