Jump to content
Ho Chi Minh

The role of the K

Recommended Posts

I don't think K's will be huge on this topic nor will they be as prevalent as they were on the poverty topic. That being said, there are still some K's that will definitely be runnable on this topic. I hope this thread can discuss K's specific to this topic and their viability and the viability of K's that are run every year [ie: Cap K].

 

The first k that comes to mind is to Security K that was produced by many camps. It essentially states that the representation of other countries as unstable or otherwise or having to potential to "blow up" or the fear that the affirmative impacts will happen as reasons to pass the plan make the impacts inevitable, yata yata. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think this could be a very good K on the link and impact debate, but i fear the alt is less than satisfactory. Ig i don't see how rejecting the idea of instability or terrorism will solve that. Perhaps there are better alts?

 

The second that comes to mind is the Orientalism K, which is similar to the first, except that it seems specific to the Southeast Asian countries [Japan and South Korea]. That, and the alt will probably be better. Thoughts?

 

A third one I've thought up is a PMC K. It is essentially the PMC replacement DA with an alt. The impact scenario should probably be neoliberalism/capitalism and the alt would reject the "underlying rhetoric of privatization of military services so cleverly embedded in the framework of the 1ac" or something like that. Running it as a K would solve the uniqueness problems inherent in the DA. This would probably be successful against any big affs, like a total removal or sumthing.

 

These are just the couple i am familiar with [kinda]. Please post your thoughts on runnable vs winnable Ks. Thanx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fem IR

Nuclearism

Terror Talk

Hegemony?

 

Hegemony K would seem more likely to be an aff adv. Unless somehow you prove removing troops increases hege, which i'd think would be hard to do.

 

i forgot about Fem IR. Prolly cause i wouldn't run it so...

 

Explain Nuclearism. Is it a kritik of nuclear proliferation fears? or is it more a 'you cause nuclear prolif' and thats bad for various reasons?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a minimum:

Schmitt (collapse of the friend/enemy distinction)

Nietzsche (critique of value(s), ethics, utility)

Along with:
Fem IR

Nuclearism

Terror Talk

Hegemony?

And the proliferation K (anti-proliferation discourse is racist/hegemonic)

 

Cuomo/War as an Event (which overlaps with Perpetual peace a bit). This may be in some feminism files.

 

However, if I were writing front lines I would have something to roll with every K argument/shell that came out of camp. Please refer to this thead which I believe has about 25 critiques listed that came out of camps this year. Going back and reading the shells and answers to files is critical.

 

Also, "the Official Foucault critique thread has a decent explanation of why the "link turn" won't be as effective as you might think. It also has some residual value when thinking about answering "link turn" arguments--as well as deciding whether to link or impact turn a particular critique (it suggests the impact turn **may** be more effective).

 

Also, I think you miss the critiques that affirmatives will likely run in their affirmatives.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hegemony K would seem more likely to be an aff adv. Unless somehow you prove removing troops increases hege, which i'd think would be hard to do.

 

i forgot about Fem IR. Prolly cause i wouldn't run it so...

 

Explain Nuclearism. Is it a kritik of nuclear proliferation fears? or is it more a 'you cause nuclear prolif' and thats bad for various reasons?

 

Probably the best argument there is for increasing hegemony is solving overstretch, in which case, the Affirmative would increase hegemony providing a great link to a hegemony advantage and critique.

 

On your original post. Many Orientalism authors focus on the Middle East (i.e. Said).

 

Other critiques that are definitely viable:

 

Foucault - see my posts here http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1789584&postcount=10 and here http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1795540&postcount=7

 

The standard advantage critiques like Badiou, Chaloupka, Kato, Nuclearism, TSD, etc.

 

The always applicable - Nietzsche, Zizek, D&G, etc.

 

Fear critiques

 

You're right in that most poverty critiques will not apply to most cases (if any) but critiques are no less viable this year than any other and there are perhaps more numerous with this topic.

