Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chaos

[DEAD] [M] Round 332: [MILITARY] Chaos (aff) vs. Kratos_99 (neg)

Recommended Posts

Because if we did that we'd think you were awful.

Probably.

 

So, as you obviously can tell, the 2AC isn't up. I'll try to get it up tomorrow. It might not be up until the weekend. Is that okay?

 

I know what arguments I will make, I just need to find some cards.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1AC was inspired by John Cage's piece, 4'33". The goal of the affirmative was to provoke discussion and expose problematic assumptions and worldviews to criticism by causing discomfort.

Pritchett 09// James is a musician, has written multiple essays on John Cage and his works, and has studied both of these for years “What silence taught John Cage: The story of 4′ 33″// This essay was written for the catalog of the exhibition "John Cage and Experimental Art: The Anarchy of Silence" at the Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona. //

http://www.rosewhitemusic.com/cage/texts/WhatSilenceTaughtCage.html

When this exhibition was originally conceived, at its center there was to be an empty room: “one completely bare gallery, which visitors will have to negotiate without explanation.” 2 The plans have changed now, and the empty room has disappeared, but this was the feature that caught my attention when I was asked to write an essay for this catalog. It was an unusual idea for a museum show, since the whole purpose for visiting one is to witness things of beauty or interest. People do not go to a museum to look at blank walls, to walk through empty galleries. Without any context, visitors would have been quite baffled by this, perhaps thinking that they had taken a wrong turn, that someone made a mistake, or (for those who like adventure) that a daring theft had taken place. But these visitors would have known that this is an exhibition about John Cage, and hence the empty room would make sense. “Ah, the silent piece,” they might have said to themselves, smiling. 4′ 33″, the silent piece, is easily John Cage's most famous creation. I would say that anyone who recognizes Cage's name knows that he wrote a piece of music that consists entirely of silence. It is a piece that has become a sort of icon in post-war culture, like Warhol's soup cans: a punch line for jokes and cartoons; the springboard for a thousand analyses and arguments; evidence of the extremity of a destructive avant-garde that appeared in the 1950s and 60s. It is not surprising that this piece would attract the kind of attention that it has. To begin with, it is a compelling dramatic gesture. At its first performance, virtuoso pianist David Tudor sat at the piano, opened the keyboard lid, and sat silently for thirty seconds. He then closed the lid. He reopened it, and then sat silently again for a full two minutes and twenty-three seconds. He then closed and reopened the lid one more time, sitting silently this time for one minute and forty seconds. He then closed the lid and walked off stage. That was all. With the right kind of performer, such an event can be riveting, and Tudor was absolutely the right kind of performer, possessing an understated mastery of the instrument and a seriousness of purpose that was palpable to everyone in attendance. Part of what makes the drama so compelling is the utter simplicity of the concept. The composer creates nothing at all. The performer goes on stage and does nothing. The audience witnesses this very basic act, the act of sitting still and being quiet. All this takes place in a Western concert hall setting, lending a historical and artistic gravity to the proceedings that begs us to put this act into some kind of weighty context, fraught with importance. The piece can be difficult for audiences (just as the empty room in the exhibition might have been). Sitting quietly for any length of time is not something to which people are accustomed in Western culture in general, much less in a concert hall setting. That tensions will arise, with controversy and notoriety following, is only natural. Confronted with the silence, in a setting we cannot control, and where we do not expect this kind of event, we might have any of a number of responses: we might desire for it to be over, or desire for more interesting sounds to listen to, or we might feel frightened, insulted, pensive, cultured, baffled, doubtful, bored, agitated, tickled, sleepy, attentive, philosophical, or, because we “get it”, a bit smug.

 

 

The 1NC would seem to indicate that this attempt failed. There was no negative reaction to my silence.

But even the worst failures can serve as springboards for success. I still have something to criticize.

 

 

Kratos conflates communication with language. This creates an overly exclusive and violent orientation towards knowledge which rejects the use of alternative forms of communication such as non verbal communication and music. The impact is a restriction of human agency and the exclusion of the aesthetic appreciation of other mediums of communication.

