Jump to content
DML

[DEAD] [M] Round 314: [POVERTY] DML (aff) vs. Rhizome (neg)

Recommended Posts

Judges, you'd better be down for crazy shit. Hint: Virtual performance.

 

Word count's 2500/1500; I'll put up the 1AC when we get some judges.

Edited by DML
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May I [seriously] judge? You've read my paradigm, I'm sure

 

For once, I'll say yes; but Tommy also has to say yes (same deal with Eli).

 

Once we get 3 both-debater-approved judges, I'll put up the 1AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For once, I'll say yes; but Tommy also has to say yes (same deal with Eli).

 

Once we get 3 both-debater-approved judges, I'll put up the 1AC.

 

y yo, senor?

 

I'm tabs, i am cool with any type of argument.

The only things I don't vote on are things that I don't understand.

 

given the note at the top, i'll say I like crazy shit, much more than regular shit and slightly more than good stuff

 

1. Theory. Generally a reason to reject the argument not the team. I need a good reason to reject the team if you want to go for it. Even if they drop a theory w/ voters, i still dont vote on it w/o good explanation about why i should drop the team, which shouldn't be hard.

2. T. Always a voting issue, rarely an RVI. As far as i'm concerned, T is always a voter, and its hard to onvince me otherwise. I default to competing interpretations in the CI v. reasonability debate, but i can be easily persuaded either way.

3. Ks. I like smart Ks with smart stories. There are some K's that make no sense and are just stupid. This doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means that I need a lot more explanation of everything. I like more specific links, the more specific the better. I dont like the traditional K very much: "Generic Link, Impact is a case turn, and alt is to vote neg." This doesnt mean i wont vote on it, it just means i want it to be better. Give me a case specific(ish) link, with a good impact that is not just a turn, and an alt that actually solves the issue, not just makes a statement about the issue. I love alts that solve the case.

4. Disads: Yep. Key to neg ground, key to debate. Once again, i like case specififc links. I like good impact analysis in the 2nc, even if it takes 2mins. I like good explanations.

5. CPs: Are awesome. I like pretty much all types of CPs, from a good agent CP w/tics to a case specific CP w/ a case specific DA to an advantage CP. I defult to policy maker.

6. Case: "It only takes a few analytics to destroy a bunch of bad arguments." (that guy from fullerton that wrote a debate bible.) Make analytics, make turns, give analysis. Case is always a good strategy. (though generally not by itself)

7. Framework: Should be in every debate. However, if it doesn't seem like it's going either way, i will go with my defaults- policy maker for DA/CP, DA/case and DA debates, competing interps on T debates and comparing the alt to the plan/perm in K debates.

 

Finally, i believe in offense/defense, but there are times where i buy a defense story to the point of zero risk.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Finally, a judge that buys terminal defense. How 'bout 'em specs?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Finally, a judge that buys terminal defense. How 'bout 'em specs?

 

good sir, i am tabs. I evaluate SPEC's like I would evaluate T, just i'm more inclined to think it's not a voter.

 

Wait, why am I answering this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For judges - anyone who sends a ballot to egold within 72 hours of the debate ending will be considered a judge. Word.

 

Dustin baby - please post the 1ac :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For judges - anyone who sends a ballot to egold within 72 hours of the debate ending will be considered a judge. Word.

 

Dustin baby - please post the 1ac :)

 

What Tommy said. Sorry it's kind of late; I just got back from a party. Here's the 1AC:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?zwm2wtn4zby

 

I had fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my first question is: How does labelling someone as medically mental retarded cause us to Bomb Afghanistan. I guess I've never heard of a Hitler wanting to Kill a ra-tard (the hangover ftw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess my first question is: How does labelling someone as medically mental retarded cause us to Bomb Afghanistan. I guess I've never heard of a Hitler wanting to Kill a ra-tard (the hangover ftw).

 

Uhhh, Hitler also sent those considered disabled to the concentration camps... And I guess it really doesn't (and I assume when you say "bomb Afghanistan" you're referring to the idea of fascism and war occurring at the macro-level being influenced by the fascism of the molecules), but that's not the point. The point is that the fascism and the violence of international relations could not occur without the seeds of micro-fascism already rooting. Our evidence indicates that our performance is a way to break down these notions and redirect the flows of desire away from fascist tendencies - disability is simply the battleground we choose to fight on.

 

Oh also, yes, Hangover ftw. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's alot of big words for a whole lotta nothing. I still have no idea or why me calling my friend a retard gives Obama the ability to genocide africa.

 

I mean - I've heard of hasty generalizations and appeal to force but this seems still kinda of a stretch....