 

Also, don't forget specific country-specific critiques such as Afghanistan as an empty space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cut the Orientalism K at my camp, but it's not all about Asian countries, despite the word "Orient". It's just a generic "We withdrawing not because we allow them to establish their sovreignity, but because we think we know what's better for them". Actually, the links to Soko and Japan are weaker than those for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not clear on the nuclearism kritik but its a popular camp file..

 

Foucault K will probably be a critical affirmative advantage (withdraw=withdraw biopower). Same story with Lacan K, specifically otherization.

 

Spanos, Hillman, Schmidt are pretty popular among some of the most advanced debaters (translation: posts on this website).

 

And of course you can always work in a Zizek, Deleuze K. I would definitely suggest buying Arrogant Maury's Deleuze(& Guattari, though largely ignored) Master File.

 

But to the 'role of the k' this year.... the "withdraw" really switches K's from the negative to the affirmative (critical affirmatives and/or critical advantages), but advanced debaters will be able to turn a lot of critical affirmatives. For example, the Empire K (Hardt/Negri) will or can turn to a critical affirmative, but depending on what facade one is using for presence reduction, it can link right back into a newly developed Empire K. Also: must have extensive knowledge of the new Commonwealth book (2009) in terms of solvency (what exactly the multitude and the commonwealth are, for example, and how they can solve).

 

I expect K's will be run on the negative, but that there will be two divisions: first, all the camp files (fem IR, prolif, securitization, etc); and second, some of the more advanced debater's home-cut files (hillman, spanos, schmidt, and vollman, if you're that creative). But they'll be run. Against affirmatives that will be largely critical or at least have critical advantages in semi's and finals rounds. No, the K hasn't disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big advocate of Hillman, mainly because there's arguably a link to the plan action rather than to the plan's representations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not clear on the nuclearism kritik but its a popular camp file..

 

Foucault K will probably be a critical affirmative advantage (withdraw=withdraw biopower). Same story with Lacan K, specifically otherization.

 

Spanos, Hillman, Schmidt are pretty popular among some of the most advanced debaters (translation: posts on this website).

 

And of course you can always work in a Zizek, Deleuze K. I would definitely suggest buying Arrogant Maury's Deleuze(& Guattari, though largely ignored) Master File.

 

But to the 'role of the k' this year.... the "withdraw" really switches K's from the negative to the affirmative (critical affirmatives and/or critical advantages), but advanced debaters will be able to turn a lot of critical affirmatives. For example, the Empire K (Hardt/Negri) will or can turn to a critical affirmative, but depending on what facade one is using for presence reduction, it can link right back into a newly developed Empire K. Also: must have extensive knowledge of the new Commonwealth book (2009) in terms of solvency (what exactly the multitude and the commonwealth are, for example, and how they can solve).

 

I expect K's will be run on the negative, but that there will be two divisions: first, all the camp files (fem IR, prolif, securitization, etc); and second, some of the more advanced debater's home-cut files (hillman, spanos, schmidt, and vollman, if you're that creative). But they'll be run. Against affirmatives that will be largely critical or at least have critical advantages in semi's and finals rounds. No, the K hasn't disappeared.

 

For those that would run Foucault that way, either they fundamentally misunderstand Foucault because they miss the point of discursive power as well as they are running a critique that would strategically harm them because a further left critique would easily win as well as be the more honest argument for a Foucauldian. Or, they are not running an Affirmative that is claiming a Foucault advantage simply from withdrawing troops. This topic is amazing for Foucault on the Negative, and is a minefield for the Affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a big advocate of Hillman, mainly because there's arguably a link to the plan action rather than to the plan's representations.

 

eh... hillman isnt the best argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cut the Orientalism K at my camp, but it's not all about Asian countries, despite the word "Orient". It's just a generic "We withdrawing not because we allow them to establish their sovreignity, but because we think we know what's better for them". Actually, the links to Soko and Japan are weaker than those for Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Hey guys look! It is an example of Orientalism from the guy who cut the file!

