Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DA MACHINE

[DEAD] [M] Round 315: [POVERTY] DA MACHINE (aff) vs. anon764 (neg)

Recommended Posts

Plan: I instrumentally affirm that the United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

 

Contention one: I’m topical.

I defend the entirety of the resolution and all the consequences of US action.

 

Contention two: I win

 

Advantage 1: Fairness

 

First, I’m predictable – my plan is the resolution – the neg can easily be prepared.

 

Second, I set a reasonable limit – affirmative’s only get the resolution – the neg gets any argument that links to the resolution. This is perfect because the neg only has to be prepared for the resolution which makes everyone’s life easier.

 

Being predictable and setting limits are key to fairness. The neg can only stand up to affs that can be predicted from the resolution and don’t justify unlimiting the resolution. Without predictable limits the neg could never win and debate would be horribly unfair. Our aff is means for radically transforming the debate activity into a fair forum for productive discussion.

 

This preserves the model of debate because if debate wasn’t fair people would leave the activity and unfair debate would mean we wouldn’t learn anything because debates would always be won by non-topical affs.

 

Vote aff for fairness and education. Voting aff adopts an ethic of fairness that guarantees the continuation of the activity and opens the space for emancipating discourses. Vote aff to change the unfair status quo where untopical affs win debates. Voting aff because I’m topical is a radical shift from status quo practices of non-topicality that ruin the activity because no one can predict them and only unlimit the resolution to the point where it risks destroying debate.

 

Advantage two: Switch side debate

 

Debate has seen the emergence of non-topical affs and affirmitives that don’t defend plan passage or instrumentally affirm the topic.

 

One example:

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=997488

 

College and high school case list also proves.

 

In the context of policy debate, the topic serves as a pivot around which switch side debating occurs—the commitment to the topic and to defending one side of the debate is the pre-requisite for the testing of ideas—affirmitive attempts to shirk the topic and to not advocate plan passage represents an attempt to close their advocacy’s off from criticism and to escape from the necessity of switch side debate—this refusal to commit to the topic and to switch side debate entails an ethics of closure towards otherness and an ethics of intolerance—only a commitment to the topic in the context of policy debate can engender the kind of tolerant ethic necessary to combat fundamentalism and totalitarianism

 

Muir 1993 (Star A. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC, "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate," v26,

n4, p.288)

The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the moral complications of acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility. As Freeley notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world both within and between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In this view, the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students to validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions. The values of tolerance and fairness implicit in the metaphor of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. I n his description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.

 

Otherization is at the center of the genocidal process

Kovel, Prof Pol, Comm, & Psych @ Einstein, 1984

(Joel, Against the State of Nuclear Terror, p175-6)

 

The irrationality that often befalls groups on the margins of society reveals the working of a general mechanism that undoubtedly contributes in a major way to the stability of irrational and oppressive social orders. When society as a whole is irrational and permeated with violence and domination, then each individual within it will stand to internalize some of the same as he or she runs the gauntlet of personal development. By “internalize,” I mean the development of unconscious structured relations with others. We each have an internal (i.e., intrapsychic) group of relations between the “I” and the “Other” that is, on the one hand, quite fantastic and out of immediate contact with external reality, while, on the other, is shaped by that reality and is shaped by it in turn. Such shaping occurs through the mental processes called introjection (modeling of the self by the world) and projection (modeling of the world according to the self). The Other, being the negation of the self, can take on many characteristics, good or bad. The Other, therefore, is both a rough replication of the goodness and badness of the external world as well as a determinant of that goodness or badness.

When we congrugate into groups (including the society which is integral to these groups) the relations of Otherness take on a decisive importance. For in the formation of a group a kind of splitting necessarily takes place between elements of the Other. This splitting is shaped about the irreducible fact of the group (or society) and its identity. If there is a group, then one is either in it or not. From another angle, groups take shape about the deployment of the feeling of “insideness.” And once one is in, then there must be an outside. If there is an America, then one can be an American. If so, then all others become Other, and non-Americans or foreigners.