 

also - work. ill post 1NC tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's alot of big words for a whole lotta nothing. I still have no idea or why me calling my friend a retard gives Obama the ability to genocide africa.

 

I mean - I've heard of hasty generalizations and appeal to force but this seems still kinda of a stretch....

 

also - work. ill post 1NC tonight.

 

Technically, calling your friend retarded could be a way of breaking down these binaries (assuming that he isn't retarded). Of course, you could just be using it as an insult, which I can totez K ;)

 

Seriously though, I'm not claiming that it's this logic applied to the disabled that causes genocide; I'm saying that the affirmative's performance is a way of breaking down the logic that does actually cause genocide and war and AIDS and Tommy Ferguson.

 

And no problem, cross-x will be up after it then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet. Couple initial questions:

 

What/who is a Native American?

 

Why should it have to be that we're either with you or against you? Why can't we stand against multiple forms of oppression?

 

What is imperialism?

 

Also, I assume you're unconditional? Trust me, it's important.

 

I'm pretty busy for a good chunk of the day so it'll be hard for me to put up many other questions/follow-ups until later.

 

Btw, the 1NC is about 200 words over; do you mind if I take an extra 200-ish words for my 2AC?

Edited by DML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What/who is a Native American?

 

We clearly are indicting this type of questioning Dustin.

 

We are not a criticism of returning things back to 1500 or to any point of a 'pre-here'. What we are saying is that an alignment of different values and beliefs is needed. As such - Native American, in the broadest sense possible, is someone who has an 'indigenous vision' and is able to say Land Priority is a First Priority.

 

I would read my alternative evidence before going down this path though....

 

Why should it have to be that we're either with you or against you? Why can't we stand against multiple forms of oppression?

 

I am having a feeling you actually have read ANY of the evidence... :)

 

Churchill makes a very clearcut argument in his relation of Euro-American civilization and the fictional character of Hannibal Lector: such a refined taste even though in the most barbaric way possible. We are not in a position of 'taming' the psychopath. He is not gentle. He is a violent murderer. Taming him just prevents us from finding a solution. Literally our evidence indicates we use information to unmask the murderer or to keep him in tact without destroying him.

 

What is imperialism?

 

unequal economic and cultural and territorial relationships.

 

Also, I assume you're unconditional? Trust me, it's important.

 

Word but I can kick you off the planet whenever I want.

 

I'm pretty busy for a good chunk of the day so it'll be hard for me to put up many other questions/follow-ups until later.

 

Btw, the 1NC is about 200 words over; do you mind if I take an extra 200-ish words for my 2AC?

 

That's fine (I had my word count at around 2605).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow-ups will come when I'm not on my phone, which could be any time today. There's a chance the 2AC could be up by tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, follow-ups. Oh and Tommy I totez did read your 1NC... Had to check if you can access that sweet internal link to capitalism ;)

 

We are not a criticism of returning things back to 1500 or to any point of a 'pre-here'. What we are saying is that an alignment of different values and beliefs is needed. As such - Native American, in the broadest sense possible, is someone who has an 'indigenous vision' and is able to say Land Priority is a First Priority.

 

So are you a Native?

 

Churchill makes a very clearcut argument in his relation of Euro-American civilization and the fictional character of Hannibal Lector: such a refined taste even though in the most barbaric way possible. We are not in a position of 'taming' the psychopath. He is not gentle. He is a violent murderer. Taming him just prevents us from finding a solution. Literally our evidence indicates we use information to unmask the murderer or to keep him in tact without destroying him.

 

Right, but why does it HAVE to be this binary? I mean, why can't there be multiple stances, just some of them happen to support Lecter and some don't?

 

unequal economic and cultural and territorial relationships.

 

Is the USFG then responsible for this imperialist colonization of Natives?

 

That's fine (I had my word count at around 2605).

 

Alright, let's just set a word count leeway at +/- 200 then for future reference.

 

Also, a couple more questions:

 

Just to clarify, what exactly is "impossible realism"?

 

Also, what does the world of the alternative "look like"? Your alt card makes the claim that "Most non-Indians have been indoctrinated to believe the officially contrived notion that, in the event “the Indians get their land back,” or even if the extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly as has been done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians"; but what exactly is to say that they won't? Maybe I'm just not reading it, but I don't see where in the underlined portion of the card, Churchill says that everyone will live in harmony and sing Kum Ba Ya (or the various tribes' equivalent), etc.