Kapitzke 03, Cushla is a // “(In)formation literacy: A positivist epistemology and a politics of (out)formation. Educational Theory” // 53(1), 37-53 //School of Cultural and Language Studies in Education Queensland University of Technology

School media center specialists and cybrarians would do well to concede that information and its outcome, knowledge, are not static, unquestionable, and authoritative entities; rather, they are products of culturally specific spaces and relations of power that directly or indirectly include and exclude those without access to their discursive forms and practices. The effect of this is what I call an outformation, in contrast to the information, or inclusion and empowerment, of those who understand how these forms work. Whereas information “problem solving” emphasizes processes inside individual’s heads, a critical information literacy would analyze the social and political ideologies embedded within the economies of ideas and information. Information literacy, as a method of approaching textual work, is not autonomous and neutral; it intersects with variables of gender, socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, religion, and geographic location to generate different learning outcomes in different classrooms and educational contexts. The issue of new media also looms large for school libraries. Allan Luke and Carmen Luke, for example, argue that the current focus on early intervention literacy programs masks an inability on the part of educational systems to cope with new forms of adolescent identity framed by multi-mediated texts, cultures, and practices.47 Not to account for digital media and technological convergence in teaching and learning, and not to provide students with an understanding of the multiple literacies required to use these multimodal texts, is exclusionary — particularly in contexts such as libraries, which are agents and gateways for information access. While children and youth will continue to read and enjoy classical and popular fiction, and to borrow nonfiction materials for assignments and research, many are turning to alternative media for recreational reading and research information. Print materials have long been superseded as the primary form of information and entertainment. Less than thirty-five percent of publishing today involves books.48 A focus on written language alone, as opposed to combinations of other sensory ways of knowing such as sound (music, sound effects, silence), visuals (color, perspective, vectors), and kinesics (body movement, gesture, sensuality), provides a one-dimensional and impoverished perspective on what is a fabulously rich world of semiotic resources and communications potential for youth today.49 Like the computers they learn from and through, many youth excel at multitasking.50 Their cyborgian capacity to “study” while simultaneously attached to a mini-disk playing MP3s, watching television, and talking to a friend on a mobile phone confounds adults. Engagement with the pedagogies of digital cultures in school settings would go a long way toward alleviating the alienation many youth feel toward “bookspace” and school libraries. What, then, can libraries do to account better for the shift from print to electronic media and hypermediated textualities that captivate students? One possibility is to think about what I call a “hyperliteracy.” Toward a Hyperliteracy The concept of “information literacy” privileges the role of information in learning and teaching. Yet, the recent critique of information as the zeitgeist of the age,51 and the shift from a focus on “facts” as such to their contexts of sociocultural production and consumption, indicate that the term is now pedagogically unviable. I therefore propose an alternative for school libraries: a hyperliteracy, which better defines and encapsulates the kinds of epistemological presuppositions and literacies required in the distributed, networked nodes of today’s workplaces, homes, communities, classrooms, and cybraries. What then does hyperliteracy mean, and what are its implications for school library practice? A hyperliteracy approach draws from and extends two theories of literacy pedagogy: multiliteracies and intermediality.52 Hyperliteracy represents approaches to text, authorship, and knowledge that are located within a postpositivist paradigm. They seek to problematize their own assumptions and practices. Critical thinking, critical literacy, and information literacy approaches have focused on only one mode of representation and communication, namely, language. A multiliteracies framework, on the other hand, recognizes that meaning-making has always been multimodal and is increasingly multimediated. The concept of a multiplicity of literacies extends the locus of textual semiosis beyond language and print to sound, visuals, gesture, and space, thereby giving legitimacy to what were hitherto marginalized communications media and textualities in school curricula. A multiliteracies approach around information materials provides a metalanguage for talking about the design elements of textual analysis, production, and reproduction across the five modes of communication. In doing so, it validates the many genres and media formats (such as magazines, mobile phone text messaging, music, graphical novels, television commercials, Web sites, and video games) through which youth in consumer societies negotiate and construct their interests and identities.