A lot of history has turned around the fact that the basic inside-outside relations of groups have come to be fused with the goodness and badness of the Other. Then all those inside become good, and all outside, bad. The members of the group each return to being of the “purified pleasure ego,” described earlier when we were developing the notion of paranoia and the general psychology of technocracy. Insofar as the bad outside takes on a persecutory quality, the group itself becomes paranoid—with this key difference between the group and the individual level: that the individual paranoiac experiences the persecution immediately, while the member of the group is insulated by identification with the others and his or her participation in the group’s practice. In this way, the paranoia is delegated to the group as a whole. We might say that it becomes de-subjectified and passes beyond the psychologies of the individuals of the group. The individual mind remains under the sway of the affiliation of the good Other that remains inside group relations. Meanwhile the persecutory potential of the outsiders is reduced by dehumanization. This is how people remain “normal” individually while countenancing and even actively carrying out the most heinous and irrational acts on the “thingified” and dehumanized bodies of outsiders. It tells us a lot about how gracious and kindly white Southerners could lynch and castrate blacks; of how good, clean efficient Germans could turn Jews into lampshades; of how Israelis, with their ancient tradition of Jewish compassionateness, earned through centuries of suffering, could calculatedly dispossess the Palestinian people; and of course, how the friendly Americans could annihilate Hiroshima and cut their swath through history.

 

Vote affirmative to unconditionally insist on the necessity of the topic for an ethic of responsibility and tolerance—vote aff to affirm the ethic of tolerance entailed in switch side debate

Voting aff is a demand for an ethics of responsibility that opens up a space for others

 

Pinchevski, PhD Cand – Comm @ McGill U, 2001

(Amit, “Freedom of Speech (or the Silent Demand)”, Diacritics 31.2, 71-84)

The Silent Demand

 

This discussion, which set out to unsettle the ethical significance of the notion of freedom of speech, has possibly brought the act of free speech to a moral predicament. It appears that we can no longer regard such an act apart from its prior responsibilities; we can no longer ascribe to it an ethical value in itself irrespective of what already surrounds it. Nevertheless, this predicament is precisely what reintroduces the forsaken Other into the speech act and allows for the recognition of the Other. Rather than a problem, it presents the ethical chance for freedom of speech. How, therefore, should such a chance be taken?

One thing is certain: it is not a matter of limiting the freedom of speech. Such limitation would have to present a power impeding the speaker's right to speak, thereby reintroducing violence. Instead, the question is, how can the right to speak be deferred, "delayed," or, to paraphrase Levinas, how can it be late to the rendezvous with itself? It is in this lapse that quietude becomes silence, and from which the Other's call is addressed to the not-yet speaker; it is here where the Other is saying the Saying. This lapse presents a break in the system of message circulation, the system that favors the Said over the Saying, a break that opens up a rift in attentive waiting for the Other. Here a "command never heard is obeyed" [OBBE 168]. The Other is coming to me as a face, practicing no power, no coercion. I don't have to listen to this call; there is no rule forcing me to do so. Instead, I am drawn to its destitute highness, to its impoverished authority, addressing me beyond any rhetorical means, a resistance exercising no force. The face speaks, and its speech defies the taken-for-granted context in which it is situated; the face baffles me and any previous orientation I may have had. Its call does not challenge mine, nor does it silence it—it is directed to me, imploring to be noticed. However, according to the halved model of the speaker, there are no calls directed to me; my horizon is open to the broadcasting of free address while undermining the possibility of a particular call and a particular response existing separately from the public sphere.

Following the explications of the ethical boundaries of speech and freedom, what perhaps becomes clear now is that the fundamental shape of an ethical discourse is responsive and responsible rather than effective and cooperative. The problem is not that freedom of speech is not ethical but rather that it is not ethical enough. The constitution of a system based on freedom of speech is not enough since it does not bear in itself an ethical value—it is only when subjected to the Other's call that it takes on an ethical involvement. Hence, it is not a matter of improving one model of speech or replacing it with another. The ethical possibility lies in the ability to step outside the economy of free speech by letting oneself be interrupted by the Other's call; it does not rest in the successful execution of free speech but rather in its ability to be questioned. In deferring or delaying the appearance of the speaking self, there is the possibility of listening and thereby of responding. By responding to the Other's call, even at the expense of the right to produce a "free" speech, one takes the role of the witness and speaks for the Other, who may be absent or silent. The halved model of the speaker may then fail to catch up with the goal of the speech, thereby opening the possibility of becoming a witness of the time and the place in which he or she will speak. The Other receives precedence: the Other is listened to before the speaking self sets out to produce its own speech; the deferring of the self is the deferring to the Other. Only in this delay can the Other's address, silent and audible, be acknowledged; without it, this address is already relegated to a forgettable quietude.