 

Finally (probably), your Sinnerbrink evidence indicates that "Zizek... ...argues that the seemingly ‘apolitical’ Deleuzian ontology of the sterile sense- event harbours a more radical Deleuzian politics than the ‘vulgar’ Deleuzo-Guattarian politics of the molecular multitude." I'm just a little confused - exactly which form of Deleuzian politics is the card criticizing, and how is it doing so?

Edited by DML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im on my phone - ill post answers tonight :)

 

Sounds fine; I might get to put up follow-ups if needed tonight or the 2AC, but otherwise it'll be the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you a Native?

 

Yes I am - so are you if I recall! of course it's not as simple as that and you should know that by now...

 

Right, but why does it HAVE to be this binary? I mean, why can't there be multiple stances, just some of them happen to support Lecter and some don't?

 

The way you word your question sounds just like progressives of the status quo: I am sure this is an important issue but why not sexism or environmentalism.

 

These mindsets are exactly what results in Natives being put on the backburners of change.

 

Is the USFG then responsible for this imperialist colonization of Natives?

 

Yeah.

 

Just to clarify, what exactly is "impossible realism"?

 

Impossible realism is the mindset that anything can happen and Churchill uses this in the context that Means used it in: decolinization is possible just not through the eyes of the oppressors. The alternative is what allows us to understasnd native american land restoration, while actively should be accomplished, can ONLY be accomplished once we decolonize the mind, body and spirit of ourselves.

 

Also, what does the world of the alternative "look like"? Your alt card makes the claim that "Most non-Indians have been indoctrinated to believe the officially contrived notion that, in the event “the Indians get their land back,” or even if the extent of present federal domination is relaxed, native people will do unto their occupiers exactly as has been done to them; mass dispossession and eviction of non-Indians"; but what exactly is to say that they won't? Maybe I'm just not reading it, but I don't see where in the underlined portion of the card, Churchill says that everyone will live in harmony and sing Kum Ba Ya (or the various tribes' equivalent), etc.

 

First - Native American political systems are very egalitarian and non-violent (albiet not in the post-modern Gandhian sense) so the world of the alternative probably means less war and violence and discrimination.

 

Second - what Justification do Natives have for wanting to oppress their oppressors? They simply wish to be heard.

 

Third - in the non-underlined part (which I didn't underline because it was irrelevant to the point of the 1AC) churchill gives countless examples of Native American groups and how they defeat common arguments against land restoration like genocide, violence, environmental destruction, sexism, racism, etc. Again - if your argument in the 2AR is "they are mean to white people" then you quickly going to be disappointed.

 

Finally (probably), your Sinnerbrink evidence indicates that "Zizek... ...argues that the seemingly ‘apolitical’ Deleuzian ontology of the sterile sense- event harbours a more radical Deleuzian politics than the ‘vulgar’ Deleuzo-Guattarian politics of the molecular multitude." I'm just a little confused - exactly which form of Deleuzian politics is the card criticizing, and how is it doing so?

 

both. and he uses the example of the dualistic tendency of Deleuzians to focus on one or the other and how that is just stupid.

 

The argument the card is making is very simple actually: because Deleuze has two different modes of thought he actually sub-comes to the good/bad dualism that he critiques. I'll expand on this more in further speeches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree that the meaning of Native American can change - Hitler was a Native of something. Now what? What changes when we change it to a question of 'what is Native' versus 'What about land rights'.

 

What piece of your evidence even says 'people who were killed when Columbus came over' (since Native is a bad term)? How is your evidence even conclusive about how you help 'people who were killed when Columbus came over'. What do you even give them?

 

How is decolonization of the mind a macro thing?

 

To quote your own evidence 'some tribes will prosper while we get rid of other [tribes]'. Why does this sound A LOT like how the federal government handled Native Americans and the creation of the 5 civilized tribes. What happens when we no longer need the tribes we allowed to prosper...do we kill them?

 

When does your evidence make a distinction between internal versus external colonization?

 

How does experimentation produce land rights for Native Americans?

 

Your evidence makes the distinction between virtual lines of exclusion but how is that even true in the context of Native Americans. The fences that dictate what is 'reservation land' and 'white land' up north in White Earth seems pretty physical. When it comes to physical barriers how does a virtual revolution (becoming-x/being a rhizome/etc) even help?

 

How does desire shape and create oppression?

 

Is Desire ALWAYS bad?

 

I know you're going to say its not because Desire, when not viewed in lacanain terms, is always changing and produce positive liberation and feedback and be freeing. My question to you then is 'what constitutes positive versus negative desire'. Why is our desire negative? why is your desire positive?

 

Text of the perm?

 

More questions later.

 

 

Edited by Rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We agree that the meaning of Native American can change - Hitler was a Native of something. Now what? What changes when we change it to a question of 'what is Native' versus 'What about land rights'.