 

This representation of communication is inevitably exclusionary and constructs a hegemony of knowledge whose form controls individuals and their actions.

Bleiker 01, Ronald Senior lecturer and co-director of Rotary centre of International studies in Peace and Conflict resolution, 2001 (“The Zen of International Relations”, edited by Stephen Chan, Peter Mandeville, and Ronald Blieker, p. 47)

The doorkeepers of IR are those who, knowingly or unknowingly make sure that the discipline’s discursive boundaries remain intact. Discourses, in a Foucaultian sense, are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process They determine the limits of what can be, talked and written of in a normal and rational way. In every society the production of discourses is controlled, selected, organized and diffused by certain procedures. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile. Although the boundaries of discourses change, at times gradually, at times abruptly, they maintain a certain unity across time, a unity that dominates and transgresses individual authors, texts or social practices. They explain, to come back to Nietzsche, why 'all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their origin in unreason thereby becomes improbable'.32 Academic disciplines are powerful mechanisms that direct and control the production and diffusion of discourses. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods, techniques and instruments that are considered proper for the pursuit of knowledge. Within these margins each discipline recognizes true and false propositions based on the standards of evaluation it established to assess them.” It is not my intention here to provide a coherent account or historical survey of the exclusionary academic conventions that have been established by the discipline of IR.” Instead, I want to illustrate the process o disciplining thought by focusing on an influential monograph by the well-placed academics, Gary King, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. By outlining the methodological rules about how to conduct good scholarly research, they fulfill important and powerful doorkeeping functions. These functions emerge as soon as the authors present their main argument, that 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' research approaches do not differ in substance for both can (and must be) systematic and scientific.” One does not need to be endowed with the investigating genius of a Sherlock Holmes to detect positivist traits in these pages. One easily recognises an (anti)philosophical stance that attempts to separate subject and object, that believes the social scientist, as detached observer, can produce value-free knowledge. Such a positivist position assumes only that which is manifested in experience, which emerges from observing ‘reality’, of deserves the name knowledge. All other utterances have no cognitive and empirical merit, they are mere value statements, normative claims, unprovable speculations.” Indeed, if the doorkeepers did not inform us that their methodological suggestions emerged from years of teaching a core graduate course at one of North America's foremost research institutions, one could easily mistake their claims as parodies of positivism. We are told that the goal of research is 'to learn facts about the real world' and that all hypothesis 'need to be evaluated empirically before they can make a contribution to knowledge' Which facts? Whose 'real' world? What forms of knowledge? I— The discursive power of academic disciplines, George Canguilhem argues, works such that a statement has to be 'within the true' before one can even start to judge whether it is true or false, legitimate or illegitimate.38 Hence the doorkeepers inform us that what distinguishes serious research about the 'facts' of the 'real world' from casual observation is the search for 'valid inferences by the systematic use of well-established procedures only.39 Such procedures not only suggest on what grounds things can be studied legitimately, but also decide what issues are worthwhile to be assessed in the first place. In other words, a topic has to fulfil a number of preliminary criteria before it can even be evaluated as a legitimate IR concern. The criteria of admittance, the doorkeepers notify us, are twofold. A research topic must 'pose a question that is "important" in the 'real world' and it must contribute to the scholarly literature by 'increasing our collective ability to construct verified scientific explanation of some aspect of the world'.40 The doorkeepers of IR remind the women and men from the country who pray for admittance to the temple of IR that only those who abide by the established rules will gain access. Admittance cannot be granted at the moment to those who are eager to investigate the process of knowing, to those who intend to redraw the boundaries of 'good' and 'evil' research, or to those who even have the audacity of questioning what this 'real world' really is. The warning is loud and clear: 'A pro*posed topic that cannot be refined into a specific research project per*mitting valid descriptive or causal inference should be modified along the way or abandoned.'41 And if you are drawn to the temple of IR after all, the doorkeepers laugh, then just try to go in despite our veto. But take note, we are powerful and we are only the least of the doorkeepers, for ultimately all research topics that have no 'real-world importance' will run 'the risk of descending to politically insignificant questions'.42 Or could it be that these allegedly unimportant research topics need to be silenced precisely because they run the risk of turning into politically significant questions? The dominant IR stories that door keeping functions uphold are sustained by a wide range of discipline related procedures linked to aspects such as university admittance standards teaching curricula, examination topics, policies of hiring and promoting teaching staff or publishing criteria determined by the major or journals in the field. At least the doorkeepers of IR have not lost a sense of (unintended) irony. They readily admit that we seek not dogma, but disciplined thought'. Academic disciplines discipline the production of discourses. They have the power separate from irrational from irrational stories. They force the creation and exchange of knowledge into preconceive spaces, called debates. Even if one is to engage the orthodox position in a critical manner, the outcome of the discussion is already circumscribed by the parameters that had been established through the initial framing of the debates. Thus, as soon as one addresses academic disciplines on their own terms one has to play according to the rules of a discursive police which is reactivated each time one speaks.

