Jump to content
egold

K Affs?

Recommended Posts

How does the aff beat:

 

1) spec-your redeployment

2) ban the military

3) shifting military bad disad (environmental, money tradeoff)

4) every K that you ran on the aff as a link turn--also applying rhetoric links. (security K and scenario planning in the same way the poverty K is being run this year)

5) (insert other strategy components from Alternatives magazine)

 

That said:

 

1) Imperialism

2) Sex trafficing/sex slavery

3) commodification

 

Looks rather interesting.

 

If you run Spanos, you have to answer the negs alternative for their spanos argument "re-thinking thinking"--which I think is kinda silly (its bad ju-ju fo' sho')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) spec-your redeployment

this will not be difficult to beat

 

2) ban the military
perm

 

3) shifting military bad disad (environmental, money tradeoff)
how do K affs beat any DA

 

that said, I think shift arguments against the military can actually be pretty decent arguments against K affs - evidenced by the variety of conventional shift disads on this year's college topic

 

4) every K that you ran on the aff as a link turn--also applying rhetoric links. (security K and scenario planning in the same way the poverty K is being run this year)

what is the security K link to a security K aff

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that said, I think shift arguments against the military can actually be pretty decent arguments against K affs - evidenced by the variety of conventional shift disads on this year's college topic
I'm curious what normal means for the budget are as well. My argument being--the $$$$$ will merely go into another program.

 

I think the neg. can answer the perm to the ban counterplan with

1) rhetoric links

2) the only reason you can perm is that you didn't spec your shift--which is illegitimate. (i realize the abuse story the other way....I'm still thinking through...)

3) masking and whitewashing

4) depending how specific the scenarios are--Cuomo would link (although probably only to 5% of these types of affs)

 

what is the security K link to a security K aff
Good point. If there is something I've learned from debate...there is almost always a K link to every aff.

 

Something disaster images-esque perhaps. The neg may or may not link to this--it probably links a bit.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the neg. can answer the perm to the ban counterplan with

1) rhetoric links

2) the only reason you can perm is that you didn't spec your shift--which is illegitimate. (i realize the abuse story the other way....I'm still thinking through...)

3) masking and whitewashing

4) depending how specific the scenarios are--Cuomo would link (although probably only to 5% of these types of affs)

 

I feel like the only one with a risk of linking is this "rhetoric" argument, but again, I think that K affs probably won't link, and if they do, it's probably not to an argument that's solved by banning the military (and if it is, then the perm solves anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the whitewashing argument.

 

My argument that all your arguments are question begging--because the aff should have to defend. (Although this gets into a rather apple and orange debate about specification, which I think would end in a wash--which suggests this arg. is non-starter).

 

The rhetoric argument isn't based on a "risk." You used the rhetoric--game over. If you call a woman a "chick"--it isn't a risk that you called her a chick--you called her a chick. (I'll admit without having specific affs to deal with--that I can't determine where links will come for).

 

Without a specific aff and specific cards...I think this discussion will go in circles. I can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking about either Nietzsche or writing a kritikal aff that basically says that we'd just be decreasing from x country to increase to y country, and this is bad, therefore we need to decrease recruitment instead of military/police presence. I'm more leaning towards the second one.

Bump in Whitness K for LOLs while ur at it then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you run Spanos, you have to answer the negs alternative for their spanos argument "re-thinking thinking"--which I think is kinda silly (its bad ju-ju fo' sho')

 

Spanos' argument about re-thinking thinking is that a sole focus on ontology, epistomology, or praxis forecloses the others, and that such foreclosure is what allows for blind violence to happen. If anything the aff would link turn this alt, because it would a combination of the ontic and praxis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not run a Categorical Imperative K framework that positioning troops in these countries is simply using them as a means to an end since it is for the purpose of our security? Turn this into an LD round since LD rounds are turning into policy rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not run a Categorical Imperative K framework that positioning troops in these countries is simply using them as a means to an end since it is for the purpose of our security? Turn this into an LD round since LD rounds are turning into policy rounds.

Ld turned into policy because policy is better. Why would we devolve competition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone see the potential of an aff that criticizes the military's ability to impose - what Schmitt calls - the state of exception upon the populace in their given country of deployment? Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone see the potential of an aff that criticizes the military's ability to impose - what Schmitt calls - the state of exception upon the populace in their given country of deployment? Just a thought.

 

perhaps even a groundreaking "agamben" criticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agamben's state of exception =/= Schmitt's state of exception.

 

Agamben takes the State of Exception straight from Schmitt, so what, praytell, are the differences, besides in how they treat them? (Remember, Agamben is critiquing Schmitt's proffering that the State of Exception ought to be inscribed in political institutions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agamben takes the State of Exception straight from Schmitt, so what, praytell, are the differences, besides in how they treat them? (Remember, Agamben is critiquing Schmitt's proffering that the State of Exception ought to be inscribed in political institutions).

 

yeah, i meant to say how they treat them. sorry if i came off being cocky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imperialism bad, in general makes MUCH less sense as a kritik of the topic because it is to *reduce* that imperial presence. In reality one of the only links that even makes sense is Spanos.

It obviously makes sense as a critical affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that a spanos kritik, particularly one that deals with the ontological implications of attempting to forget vietnam and rid ourselves of the vietnam syndrome in the status quo, have some great links to a lot of policy affs - GDI put out a great file on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does the aff beat:

2) ban the military

 

If you have an imperialism aff, I think you could probably incorporate some private military companies argument into this pretty easily; ie: if we ban the military, why wouldn't we just switch completely to private military companies? This seems especially compelling to me with the simple fact that most PMC's are made up of ex-marines or ex-Navy Seals- people who we once had in our military and were possibly discharged and joined a PMC or left because the market for PMC's is so rich. I don't think it would be hard to argue 1) A ton of our troops could and probably will join a PMC and 2) Congress or the President will hire PMC's in place of our traditional military. From there, its a short sweet step to imperialism, which there is a ton of literature that PMC's spread US imperialism, which makes the CP worse in the case of what the aff critiques. Plus, you could always argue that PMC's are far worse than normal troops in just about everything. The one problem I see is that this makes it difficult on aff because as the neg you can just claim that PMC's will replace the aff plan just as they would the CP. To combat this, you would probably have to kritik the underlying rhetoric of the CP in that the banning of the military is just a disguise for a complete shift to PMC's while the aff plan exposes the harms of having a military that does terrible things without attempting to circumvent the overall problem of military bad. In other terms, banning the military merely masks the problem and presents an opportunity to make it worse via PMC's while retracting soldiers from foreign countries lets us address the issue by giving us a chance to possibly reform the military. The important argument to win here is that banning the military takes the problem out of the spotlight but keeping it via the plan allows us to address these issues by keeping them in the spotlight.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've run into a freedom aff it says pull out all troops from everywhere right now, basically that us troops ar oppressing people, not fighting for us but ppl in those countries, and that life isnt worth it if it doesnt have value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i've run into a freedom aff it says pull out all troops from everywhere right now, basically that us troops ar oppressing people, not fighting for us but ppl in those countries, and that life isnt worth it if it doesnt have value

 

not only is that extra topical but didnt make much sense with the i/l to vtl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i've run into a freedom aff it says pull out all troops from everywhere right now, basically that us troops ar oppressing people, not fighting for us but ppl in those countries, and that life isnt worth it if it doesnt have value

 

This is actually the worst aff ever. It was put out by Dartmouth, and some problems with it:

1. The links to military presence are specific to Liberia

2. It loses to the PIC every single round

3. Ken Strange's reaction was waving his arms and yelling "this doesn't make any sense!"

4. Util good brah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...