Edited by DA MACHINE
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does stating a plan text absent any reason why the implementation of the plan would be good access your switch-side debate advantage?

 

2. Why doesn't topicality check shady affs?

 

3. Why should teams that get away with squirrely affs be punished if the neg can't win on T or on the substance of the 1ac?

 

4. How does your advocacy in this one round create a paradigm shift?

 

5. How does the Muir card function as an internal link to the Otherization impact when one is talking about argumentation and the other about societal violence towards the other?

 

6. How is not advocating a plan "shirking the topic"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the panel's me, Akillu and andrew12345 - assuming Mr. Topicality's okay with that. I'll collect ballots and the OP needs to change the thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How does stating a plan text absent any reason why the implementation of the plan would be good access your switch-side debate advantage?

 

Affirming the topic instrumentally shows a commitment to affirming the resolution as the affirmitive, which is an affirmation of the ideals of switch side debate which invovle affimring a resolution as aff and negating it as neg.

 

2. Why doesn't topicality check shady affs?

 

Because shady affs like performance teams win that switch side debate is bad or that t causes genocide or something like that. Not to mention those damn RVI's. Yeeeaah. Those get me everytime. Hate em.

 

3. Why should teams that get away with squirrely affs be punished if the neg can't win on T or on the substance of the 1ac?

 

Because they are running an untopical aff that unlimits the topic and isn't predictable. (reasons that's bad in the 1ac) Regardless of whether or not teams can effectively run a T arg or not, they shouldn't be running an aff that destroys debate.

 

4. How does your advocacy in this one round create a paradigm shift?

 

Our advocacy embraces a commitment to preserving fairness whithin debate. and a commitment to the practices of switch side debate that we ask to judges to embrace.

 

5. How does the Muir card function as an internal link to the Otherization impact when one is talking about argumentation and the other about societal violence towards the other?

 

First, Muir indicates that switch side debate functions to allow debaters to see both sides of a resolution which allows one to tolerate the views of another. This ethic of tolerance is a critical prerequisite to creating a respect for the other.

 

Second, swith side debate allows one to see the topic from multiple perspectives. Approaching problems of otherization from multiple perspectives and from both sides of the resolution is neccesary in order to show a true respect for the Other.

 

6. How is not advocating a plan "shirking the topic"?

 

Not advocating a plan text shows a disdain for the principles of switch side debate. Not advocating a plan shows an intentional violation of instrumental affirmation of the resolution, most of the time when teams don't advocate a plan they are probably getting high, reading D&G, and critisizing some part of the resolution when they are affirmitive.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anon: I'm fine with the panel.

 

How does your 1AC advance an understanding or discussion of the USfg and its social service policies, an understanding of the conditions of persons living in poverty in the United States, or of any benefits to an expansion of federal social service policies? If it does not, how do you access the Muir evidence, which indicates that an understanding and discussion of both sides of a given topic (i.e. the resolution) is what switch-side debate is?

 

What violence towards the Other has occurred as a result of shady affs that don't instrumentally affirm the resolution?

 

Who is Otherized in a world absent true switch side debate?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anon: I'm fine with the panel.

 

How does your 1AC advance an understanding or discussion of the USfg and its social service policies, an understanding of the conditions of persons living in poverty in the United States, or of any benefits to an expansion of federal social service policies? If it does not, how do you access the Muir evidence, which indicates that an understanding and discussion of both sides of a given topic (i.e. the resolution) is what switch-side debate is?

 

What violence towards the Other has occurred as a result of shady affs that don't instrumentally affirm the resolution?

 

Who is Otherized in a world absent true switch side debate?

just FYI - 2 out of the 3 judges in the panel go to the same school as da machine

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge.