 

And, that's bad.

Edkins 97, Jenny is a teacher @ Dept of Political Science at the University of Wales and Véronique Pin-Fat, former teaching assistant in Philosophy. Cites Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago (The Future of International Relations, edited by Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver. Page 307.)

We are already familiar with her view that human beings are meaning-bearing and meaning-creating agents and that therefore our linguistic prac*tices inform our understandings not only of ourselves, but of others. '[O]ur use of language... is the basis of... humanness' (1981b: 327). This presents us with a number of features of what it is to be human on Elshtain's view. First, it suggests that no human being, whether male or female, has a privileged epistemological standpoint. Knowledge and understanding will always be partial. As such we should resist the temptation of universalizing, and thereby privileging, our own contextually bound understandings of humanity.13 The multifarious cultural, political and social contexts in which subjects learn a variety of discourses, shape manifold self-understandings and spheres of activity.

 

And, epistemological privilege serves as a platform for genocide and extinction.

Fasching 93 (Darrel, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of South Florida, 1993 The Ethical Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: Apocalypse or Utopia?p.5-7) We live in a world of ideological conflict in which far too many individuals(whether theists or a-theists) practice a "centered theology" in which they are too sure of who they are and what they must do. Such a world has far too many answers and not nearly enough questions and self-questioning. A world divided by its answers is headed for an inevitable apocalyptic destiny. However, when we are willing to become strangers to ourselves (or when we unwillingly become so), new possibilities open up where before everything was closed and hopeless. At the heart of my position is the conviction that the kairos of our time calls forth the badly neglected ethic of "welcoming the stranger" that underlies the biblical tradition and analogously "welcoming the outcast" that underlies the Buddhist tradition. This care for the stranger and the outcast, I shall argue, provides the critical norm for identifying authentic transcendence as self-transcendence. Centered theologies, whether sacred or secular, theist or a-theist, are ethnocentric theologies that can tolerate the alien or other, if at all, only as a potential candidate for conversion to sameness. Centered theologies are exercises in narcissism that inevitably lead down apocalyptic paths like those that led to Auschwitz and Hiroshima. Why? Because such theologies, whether sacred or "secular," cannot permit there to be others in the world whose way of being might by sheer contrast, cause self-doubt and self-questioning.When as a student I read Paul Tillich, I found it hard to believe him when he said that the questions were [are] more important than the answers. I was so taken with his answers that I was sure he was just trying to be modest. What really mattered were the answers. Since then, I have come to realize that answers always seem more important and more certain to those who have come by them without wrestling with the questions. I know now that Tillich was quite serious and quite right- the questions are indeed more important. I have come to find a fullness in the doubts and questions of my life, which I once thought could be found only in the answers. After Auschwitz and Hiroshima, I distrust all final answers- all final solutions. Mercifully, doubts and questions have come to be so fulfilling that I find myself suspicious of answers, not because they are necessarily false or irrelevant, but because even when relevant and true they are, and can be, only partial. It is doubt and questioning that always lures me on to broader horizons and deeper insights through an openness to the infinite that leaves me contentedly discontent. Alienated theology understands doubt and the questions that arise from it as our most fundamental experience of the infinite. For, our unending questions keep us open to the infinite, continually inviting us to transcend our present horizon of understanding.In a like manner, the presence of the stranger continuously calls us into question and invites us to transcend the present horizon of the egocentric and ethnocentric answers that structure our personal and cultural identities. An alienated theology understands that only a faith which requires one to welcome the alien or stranger is truly a utopian faith capable of transforming us into "new beings" who are capable of creating a new world of pluralistic human interdependence.

