Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 bucks says more people use Thayer 7 this year

 

No one will be stupid enough to use Khalilizad on a real heg topic, a topic where EVERY team will have at least 100 page heg bad file if they're a tiny bit prepared. Kzad dies this year.

You can judge how prepared a team is by the size of their hege file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you even know what Spanos says? Will there be k's ran? Yes. However, the nature of the topic makes almost all affirmatives able to say 'we are negative state action so explain how we link'. Will Spanos win rounds? yes, but not for the reasons you are assuming.

 

Actually it's the "we are a negative state action" that probably best explains that masking link to Spanos. As far as links go this is probably the best in terms of using Spanos as a "generic" (I use that term begrudgingly) link to imperialism/security. It's one of the only ones that make sense in the context of the "negative action". Spanos gets used to do something other than A) answer kritikal affs and B) be used by teams that know far too much (or, sadly, too little) about Spanos for it be useful in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's the "we are a negative state action" that probably best explains that masking link to Spanos. As far as links go this is probably the best in terms of using Spanos as a "generic" (I use that term begrudgingly) link to imperialism/security. It's one of the only ones that make sense in the context of the "negative action". Spanos gets used to do something other than A) answer kritikal affs and B) be used by teams that know far too much (or, sadly, too little) about Spanos for it be useful in debate.

This is obviously debatable - but I hands down agree w/ Rhizome. For almost all K's it will be harder to win a link because the aff is a negative action which is usually in the same orientation of the K. There's low magnitude of the link.

 

Also - I'm cutting a bataille aff...i'm positive people will be reading it on the neg too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's the "we are a negative state action" that probably best explains that masking link to Spanos. As far as links go this is probably the best in terms of using Spanos as a "generic" (I use that term begrudgingly) link to imperialism/security. It's one of the only ones that make sense in the context of the "negative action". Spanos gets used to do something other than A) answer kritikal affs and B) be used by teams that know far too much (or, sadly, too little) about Spanos for it be useful in debate.

This is obviously debatable - but I hands down agree w/ Rhizome. For almost all K's it will be harder to win a link because the aff is a negative action which is usually in the same orientation of the K. There's low magnitude of the link.

 

Also - I'm cutting a bataille aff...i'm positive people will be reading it on the neg too.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is probably the best in terms of using Spanos as a "generic" (I use that term begrudgingly) link to imperialism/security.
This and..."rethink thinking" is the single most slippery alternative.

 

Hopefully people will get smart and read Zizeks answer back to the "masking" link.

 

Because Heidegger can solve all our problems....public policy and otherwise. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - I'm cutting a bataille aff...i'm positive people will be reading it on the neg too.

 

What's the story on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This and..."rethink thinking" is the single most slippery alternative.

[/quoting]

Re thinking thinking alt is cheating. It literally just says we should think about the aff before doing it. It's a "sequencing" floating PIK. To be honest, the "best" alternative for Spanos is the Barbarian at the Gates alt against an imperialism aff. Or if you claim to solve for Imperialism. It's the Interrugum that's responsive (in the positive way) to the Jeremiad (masking link).

 

Hopefully people will get smart and read Zizeks answer back to the "masking" link.

Veto. The Zizek answer is terrible, considering most of Zizek's arguments are also masking links. (Multiculturalism, masking link. Answer to the perm? Masking link. Reform the State? Masking link, etc. etc. etc.

 

Because Heidegger can solve all our problems....public policy and otherwise. :)

Maybe you should bother to understand Spanos before trying to make a diss about Heidegger. Mainly because Spanos thinks that Heidegger was equally stupid. Spanos says we should NOT have a focus on ANY of the three methods of policy. Ontology, Epistomology, OR Praxis, but the three should be balanced. Hence why your indicts of Heidegger are, relatively, non-responsive. This is also why the "re-thinking thinking" alt gets to claim to do the aff in the end. We just need to put Praxis into light of Ontology, not focus on Ontology. Spanos would say that it was Heidegger's blinding of focus on Ontology that pushed him towards his involvement with the Nazi party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veto. The Zizek answer is terrible, considering most of Zizek's arguments are also masking links. (Multiculturalism, masking link. Answer to the perm? Masking link. Reform the State? Masking link, etc. etc. etc.