 

See what I did there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those that would run Foucault that way, either they fundamentally misunderstand Foucault because they miss the point of discursive power as well as they are running a critique that would strategically harm them because a further left critique would easily win as well as be the more honest argument for a Foucauldian. Or, they are not running an Affirmative that is claiming a Foucault advantage simply from withdrawing troops. This topic is amazing for Foucault on the Negative, and is a minefield for the Affirmative.

 

The Official Fouault thread is reasonably extensive on this point especially if they are a floating PIK. Also, I think there are a whole host of links in files which aren't discussed in the thread.

 

Affirmative arguably has 5 or so compelling arguments back:

1) the military is biopolitical.

2) Our stance against the military stands in for a larger critique (spillover)

3) A historical understanding of pulling out of Vietnam.

4) Offense on representations of violence = social change (empirically and otherwise). Silence is worse.

5) You're whitewashing arguments are bunk.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Official Fouault thread is reasonably extensive on this point especially if they are a floating PIK. Also, I think there are a whole host of links in files which aren't discussed in the thread.

 

Affirmative arguably has 5 or so compelling arguments back:

 

I just skimmed this thread, but I think that these 5 arguments are almost certainly applicable in atleast 60% of these:

 

 

Feminism

Imperialism

Orientalism/Panopticon

Imperialism

Security

Fear of Death

Nietzche

Proliferation

Realism

State Bad

GBTL

Spanos

Terror Talk

Spark, ugh

Biopolitics

Historical Materialism

Other IR Ks

 

Basically, most K's that are not security based will be about how IR/military rhetoric is bad for some reason, when, in actuality, the affirmative reduces the military, and thus takes a stand against the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Official Fouault thread is reasonably extensive on this point especially if they are a floating PIK. Also, I think there are a whole host of links in files which aren't discussed in the thread.

 

Affirmative arguably has 5 or so compelling arguments back:

 

Just to make sure, we are in agreement about how Foucault ought to be run this year I believe. The Foucault thread and the links therein show how Foucault is great this year, not solely, but especially, for the Negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cut the Orientalism K at my camp, but it's not all about Asian countries, despite the word "Orient". It's just a generic "We withdrawing not because we allow them to establish their sovreignity, but because we think we know what's better for them". Actually, the links to Soko and Japan are weaker than those for Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Point taken.

 

Is this a joke?

 

Nope. I'm being perfectly serious- an initial glance to me seems like K affs will be more applicable than Ks on the neg. That said, there should still be substantial ground on both sides [as usual].

 

Just to make sure, we are in agreement about how Foucault ought to be run this year I believe. The Foucault thread and the links therein show how Foucault is great this year, not solely, but especially, for the Negative.

 

Agreed. However, i think there might actually be a legit argument for a link turn here- while the plan will still have biopolitics prevalent, as the K will point out, it seems like the status quo will have a larger link to the actual K impacts. Depending on your affirmative advantages, it could just be a simple matter of cross-applying your adv impacts [like genocide, dehum, rape, etc] as examples of how biopolitics is already causing these impacts in the status quo, but that the aff is solving these specific examples of the K impacts, thus making it better than the status quo. Obviously, the aff would have to win framework on this. The aff would also probably try to argue that we should look at the impacts of biopolitics in the short term vs the long term, where biopolitics will always be there in the status quo, but the aff opens up the possibility of removal or reduction of its influence in at least the short term, if not also in the long term. Thus, if i were to run a Foucault K i would probably at least mitigate the aff impacts if not take out the links on the advs.