 

Vote affirmative as criticism of the assumptions of Kronos.

Bleiker 02 Roland: PhD in International Relations from the Australian National University. He works at the University of Queensland. “Living with Rupture: Postmodern Perspectives on International Events” from “International Relations and the Third Debate” Edited by Darryl S.L Jarvis: PhD in International Relations from University of British Columbia. (p. 17-18)

Through deeply entrenched practices of speaking and writing we have grown accustomed to familiar representations of events, often to the point that these representations have become the events themselves. Banished from our collective memory is the actual construction and objectification of social reality. By exploring how realities achieve meanings and turn into events, postmodern approaches to world politics increase awareness of the choices we have made or the ones that have been made for us. Critics of postmodernism often point out that the language of such inquiries disturbs a reader, or seems, at first sight, hopelessly removed from the everyday realities that are supposedly being addressed (Gilpin, 1986:303). They may be right. Postmodern approaches do, indeed, disturb. But such interferences are not necessarily faddish ravings or an unpleasant side product of postmodern theory. They are the very processes through which abstraction reveals different facets of factual occurrences and thus opens up possibilities to rethink and redirect political practice. Abstraction, then, is a means of shedding light on various pathways that lead from concrete political dilemmas to equally concrete manners of understanding and dealing with them. Postmodernism is critique. The task of critique is to challenge the dominance of one thought form, along with its pretenses to universalism or transhistoricism. Critique is thus always becoming. And “all becoming,” Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari say, “is minoritarian” (Deleuze and Guattari, 1996/1980:106). Its purpose lies in disclosing the dangers that are entailed in elevating a majoritarian position to the level of truth, no matter how insightful, logical, and morally imperative this compulsion appears.

 

 

This was about 1000 words. I couldn't think of any arguments to put into the 2AC. I would appreciate suggestions from the judges about what other arguments I could have put into this speech after the round is finished.

 

Thanks.

 

Also, the formatting turned out oddly. Sorry about that if it bothered you.

 

EDIT:

 

Now open for cx.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with the 1NC?

 

Where did I indicate that speaking/language was the ONLY form of communication?

 

How am I exclusionary to other forms of communication?

 

How does my 1NC exclude your form of communication?

 

Why is your Pritchet evidence a reason to reject the neg?

 

Why is it a reason to vote aff?

 

Where does your Bleiker evidence talk about communication?

 

Your fasching evidence talks about how excluding the other is bad. How does my speech exlude people?

 

Even if you won that I exclude other forms of communication, where's the internal link from that to deeming people as inferior and failing to question subjectivity?

 

How do i specifically privilege my epistemology over others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with the 1NC?

I don't criticize the 1NC.

 

Where did I indicate that speaking/language was the ONLY form of communication?

cross x

 

How am I exclusionary to other forms of communication?

Your definition of communication excludes anything that isn't language.

How does my 1NC exclude your form of communication?

The 1NC only excludes the opportunity cost of the 1NC.

 

In case it's not clear, I'm criticizing the definition of communication you gave in cross examination.

Why is your Pritchet evidence a reason to reject the neg?

Pritchet is an FYI. I thought that you and the judges might want to know what the intent of the 1AC was.

Why is it a reason to vote aff?

above

Where does your Bleiker evidence talk about communication?

Bleiker does not say the word "communication".

 

In the context of our criticism, Bleiker says that your narrow definition of communication is bad because it excludes other understandings of what communication means. These other understandings of what communication means are good.