 

I'm not a fan of Zizek, but I think this makes sense because they can waste time reading these against you........and all they're left with is a masking link you've already answered.

 

At the end of the day...however....Zizek alone may be unsufficient...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a fan of Zizek, but I think this makes sense because they can waste time reading these against you........and all they're left with is a masking link you've already answered.

 

At the end of the day...however....Zizek alone may be unsufficient...

 

I'm saying Zizek's response to masking is a terrible answer to it. It's not "he contradicts himself therefore it's dumb!" it's "he concludes neg, and my explanation of the masking link is better than this card simply because Zizek is setting up the argument that he then answers."

 

Feel free to actually explain what "Zizek's masking link answer" is so I can respond to it. Right now you're acting like the novice debater who just can just say "but our Zizek card is good and answers that!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

empire k

24 k

guattari k

deleuze k

baudrillard k

foucault k

klein k

zeitgeist k

terrorism k

capitalism k

securitization k

feminism k

imperialism k

hillman k

spanos k

zizek k

spanos k

schmitt k

development k

neoliberalism k

existentialism k

barthes k

vollmann k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strange feeling that my partner and I will be running Lacan next year. Mostly against my will. The majority of or Aff might be based off of Lacan as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strange feeling that my partner and I will be running Lacan next year. Mostly against my will. The majority of or Aff might be based off of Lacan as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strange feeling that my partner and I will be running Lacan next year. Mostly against my will. The majority of or Aff might be based off of Lacan as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's the "we are a negative state action" that probably best explains that masking link to Spanos. As far as links go this is probably the best in terms of using Spanos as a "generic" (I use that term begrudgingly) link to imperialism/security. It's one of the only ones that make sense in the context of the "negative action". Spanos gets used to do something other than A) answer kritikal affs and B) be used by teams that know far too much (or, sadly, too little) about Spanos for it be useful in debate.

 

Why isn't the retraction of military andslashor police forces not a PRAGMATIC example of how we can re-think thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why isn't the retraction of military andslashor police forces not a PRAGMATIC example of how we can re-think thinking?

 

That's what the alternative would probably claim to do, which is why I think the re-thinking thinking alt is cheating. However, as just an affirmative, I would probably use the Jeremiad link, that you are acting in a way that doesn't change the State because those troops would probably just get re-deployed elsewhere, while the State gets to claim benevolence because we "ended" X___ war. The alternative would probably claim to re-orient our ontology away from state violence before blindly acting.

 

Also: If I were reading this on the neg against a reduce imperialism aff I wouldn't be reading re-thinking-thinking I would be reading "Barbarian at the Gates".

Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Baudrillard K

2) Capitalism/Neoliberalism K

3) Deluze & Guttari K

4) Development K [not sure about the link here...mostly to answer CPs or perhaps de-development to turn the economy]

5) Empire K (Hardt and Negri)

6) Fem in IR K (K of security/realism)

7) Foucault/Biopower K

8) Global-Local K (nayer, etc.)

9) Nietzsche K (both versions)

10) Morality Ks/Normativity

11) Realism/Threat Construction

12) Terror talk K

13) Schmitt K (enemy creation good)

14) Spanos K

15) Utilitarianism/Calculation Bad

16) Virillo & Der Derian Media Ks (although der derian might make more sense to be grouped with baudrillard or threat construction)

17) Zizek K

 

AIDs K

Agamben/State of exception K

Anthropocentrism/Deep Eco K

Black Fem/Feminist Essentialism

Coersion K

Diseases K

Environmental Securitization K

Eco-Mod (Luke, etc) K

Fear Bad Ks

Human Rights K (Mutua)

Nuclear Rhetoric Ks (Nuclearism/Cohn)

Race Ks (CRT/"Race" not real)

Rights K (although not a lot of affs will claim rights)

Rights Malthus

Technology/Technocracy K (mostly on the aff)

Technophobia (Fearing technology bad) Ks (perhaps)

Sexist Language K

State bad K

State bad K (borders/critical geopolitics/sovereignty/violent cartography variety)

 

 

-----

Narratives

Levinas

Irony

Genealogy

 

 

I should mix more of these in...