 

Now i may just be missing some integral part of Foucault's arguments, in which that may be all bs. I don't claim to know him like the back of my hand, but with my meager understanding, it seems like this is a possibility [or a problem, depending on how you look at it]

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. However, i think there might actually be a legit argument for a link turn here- while the plan will still have biopolitics prevalent, as the K will point out, it seems like the status quo will have a larger link to the actual K impacts. Depending on your affirmative advantages, it could just be a simple matter of cross-applying your adv impacts [like genocide, dehum, rape, etc] as examples of how biopolitics is already causing these impacts in the status quo, but that the aff is solving these specific examples of the K impacts, thus making it better than the status quo. Obviously, the aff would have to win framework on this. The aff would also probably try to argue that we should look at the impacts of biopolitics in the short term vs the long term, where biopolitics will always be there in the status quo, but the aff opens up the possibility of removal or reduction of its influence in at least the short term, if not also in the long term. Thus, if i were to run a Foucault K i would probably at least mitigate the aff impacts if not take out the links on the advs.

 

Now i may just be missing some integral part of Foucault's arguments, in which that may be all bs. I don't claim to know him like the back of my hand, but with my meager understanding, it seems like this is a possibility [or a problem, depending on how you look at it]

 

At a first glance, this is certainly the reasonable position to take, clearly it must be why it has become such a pervasive idea to so many. However, upon review, it is inaccurate and strategically bad. Troop withdrawal does not, in any way, constitute a decrease in biopolitics or biopower. In the same way that biopolitics simply changed after the French Revolution rather than increased or decreased. Withdrawal or a decrease of troop presence functions as a macro-political act that cannot capture the concept of resistance (let alone the military is not the subject of the power that such an Affiramtive would claim to solve but is rather, inaccurately described as, the enforcement) and thus cannot actually "solve" being oppressed under a dominating metaphysics. Nor does withdrawal fit under the limited interpretation of revolution (which is not addressed by most Foucault authors because Foucault himself did not write on it like he did resistance, which is not to decrease its significance) as it does not break from history. Honestly, the more I think and write about it, the more and more I have to say that running Foucault on the Affirmative this year (in the format of withdrawal or decreasing troops means a decrease in biopolitics) is entirely based on misunderstanding Foucault (of course, that may mean it is perfect for debate!). In summation, withdrawing troops does not decrease biopower and does nothing for the possible ways in which people can operate within a system of power or break from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At a first glance, this is certainly the reasonable position to take, clearly it must be why it has become such a pervasive idea to so many. However, upon review, it is inaccurate and strategically bad. Troop withdrawal does not, in any way, constitute a decrease in biopolitics or biopower. In the same way that biopolitics simply changed after the French Revolution rather than increased or decreased. Withdrawal or a decrease of troop presence functions as a macro-political act that cannot capture the concept of resistance (let alone the military is not the subject of the power that such an Affiramtive would claim to solve but is rather, inaccurately described as, the enforcement) and thus cannot actually "solve" being oppressed under a dominating metaphysics. Nor does withdrawal fit under the limited interpretation of revolution (which is not addressed by most Foucault authors because Foucault himself did not write on it like he did resistance, which is not to decrease its significance) as it does not break from history. Honestly, the more I think and write about it, the more and more I have to say that running Foucault on the Affirmative this year (in the format of withdrawal or decreasing troops means a decrease in biopolitics) is entirely based on misunderstanding Foucault (of course, that may mean it is perfect for debate!). In summation, withdrawing troops does not decrease biopower and does nothing for the possible ways in which people can operate within a system of power or break from it.