 

You deny that information can be transmitted through music, or through body language, or through art, or through dozens of other things. This prevents you from learning from these things, from enjoying these things, and from understanding why others react to these things in the way that they do.

Your fasching evidence talks about how excluding the other is bad.i How does my speech exlude people?

Fasching says that when individuals "are too sure of who they are and what they must do" (ie when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of other ways of understanding and being within the world) these individuals act in violent ways in order to maintain/create the ideological purity of their worldview. This is the foundation for atrocities.

 

Even if you won that I exclude other forms of communication, where's the internal link from that to deeming people as inferior and failing to question subjectivity?

You view other ways of communication as inferior, not necessarily people.

 

I don't argue that exclusive definitions of communication necessarily fail to question subjectivity, I argue that they prevent an effective understanding of power relations because they fail to understand that knowledge and information are translated through more ways than written and spoken language.

 

Example: a totalitarian government may lower food rations at the same time that it claims that food rations have been raised. A worldview which utilizes your definition of communication would believe the government because language is the only way that information can be transmitted, a broader worldview which acknowledges that information is transmitted through nearly everything would know that the government is lying.

 

How do i specifically privilege my epistemology over others?

Your communication is limited to only language. This denies the value of alternative forms of communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, we need more judges.

 

I don't care who you are, I don't care what your paradigm is because I don't care about winning this debate as much as I do about learning. I ask that you give me an RFD at the end of the round, and maybe answer questions that I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1ac is probably missing an interpretive dance (i'll explain this once the debate is over, but yeah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fasching says that when individuals "are too sure of who they are and what they must do" (ie when they refuse to acknowledge the existence of other ways of understanding and being within the world) these individuals act in violent ways in order to maintain/create the ideological purity of their worldview. This is the foundation for atrocities.

 

So whats the warrant to why thinking that verbal communication is more efficient means i'm going to kill everyone who doesn't believe in verbal communication?

 

Even if you won somehow won that i thought everyone that couldn't/didn't want to speak was inferior, how does that lead to genocide? Fasching is ranting about cultural identities and not tolerating other people - where did you get the idea that i wouldn't be able to tolerate other people not able to speak?

 

You view other ways of communication as inferior, not necessarily people.

 

So if I didn't think other people were inferior, how can you access your fashing evidence or any other claim to mass violence?

 

Where's your "viewing communication as inferior makes apacolyptic annihalation inevitable" card. Or your "allowing for new forms of communication allows for pluralistic human interdependance" card?

 

I don't argue that exclusive definitions of communication necessarily fail to question subjectivity, I argue that they prevent an effective understanding of power relations because they fail to understand that knowledge and information are translated through more ways than written and spoken language.

 

Example: a totalitarian government may lower food rations at the same time that it claims that food rations have been raised. A worldview which utilizes your definition of communication would believe the government because language is the only way that information can be transmitted, a broader worldview which acknowledges that information is transmitted through nearly everything would know that the government is lying.

 

 

Your communication is limited to only language. This denies the value of alternative forms of communication.

 

So explain how in your world we would realize the truth when the government is intentionally trying to communicate false information. How does recognizing other forms of communication mean people won't just abuse those forms of communication?

 

Why wouldn't the government sing a song that talks about how there's a lot of food?

 

 

New question: If other forms of communication are as efficient, why are you speaking your 2AC? Why aren't you just silent again or doing something that your kapitzke evidence is talking about?

 

 

.

Edited by Kratos_99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This interests me. I'll judge if you all will allow it.

 

Former debater, had some success at the regional level, cleared at Blake, attended no other major tournaments due to school district limitations. Familiar with many alternative debate frameworks and largely open minded. In a round like this what you do is probably more important than what you say. If that last bit doesn't make sense I can clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This interests me. I'll judge if you all will allow it.

 

Former debater, had some success at the regional level, cleared at Blake, attended no other major tournaments due to school district limitations. Familiar with many alternative debate frameworks and largely open minded. In a round like this what you do is probably more important than what you say. If that last bit doesn't make sense I can clarify.