 

I am a tab judge. I will evaluate what the debaters give me and try to minimize judge intervention, but if the two sides don't really clash, I find that intervention is inevitable. In that case, don't get angry if I don't evaluate it how you would like, because if I'm in that situation, it's 100% the debaters' faults. Having said that, the list below are how I view the arguments.

 

T--As far as topicality goes, I belleive that it is strongly overused and has no place as a 'core' neg argument. I have a very high threshhold for T, but if you can prove abuse or it is clearly not topical I will vote. Reasonability strikes me as the better of the two options. I hate voting down a team because they answered T poorly, but I will if I have to.

 

Procedurals--This includes spec arguments and thos other misc. procedural type arguments. Seriously, you probably won't win on it. I think that a procedural is, most of the time, only a voting issue if you can prove some kind of IN ROUND abuse. I don't mean, wah! boo hoo! we cant run our favorite strat. I mean real abuse. Absent that you are left in a very weak position.

 

Theory--I tend to lean neg on CP/K status-type theory (dispo, condo, etc). If affirmative wins that flow, I will give it to them. Dispositionality strikes me as functionaly the same as condo. As far as potential abuse goes, I find it a very weak position. The way I see it, if they had actually harmed you then you wouldn't be running POTENTIAL abuse.

 

DA's--All is good here. I have no bias for or against them. I'll buy it if you sell it to me.

 

Politics--I understand their importance in the meta-game of debate, but I don't especially like them. Not that I'm instantly disposed against them (the aff still needs to win flow), but I will tend aff here.

 

CP's--I don't think that a CP has to solve case, just that it has to be net beneficial. Severance perms are a hard argument to win on though. I don't like actor or consult CP's, but again I stress that I will only vote against them if the Aff wins that I should. Once again, if you make an argument I'll listen. I have nothing in particular to add to this section.

 

Kritiks--I'm pretty knowledgeable about these, but don't assume that I will instantly and totally know what you're talking about. I'll vote on anything you bring up, no matter how wacky it is, as long as you win the flow. Make sure that you really explain your arguments though. Floating PIK's/PIC's are going to have a hard time winning the round. I will almost always vote Aff on that theory flow. As far as perms go, if the aff doesn't include one of them in the 2AC, I find the K flow EXTREMELY hard to win for the aff.

 

Framework--I will go either way on this. If you want to run it, then win the flow and I'll evaluate with your framework no matter what it is. Keep in mind though that the wackier the framework you present the easier it is for the other team to take the flow.

 

Crazy Stuff--Personally, I love to be involved with debates that use this stuff. Consult Ashtar and the like are always fun, but I love to see new stuff. Timecube is not cool though, just saying. Im all about warrants and I doubt you can give me any here to vote on. Assuming you could though, and you won the flow, I guess I'd have to vote for you. Honestly, it becomes increasingly difficult to win a vote the crazier you get, but it is never impossible. Every argument is winnable in my book, so long as you take the flow. If you want to run something crazy, I am probably one of the better judges to do it with.

 

Other--

 

Evidence vs. Analytics--Honestly, warrants are what matter to me. I follow the old-time approach that an argument is nothing without good warrants (sorry Mead 98). This means that I will easily vote for a good analytical against an ok or bad card. Evidence is only there to make a point; it does not automatically outweigh an analytical.

 

Offence/Defense Paradigm--I default here if I'm not told how to evaluate the role of offense and defense in the round, so if you don't like O/D paradigm, make it part of the 1AC/1NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll judge.

 

I am a tab judge. I will evaluate what the debaters give me and try to minimize judge intervention, but if the two sides don't really clash, I find that intervention is inevitable. In that case, don't get angry if I don't evaluate it how you would like, because if I'm in that situation, it's 100% the debaters' faults. Having said that, the list below are how I view the arguments.

 

T--As far as topicality goes, I belleive that it is strongly overused and has no place as a 'core' neg argument. I have a very high threshhold for T, but if you can prove abuse or it is clearly not topical I will vote. Reasonability strikes me as the better of the two options. I hate voting down a team because they answered T poorly, but I will if I have to.