 

empire k

24 k

guattari k

deleuze k

baudrillard k

foucault k

klein k

zeitgeist k

terrorism k

capitalism k

securitization k

feminism k

imperialism k

hillman k

spanos k

zizek k

spanos k

schmitt k

development k

neoliberalism k

existentialism k

barthes k

vollmann k

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why isn't the retraction of military andslashor police forces not a PRAGMATIC example of how we can re-think thinking?

 

it isn't becuase the non-pragmatic example is not an un-thinking or prior rethinking

 

duh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some explanatory thoughts...

 

Vollman K : I will be writing this kritik this year; it's completely new. Vollman had some very interesting thoughts on war, military, etc. (Comparable to Hillman).

 

Barthes K: get ready for some myth.

 

Baudrillard K: I'm usually very unhappy about how Baudrillard is used in debate kritiks. This year, however, Baudrillard can be used in many, many different ways. I will be writing an extensive topicality violation that links into a kritik on "presence" talking about reality/simulation, presence/absence and how, in most affirmative harms, the solvency mechanisms will fail because the perception of US military/police presence in these foreign countries may rise and/or (pun) stay the same, despite a "reduction." [Also, I think the best kritikal affirmative this year will be Baudrillard-esque: decrease military/police presence, defining presence by media perception from Baudrillard, by using the Internet to 'leak' news about a reduction in such people, thus accomplishing hegemony harms, etc. (The Democrats and Republicans both used the internet, creating thousands of fake accounts to throw votes via their presence on the Internet - solvency).

 

Derrida K: In a different form this year. Pharmakos: it doesn't matter if we reduce, really, because the text is always used against itself, and therefore reducing might exacerbate the aff harms. Freeplay: on the affirmative.

 

I"ll have master files of these kritiks specifically geared towards this year available on Evazon soon enough. I'll put all of my kritiks as a package and sell some of the new ones individually for cheap cheap cheap.

 

Any thoughts on these(^) kritiks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
empire k

24 k

guattari k

deleuze k

baudrillard k

foucault k

klein k

zeitgeist k

terrorism k

capitalism k

securitization k

feminism k

imperialism k

hillman k

spanos k

zizek k

spanos k

schmitt k

development k

neoliberalism k

existentialism k

barthes k

vollmann k

 

how does this work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeitgeist K

 

Thesis: reducing military and/or police presence upholds, is part of the same function, as the same reasons the affirmative harms exist.

 

Authors: mixed and varied. Mostly post-structuralist bricolage.

 

Links: the most popular will be any aff that redeploys troops elsewhere.

 

Comparable K's: Identity K, Human Rights K, Securitization K, etc.

 

Still in the making. I'll put it up on Evazon with a preview once I finish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeitgeist K

 

 

 

Links: the most popular will be any aff that redeploys troops elsewhere.

 

 

except no affs will do that, its not topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baudrillard K: I'm usually very unhappy about how Baudrillard is used in debate kritiks. This year, however, Baudrillard can be used in many, many different ways. I will be writing an extensive topicality violation that links into a kritik on "presence" talking about reality/simulation, presence/absence and how, in most affirmative harms, the solvency mechanisms will fail because the perception of US military/police presence in these foreign countries may rise and/or (pun) stay the same, despite a "reduction." [Also, I think the best kritikal affirmative this year will be Baudrillard-esque: decrease military/police presence, defining presence by media perception from Baudrillard, by using the Internet to 'leak' news about a reduction in such people, thus accomplishing hegemony harms, etc. (The Democrats and Republicans both used the internet, creating thousands of fake accounts to throw votes via their presence on the Internet - solvency).
I'm going to apologize in advance for being blunt. Have you ever read Baudrillard before? If so, what exactly did you read to come to your conclusion about the "best kritikal affirmative" or your T violation?
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to apologize in advance for being blunt. Have you ever read Baudrillard before? If so, what exactly did you read to come to your conclusion about the "best kritikal affirmative" or your T violation?

 

 

Why did this have to be said? Apologizing in advance doesn't justify you doing whatever you want.

 

 

Anyway, every K aff next year will get fucked up on the PIC.

Before you say "absolute negativity solvency deficit!" - remember that the AFF is only a pic of the squo , i.e., we still have troops in other places besides the six countries the resolution specifies. The aff would have to be extra T and withdraw everywhere to win a solvency deficit to the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...