Please do. Kratos, you okay with him?

 

So whats the warrant to why thinking that verbal communication is more efficient means i'm going to kill everyone who doesn't believe in verbal communication?

It's not a question of efficiency. Your definition of communication excludes anything that isn't language (both written and spoken). A dogmatic insistence that language is "the only way" to communicate is bad, because it mandates the destruction of other forms of communicating.

 

Also, your definition of communication is limited to its utility, which precludes aesthetic appreciation of communication. This also means that you are unable to understand the ways individuals react to the aesthetic dimensions of communication.

 

Even if you won somehow won that i thought everyone that couldn't/didn't want to speak was inferior, how does that lead to genocide? Fasching is ranting about cultural identities and not tolerating other people - where did you get the idea that i wouldn't be able to tolerate other people not able to speak?

You don't tolerate other forms of communication because you insist that they don't exist. You deny their value. If other people communicate in ways that aren't linguistic you will destroy their communication in any way possible, including the destruction of those people. This is because your desire to maintain the truth value of your world

 

Also, the not underlined part of Fasching is really good on issues of "tolerance". Your "tolerance", if there is any, will only extend insofar as you perceive a potential to convert others to your exclusive mode of communication.

 

I will answer the other questions later.

 

Later is now.

 

So if I didn't think other people were inferior, how can you access your fashing evidence or any other claim to mass violence?

You misunderstand my criticism. The explanation is above.

Where's your "viewing communication as inferior makes apacolyptic annihalation inevitable" card. Or your "allowing for new forms of communication allows for pluralistic human interdependance" card?

That would be Fasching. The fact that Fasching doesn't say the word "communication" is irrelevant.

 

The warrants can apply to my criticism even if the word "communication" is not said. The fact that you are unable to recognize this proves the link to the K.

So explain how in your world we would realize the truth when the government is intentionally trying to communicate false information. How does recognizing other forms of communication mean people won't just abuse those forms of communication?
If language is the only way you are able to gain access to information the government can say one thing and do another.

 

Recognizing other forms of communicating allows us additional ways to recognize, and thus respond to, abuses of power.

Why wouldn't the government sing a song that talks about how there's a lot of food?

I think that you misunderstand my criticism. Also, I never said the government wouldn't sing.

 

New question: If other forms of communication are as efficient, why are you speaking your 2AC? Why aren't you just silent again or doing something that your kapitzke evidence is talking about?

I have done many of the things that my kapitzke evidence talks about during this debate.

 

I am not saying that other forms of communication are superior to language, I am acknowledging that they exist.

 

I have not said that other forms of communication are more efficient.

 

Viewing communication as valuable only because of its efficiency is bad because it precludes both the aesthetic appreciation of communication and the ability to understand aesthetically motivated reactions to communication.

 

Example: propaganda is based in an appeal to aesthetics. That's why Hitler could motivate the masses with this:

 

grp203.jpg

 

Your framework can't understand why pictures on a sign motivate nationalistic hate. Your framework also can't understand that pictures motivate (or communicate) at all.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’ve all heard the infamous lesson before – when two debate teams walk into a round and no one says a word you vote negative on presumption.

The affirmative literally has no reason why you should vote aff or why the status quo is bad – big distinction here - the affirmative is trying to win a reason why the negative team is bad, not that the aff should be voted for – but even if they won that I exclude people or justify their annihilation they provide no reason why voting aff would do any good – this means that because the aff proposes no change from the status quo voting aff means literally nothing – there’s no benefit to rejecting me because either a) the status quo isn’t bad (They didn’t even provide a card saying that the status quo was bad) or B) the harms are inevitable and the aff has 0 solvency.

 

You’re going to buy 100% defense because allowing teams to say there’s a risk of offense without any warrant why other than “1NC was just defense” is a bankrupt way of evaluating debate that destroys education and teaches debaters to think in stupid ways.