 

Procedurals--This includes spec arguments and thos other misc. procedural type arguments. Seriously, you probably won't win on it. I think that a procedural is, most of the time, only a voting issue if you can prove some kind of IN ROUND abuse. I don't mean, wah! boo hoo! we cant run our favorite strat. I mean real abuse. Absent that you are left in a very weak position.

 

Theory--I tend to lean neg on CP/K status-type theory (dispo, condo, etc). If affirmative wins that flow, I will give it to them. Dispositionality strikes me as functionaly the same as condo. As far as potential abuse goes, I find it a very weak position. The way I see it, if they had actually harmed you then you wouldn't be running POTENTIAL abuse.

 

DA's--All is good here. I have no bias for or against them. I'll buy it if you sell it to me.

 

Politics--I understand their importance in the meta-game of debate, but I don't especially like them. Not that I'm instantly disposed against them (the aff still needs to win flow), but I will tend aff here.

 

CP's--I don't think that a CP has to solve case, just that it has to be net beneficial. Severance perms are a hard argument to win on though. I don't like actor or consult CP's, but again I stress that I will only vote against them if the Aff wins that I should. Once again, if you make an argument I'll listen. I have nothing in particular to add to this section.

 

Kritiks--I'm pretty knowledgeable about these, but don't assume that I will instantly and totally know what you're talking about. I'll vote on anything you bring up, no matter how wacky it is, as long as you win the flow. Make sure that you really explain your arguments though. Floating PIK's/PIC's are going to have a hard time winning the round. I will almost always vote Aff on that theory flow. As far as perms go, if the aff doesn't include one of them in the 2AC, I find the K flow EXTREMELY hard to win for the aff.

 

Framework--I will go either way on this. If you want to run it, then win the flow and I'll evaluate with your framework no matter what it is. Keep in mind though that the wackier the framework you present the easier it is for the other team to take the flow.

 

Crazy Stuff--Personally, I love to be involved with debates that use this stuff. Consult Ashtar and the like are always fun, but I love to see new stuff. Timecube is not cool though, just saying. Im all about warrants and I doubt you can give me any here to vote on. Assuming you could though, and you won the flow, I guess I'd have to vote for you. Honestly, it becomes increasingly difficult to win a vote the crazier you get, but it is never impossible. Every argument is winnable in my book, so long as you take the flow. If you want to run something crazy, I am probably one of the better judges to do it with.

 

Other--

 

Evidence vs. Analytics--Honestly, warrants are what matter to me. I follow the old-time approach that an argument is nothing without good warrants (sorry Mead 98). This means that I will easily vote for a good analytical against an ok or bad card. Evidence is only there to make a point; it does not automatically outweigh an analytical.

 

Offence/Defense Paradigm--I default here if I'm not told how to evaluate the role of offense and defense in the round, so if you don't like O/D paradigm, make it part of the 1AC/1NC.

 

and I'll judge, giving you 5

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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anon: I'm fine with the panel.

 

How does your 1AC advance an understanding or discussion of the USfg and its social service policies, an understanding of the conditions of persons living in poverty in the United States, or of any benefits to an expansion of federal social service policies? If it does not, how do you access the Muir evidence, which indicates that an understanding and discussion of both sides of a given topic (i.e. the resolution) is what switch-side debate is?

 

Well i'm affirming that the usfg should increase social services...discussion typically requires a debate about a proposed policy which would require you to post a 1nc. By afirming the resolution as aff and negating the rez when i'm neg i discuss both sides of the resolution. This round is an instance of it.

 

What violence towards the Other has occurred as a result of shady affs that don't instrumentally affirm the resolution?

 

The lack of tolerance shown by refusing to discuss both sides of a topic reflects an ethic that makes respect for other poeple's view impossible. This same logic is the same logic that allows Otherization to happen in the first place. All otherization stem from this type of thinking.

 

Who is Otherized in a world absent true switch side debate?

 

Everybody that is considered Otherized. It's not that voting aff is going to save a bunch of people, its that voting aff undermines the logic that allows people to be otherized.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just FYI - 2 out of the 3 judges in the panel go to the same school as da machine

 

3 out of 3, but da machine is a faggot so noone will vote for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to judge.

 

My paradigm:

 

I'll vote on specs.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...