 

Hmmm it could be very well that we are all misinterpreting Foucault. However, i think the argument for reducing troops equals less biopower is the more substantial argument. For is it not the military that commits all the atrocities that biopower justifies? Neither senators nor representatives are committing genocide or raping women in foreign lands- it is the military that is the agent of action in this K. Furthermore, the state allows the military to enter these lands but it is the military which disobeys Congress and commits the atrocities it does. Thus a reduction in military presence [especially if the plan actor is Congress or the Supreme Court] is an undercuttance [new word!] of the military, or in other words, of the agent of biopolitics. Logically, this means, whether or not biopolitics continues to exist, the effects of it shall be reduced and at least some of the impacts avoided. In essence, while the entire state may be bad a reduction in the military would lessen the impact biopolitics has, at the very very least to the rest of the world outside of America. This makes all the risk happen with the status quo and not the aff- even if biopolitics isn't destroyed, the status quo has a 100% chance of continuing atrocities where the aff has a <100% chance, depending on the plan. This means the plan should definitely be preferable to the status quo.

 

As to the alternative to the K, this can at least help justify a "Perm: Do both" because the aff certainly won't cause MORE biopolitics, and doesn't prevent either a revolution or resistance; in fact, it actually encourages them both by providing an example and precedence of where we can reduce the state's overwhelming biopower.

 

Do not assume for 1 instance that I clearly understand Foucault or any of his fellow authors. This mearly is an easily understandable argument that could [i think] be run as an aff response to Foucault K, though i may not myself run it as an advantage...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm it could be very well that we are all misinterpreting Foucault. However, i think the argument for reducing troops equals less biopower is the more substantial argument. For is it not the military that commits all the atrocities that biopower justifies? Neither senators nor representatives are committing genocide or raping women in foreign lands- it is the military that is the agent of action in this K. Furthermore, the state allows the military to enter these lands but it is the military which disobeys Congress and commits the atrocities it does. Thus a reduction in military presence [especially if the plan actor is Congress or the Supreme Court] is an undercuttance [new word!] of the military, or in other words, of the agent of biopolitics. Logically, this means, whether or not biopolitics continues to exist, the effects of it shall be reduced and at least some of the impacts avoided. In essence, while the entire state may be bad a reduction in the military would lessen the impact biopolitics has, at the very very least to the rest of the world outside of America. This makes all the risk happen with the status quo and not the aff- even if biopolitics isn't destroyed, the status quo has a 100% chance of continuing atrocities where the aff has a <100% chance, depending on the plan. This means the plan should definitely be preferable to the status quo.

 

As to the alternative to the K, this can at least help justify a "Perm: Do both" because the aff certainly won't cause MORE biopolitics, and doesn't prevent either a revolution or resistance; in fact, it actually encourages them both by providing an example and precedence of where we can reduce the state's overwhelming biopower.

 

Do not assume for 1 instance that I clearly understand Foucault or any of his fellow authors. This mearly is an easily understandable argument that could [i think] be run as an aff response to Foucault K, though i may not myself run it as an advantage...

 

1. The military is not the tool or actor or problem of biopolitics, not only is that a false premise, even if it were true it the Affirmative wouldn't solve because what you would be claiming to solve is juridical power which is no better or worse than the discursive power that replaces it (the French Revolution is an example of this as stated earlier).

 

2. The impact to biopolitics is not simply genocide or rape, etc. Foucault's critique focuses on how metaphysical schemes defines the interpretation of law. For example, an interpretation of human nature that focuses on rationality (to use an overused debate term) dehumanizes the insane and justifies their exclusion from society and, indeed, humanity. The impact to Foucault is not simply that the military, because they are in Iraq and are committing atrocities is bad, but rather that the way we view Iraq/Iraqis, military/war laws, etc., is problematic. Thus, removing troops may stop soldiers killing civilians but it doesn't solve the problems of biopolitics because the new power scheme (referring above, the discursive) would legitimate other atrocities. History in Iraq shows this, think of the sanctions that killed more civilians than have died sine March 2003.

 

3. You don't really claim advantages on - we might decrease some of the impact possibly. In that case, I run the worst politics DA and win.