 

On the K

 

a. No you don’t – he literally can point to nowhere in my 1NC or my cross-x where I indicated that I said that exclusively language was the only form of communication or that it was the best form – he asked me what communication was and I defined it as exchanging information – I didn’t say speaking was the only form of exchanging information, I only used speaking as an example of a way to transfer knowledge and obviously there are other ways of communicating – not my fault he wrongly assumed I think speaking is the only or best way to communicate – I literally told him in cross-x that I was going to spike out if he tries to make unjustified assumptions about me – he probably should have asked whether speaking is the only form of communication if he really wanted to know what I think. I think music and posters and everything mentioned in the kapitzke is great, there’s literally no reason why I wouldn’t believe in other forms of communication.

 

b. THIS IS TERMINAL LINK DEFENSE – THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A “RISK OF A LINK” HERE – EVEN IF HE WON OFFENSE DEFENSE PARADIGM THERE’S NO RISK OF ME HAVING A BAD ASSUMPTION OR THINKING A CERTAIN WAY – EITHER I DO OR I DON’T - FLAG THIS - IF I WIN THIS ARGUMENT I WIN THE DEBATE AND CONSIDERING HE CAN’T MAKE A LINK OF THE 1NC AND HIS ONLY LINK IS CRAFTED OFF A DUMB QUESTION IN CROSS-X THERE’S LITERALLY NO WAY HE’S GOING TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT.

 

2. Perm – do everything listed in his last Bleiker evidence (rethink political practices, ect.) and vote negative.

 

3. My 1NC was silent – This obviously proves that wasn’t disturbed by his 1NC which means his kritik has no solvency – at best this functions as a link turn by proving that my silence is engaging in new modes of communication and at worst this means the perm can solve. Not that he’s going to win any risk of a link anyway.

 

4. No internal link to the impact – he has no reason why my answer in cross-x somehow meant that I would exclude everyone that didn’t use language to communicate or why it would limit understanding of other forms of communication. Seriously? He read an Otherization impact. Fasching is talking about hating on Jews and bombing Hiroshima and shit. There’s literally no way he’s going to get from “saying speaking is a form of communication in cross-x” to that leads to genocide and apocalyptic annihilation.

 

Hold him to a higher threshold on evidence and force him to read cards that are actually talking about his kritik – allowing him to read the most generic K cards and expect to win this debate when the evidence has literally nothing to do with communication and his criticism makes for terrible debate and encourages lazy practices destroying the value of the activity. This goes for his beliker evidence too.

 

5. He read beliker – the guy that talks about discourse and language used in the political sphere and how that SHAPES POLICYMAKING – when criticizing language as an exclusive form of communication.

 

His Edkins evidence says even “[O]ur use of language... is the basis of... humanness'” in the un-underlined portion.

 

Fasching is also talking about the way we use language and how our discourse excludes the Other.

 

The fact that all his authors are talking about how language should be used and probably linking into his own criticism about how they probably are exclusive against other forms of communication by not deciding to be silent or sing their arguments shows how ridiculous his kritik is and why he shouldn’t be able to access any of his impacts.

Edited by Kratos_99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want a definite answer before I begin cross-x. Will that be the entire block?

 

Nah, actually I'll post a 1NR soon. Just start cross-x.

 

Also, just noticed i messed up the perm text. I'm just going to change it to vote negative real quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, just noticed i messed up the perm text. I'm just going to change it to vote negative real quick.

Severance bad!!!!!!!!

 

JK, that's cool.

 

Cross examination will be up tomorrow or Thursday - I have tests I need to study for. You can post the 1NR first if you want.

 

I'm also going to be out of town without computer access this weekend, so the 1AR might not be up for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have made a 1AR completely exploiting the fact that Kratos dropped my arguments about how his definition excludes aesthetic values so even if he didn't define communication as only language I'd still win, but I don't want to do this debate anymore.

 

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could have made a 1AR completely exploiting the fact that Kratos dropped my arguments about how his definition excludes aesthetic values so even if he didn't define communication as only language I'd still win, but I don't want to do this debate anymore.

 

Sorry.

If his definition wasn't only language it couldn't have excluded anything.

 

He didn't exclude anything from his definition?..

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...