 

In order to decide who gets the land in the first place, we need to investigate what the term "Native" means in the first place - for example, you said in your definition that a Native is someone with an "indigenous vision" - that definition could be problematic. That could lead to free-riding whiteys jumping on board because they do believe that Natives should have land. Thus, it's not what happens when you change the question - it's that we need to investigate the normative concepts that you advance in your 1NC before we can even begin to discuss land rights.

 

What piece of your evidence even says 'people who were killed when Columbus came over' (since Native is a bad term)? How is your evidence even conclusive about how you help 'people who were killed when Columbus came over'. What do you even give them?

 

I mean, I guess we don't have any evidence that references these people - I don't really understand what you're asking here, can you rephrase it?

 

How is decolonization of the mind a macro thing?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I think you're asking how we access the root cause/that debate? That's what I'll answer, at any rate :) For example, in cross-x you said that imperialism is a result of United States federal government action - but what is the United States federal government? Certainly not some monolithic entity. It is made up of individuals, and in the case of imperialism, individuals who desire to expand and take over new land.

 

To quote your own evidence 'some tribes will prosper while we get rid of other [tribes]'. Why does this sound A LOT like how the federal government handled Native Americans and the creation of the 5 civilized tribes. What happens when we no longer need the tribes we allowed to prosper...do we kill them?

 

The card refers to "tribes" as a metaphor for different lines of flight of desire, not actual tribes, silly. But no, we don't kill them. We simply pursue one line of flight and let the rest go where they will - to use the road metaphor again, I can drive to Chicago, but that doesn't mean that I'm killing off other possibilities. Others can go to New York, or Duluth, or San Francisco.

 

When does your evidence make a distinction between internal versus external colonization?

 

Again, I assume that you mean the impact debate, and thus my D&G 80 card (from the 1AC). The card is pretty much all describing how molecular fascism is the root of macro-level oppression - but you knew that, you've seen the card :)

 

How does experimentation produce land rights for Native Americans?

 

Rephrase this one please?

 

Your evidence makes the distinction between virtual lines of exclusion but how is that even true in the context of Native Americans. The fences that dictate what is 'reservation land' and 'white land' up north in White Earth seems pretty physical. When it comes to physical barriers how does a virtual revolution (becoming-x/being a rhizome/etc) even help?

 

Silly Tommy, still focusing on macro-level politics! Again, we can't merely focus on physical barriers - even if we tear down these fences, new ones will be built - just under the guise of a different cause. Our D&G 72 card explains how these pre-conscious revolutions can be revolutionary from the standpoint of class or power relations and be more of the same from the standpoint of desire - to answer your question, there's a chance that it might not help - but it's try or die; the only way that we actually can help or make change is with a movement such as the aff.

 

How does desire shape and create oppression?

 

Again, not entirely sure what you're asking; but desire exists on a smooth plane of travel, filled with countless lines of flight. Now, this plane is constantly deterritorialized and reterritorialized - lines can be cut off, and new ones can form. The danger is when the individual lines of flight coalesce into a Deleuzian "war machine" and begin to approach the fascist pole of this smooth space - the fascist pole being the opposite of the schizorevolutionary pole on this spectrum.

 

Is Desire ALWAYS bad?

 

Not at all. Desire is a neutral force, but it can be appropriated by the State, or as I said, it can begin a path towards fascism. However, it also has liberatory potential - that's the entire focus of my aff. C'mon, Tommy, I know SOME about Deleuze... :)

 

I know you're going to say its not because Desire, when not viewed in lacanain terms, is always changing and produce positive liberation and feedback and be freeing. My question to you then is 'what constitutes positive versus negative desire'. Why is our desire negative? why is your desire positive?

 

Again, like I said, desire is neither positive nor negative. Because of your focus on macro-levels of politics and oppression, you leave the micro-levels untouched - meaning that you continue the fascist desires for security and whatnot (I explained how fascism forms above, I'm not typing it out again). Our affirmation focuses on this micro-level fascism, etc (again, scroll up).

 

Text of the perm?

 

I mean, my permutation arguments can't have a text per se, 1) because my advocacy can't be summed in a text, but rather by my performance, and 2) limiting it down to one idea is probably a bad thing. But for functional purposes, I made the perms: Vote aff as a way of endorsing the criticism, vote for my advocacy and to banish the USFG from the planet/whatever your alt text was exactly, and vote aff to affirm kicking the USFG from the planet and then dancing.

 

More questions later.

 

Sweet. Btdubs, if the round isn't over by Sunday I'm gonna be a lot busier, as seven-week starts.

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...