Jump to content
DML

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

That's awesome to know WHY we need to investigate the term but my question is 'what happens after we investigate the term native american'.

 

and a follow up on part of your answer....why is white people (A rather ambiguous concept that I bet your evidence critiques btw) 'drinking the native kool-aid.

 

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?

 

What piece of evidence refers to Native Americans....or ANY form of Natives (Australian, south american, etc.)

 

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 smile.gif 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.

 

 

No - I am asking why you are saying my argument is attacking the macro when we make argumentation that it is a micro thing - the decolonization of the mind. HOW are we macro....

 

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

 

How does experimentation produce land rights for Native Americans?

 

Rephrase this one please?

 

Do you not know what your own evidence says??? Your first 2AC card clearly talks about how experimentation on oneself is what opens up lines of flight (they are talking about the Desert as an example) so my question is how does experimentation HELP native americans..

 

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.

 

Give me a specific example of how the negative would rebuild these walls. I means - Delueze makes arguments around being versus becoming but how does becoming do anything when you live on a reservation. It sounds like lines of flight seem awesome if you are a rich white kid that lives in edina but not so awesome when you live in contemporary version of a concentration camp...again, how do you physically help native americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's awesome to know WHY we need to investigate the term but my question is 'what happens after we investigate the term native american'.

 

I mean, I don't know. But like I've been arguing, there's no way the alternative can come into being without something like the aff - we need to know what we're discussing before we can discuss it yo!

 

and a follow up on part of your answer....why is white people (A rather ambiguous concept that I bet your evidence critiques btw) 'drinking the native kool-aid.

 

Why would they be? I dunno, they don't want to get kicked off the rock or something. We're referring to possibilities here.

 

What piece of evidence refers to Native Americans....or ANY form of Natives (Australian, south american, etc.)

 

We don't have a specific one. But my evidence does speak in the context of "becoming-minority", minority being this non-normative Other, which your Natives fall into the category of probably.

 

No - I am asking why you are saying my argument is attacking the macro when we make argumentation that it is a micro thing - the decolonization of the mind. HOW are we macro....

 

You're not focusing on how imperialism forms at the micro-level - sure, you're talking about the "decolonization of the mind" (which, incidentally, I'd like to see where in the card Churchill talks about that - sure, he talks about how people as a whole have been indoctrinated to believe that Natives aren't a first priority, but I don't see where he actually talks about decolonization at the micro-level), but you still assume that this just magically waves away US imperialism - when in reality "US imperialism" is a product of the micro-level desires to conquer.

 

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

 

...didn't I answer this?

 

Do you not know what your own evidence says??? Your first 2AC card clearly talks about how experimentation on oneself is what opens up lines of flight (they are talking about the Desert as an example) so my question is how does experimentation HELP native americans..

 

Oh rightyrightyrighty. I mean, this card is part of my argument that we need to discuss the meaning of "Native" - again, that needs to come first in order to actually help Native Americans, etc.

 

Give me a specific example of how the negative would rebuild these walls. I means - Delueze makes arguments around being versus becoming but how does becoming do anything when you live on a reservation. It sounds like lines of flight seem awesome if you are a rich white kid that lives in edina but not so awesome when you live in contemporary version of a concentration camp...again, how do you physically help native americans.

 

Aww now that's just insulting - first of all, I don't live in Edina, second, I help the people who I promised I'd help in the 1AC - my uncle is retarded, and every time I go to New York (albeit not that often) I help out at the home he lives in. But I digress. I don't physically help Natives, I know that - but honestly, you don't either. I think that the ballot should go to whoever can actually achieve some inroad to change - and I'm the only one providing evidence that says that my "performance" can actually do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I don't have much time, but just a couple initial questions:

 

Exactly where in your Patton card is the warrant to a rhizomatic ethic continuing land denial/whatever? All the card seems to say is that the way that the process of deterritorialization is carried out affects the result.

 

What exactly is the Patton card indicting? Complete deterritorialization? A constant de/reterritorialization?

 

Soooooo how exactly do we "literally go from Stalin to Pol Pot"? Your Barbrook evidence seems pretty indicative of a certain situation and political context...

 

How does saying that the judge can affirm both our advocacy AND the alternative at the same time make Native land concerns not a first priority?

 

This Churchill card you read on the perm - I don't have a well-working mouse at the moment so I'm just going to copy-paste the whole lines, including un-underlined portions (it doesn't really matter), but let me just quote a couple:

 

lines of action that materially erode the power concentrated in centralized entities like the state

 

Freedom may be defined as absence of regulation. The more regulated you are, the less free, and vice versa.

 

pick a point of departure, it doesn’t matter how small or in what connection, and get on with it. Once a particular bit of “unruliness” takes hold, it can be used as the fulcrum for prying open the next level

 

How is this card NOT saying that a Deleuzian-style politics is the best way to go? I mean, this card is almost paraphrasing that D&G card I read in the 2AC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly where in your Patton card is the warrant to a rhizomatic ethic continuing land denial/whatever? All the card seems to say is that the way that the process of deterritorialization is carried out affects the result. What exactly is the Patton card indicting? Complete deterritorialization? A constant de/reterritorialization?

 

 

Patton makes the argument that Deleuze differentiates between different types of colonization (internal and external) and why your argument is responsive to external forms of colonization, it does nothing for internal forms of colonization. He concludes that the end result of deterritorialization is based upon the reason we do it. As such our question of colonization DOES have importance.

 

Soooooo how exactly do we "literally go from Stalin to Pol Pot"? Your Barbrook evidence seems pretty indicative of a certain situation and political context...

 

He talks about how deterritorialisation when applied historically has resulted in forms of oppression. He uses Pol Pot as an example of how its been applied.

 

Since you don't provide an actual contextual political example of rhizomatic action then I would make the argument the judge should default to ours.

 

How does saying that the judge can affirm both our advocacy AND the alternative at the same time make Native land concerns not a first priority?

 

"Land rights are real important but only if we combine it with other stuff".

 

How is this card NOT saying that a Deleuzian-style politics is the best way to go? I mean, this card is almost paraphrasing that D&G card I read in the 2AC...

 

Because we use it in a specific form of decolonization of the mind in terms of questioning 'what should be undone' versus yours which is 'what can we do'. If anything it provides how we solve case, not how case solves the alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I don't need any more questions; put the 1NR up whenever you want. The 1AR will probably be pretty delayed because camp starts today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the fact that Tommy got banned means I win. Let the record stand that I have beaten Tommy Ferguson in a vdebate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the fact that Tommy got banned means I win. Let the record stand that I have beaten Tommy Ferguson in a vdebate.

Yay! Schnapps and Smirnoff for everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really why?

 

I wasn't kidding.

 

[Tommy] got banhammered lulz

 

Lol I actually know why; it's because he was criticizing the supermod's policy on trolls, and then he pointed out "hey my actions are troll-y" and so now he's banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Underaged drinking is a no no

 

The drinking age in Germany is 16, bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Underaged drinking is a no no

 

 

 

this seems contradictory to your stance on yellowtail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're in Germany and are drinking schnapps and Smirnoff. Wow. Sad.

 

The local beers are the best, especially the dark

 

schnapps was used for a drinking game, that's it.

 

Not saying I consumed any alcohol, of course

Edited by Shinku-hadoken

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...