 

4. The problem is that you don't solve biopolitics at all, let alone decrease the impacts, all that happens is that it changes form. This is the entire point of Foucault's work. There is nothing that can be done on the macro-political side to solve biopower or its impacts (with the exception of revolution that would be too difficult to run in a debate round because of its intricacy and lack of authorship, not to mention it is definitely not topical nor is there an instance of applicability because Foucault's definition of revolution is highly limited, i.e. the only "real" revolution during the Cold War was the Iranian Revolution, I can get more into this if desired but as I am currently writing an article on this I fear that I would spend way to much time explaining something that is not relevant to this thread). All that can be done in the face of biopolitics is micro-resistance, an individual rejection of dominating interpretations and the problematic metaphysics that justifies them. The Affirmative in no way forms a micro-resistance, nor does it better enable one to occur because discursive power is just as successful, if not more so, than juridicial power at preventing resistance.

 

5. Perm, by itself is not sound strategy and you will lose the link turn against any decent debater, the links the in the previous posts will say why.

 

6. Since you don't decrease but alter power the Affirmative is no example or precedence. Look, power can not be decreased, only changed. The only action that can be taken in light of this is resistance. Thus any perm is a moot point. In fact, by transitioning to discursive power, it can certainly be argued that resistance becomes more difficult because their is no focal point to resist against, not to mention discursive power is harder to recognize as something to be resisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The military is not the tool or actor or problem of biopolitics, not only is that a false premise, even if it were true it the Affirmative wouldn't solve because what you would be claiming to solve is juridical power which is no better or worse than the discursive power that replaces it (the French Revolution is an example of this as stated earlier).

 

2. The impact to biopolitics is not simply genocide or rape, etc. Foucault's critique focuses on how metaphysical schemes defines the interpretation of law. For example, an interpretation of human nature that focuses on rationality (to use an overused debate term) dehumanizes the insane and justifies their exclusion from society and, indeed, humanity. The impact to Foucault is not simply that the military, because they are in Iraq and are committing atrocities is bad, but rather that the way we view Iraq/Iraqis, military/war laws, etc., is problematic. Thus, removing troops may stop soldiers killing civilians but it doesn't solve the problems of biopolitics because the new power scheme (referring above, the discursive) would legitimate other atrocities. History in Iraq shows this, think of the sanctions that killed more civilians than have died sine March 2003.

 

3. You don't really claim advantages on - we might decrease some of the impact possibly. In that case, I run the worst politics DA and win.

 

4. The problem is that you don't solve biopolitics at all, let alone decrease the impacts, all that happens is that it changes form. This is the entire point of Foucault's work. There is nothing that can be done on the macro-political side to solve biopower or its impacts (with the exception of revolution that would be too difficult to run in a debate round because of its intricacy and lack of authorship, not to mention it is definitely not topical nor is there an instance of applicability because Foucault's definition of revolution is highly limited, i.e. the only "real" revolution during the Cold War was the Iranian Revolution, I can get more into this if desired but as I am currently writing an article on this I fear that I would spend way to much time explaining something that is not relevant to this thread). All that can be done in the face of biopolitics is micro-resistance, an individual rejection of dominating interpretations and the problematic metaphysics that justifies them. The Affirmative in no way forms a micro-resistance, nor does it better enable one to occur because discursive power is just as successful, if not more so, than juridicial power at preventing resistance.

 

5. Perm, by itself is not sound strategy and you will lose the link turn against any decent debater, the links the in the previous posts will say why.

 

6. Since you don't decrease but alter power the Affirmative is no example or precedence. Look, power can not be decreased, only changed. The only action that can be taken in light of this is resistance. Thus any perm is a moot point. In fact, by transitioning to discursive power, it can certainly be argued that resistance becomes more difficult because their is no focal point to resist against, not to mention discursive power is harder to recognize as something to be resisted.

 

Alrite. That actually makes a lot of sense, especially the last point. So that will make it that the best answer to a Foucault K would seem to be impact turn for most cases, unlike you can find a specific link to biopolitics, which the only 1 i can think of would be a plan to remove funding for PMCs as they are classified as mercenaries.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...