Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bond1

[DEAD] [M] Round 334: [MILITARY] NicksTieIsGay (aff) vs. bond1 (neg)

Recommended Posts

1AC will be up some time today. Judges? Need one more for a panel of three.

 

Current judges:

Delichtig

Liampirate

Edited by bond1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge.

 

I will vote on pretty much anything, and I mean anything, so long as you win the argument and give me a reason to give a shit.

 

Specifics

T: I would like in-round abuse, I really would but sometimes that just isn't possible so you have to give me a good explanation of why I should care that the aff could abuse you maybe possibly in the future and why the precedent that they set is not the way debates should go down.

 

Theory: Generally fine by me, run it as a time suck, run it to go for it, I don't care. As with T, I'd like actual abuse though not absolutely necessary. I will default to reject the arg and will be admittedly fairly hard-pressed to change that stance if the other team isn't particularly abusive. This isn't true for Condo although it is up in the air depending on the specific situation. PICs and Consult, although usually in the reject the arg area, can be bad enough to reject the team, I will not immediately make it a VI either, so, as with condo, CLASH.

 

DA: Give me a good story, explain how it links and how the impact affects the aff. I don't care if the DA is a turn on case if you don't tell me what that actually does in the world of fiat. Impact calc is obviously a must. It doesn't have to be mag, prob, tf, just make it something that explains your impact and COMPARES it to the other impact.

 

CP: Please be competitive, though I won't call you on it if the aff doesn't(which would be kind of sad). They can be T, they can be PICs, they can be consult for all I care just make sure you can win the theory debate if the aff brings it up, see above for specifics on CP theory.

 

K: They are really fun. Know your author, and know what the hell you're talking about. Wax poetic in the 2nr(preferably a bit sooner than that though) and tell me why this matters in the world of debate. If you're alt isn't technically a policy option, explain to me how I should evaluate that in the terms of the debate round. I will be honest, I need to read more critical literature but I should have some idea of what you're talking about without you explaining it and if I have no idea by the time the 2ar is over, that kind of sucks for you.

 

I don't default to any particular framing of the ballot, maybe policymaker, so unless you're running a "normal" strat tell me what the ballot is.

 

Emphasize what args on the flow should matter. I don't necessarily default to offense-defense but it definitely makes the round easier. I could be persuaded that D on the DA with a good chance that the aff solves the 1AC impact, I might vote aff despite the lack of offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1AC will be up some time today. Judges?

 

Me too? Despite what it may seem, i'm willing to vote on anything that is explained and impacted, and I am not biased towards either side a great deal. Below is my paradigm, but its only an outline. Go for the K, or go for politics. I want to judge the debate either way.

 

 

This is my default:

 

Affirmative’s plan v. Squo/CP/K alt

 

If there is anything beyond this, run framework. I will be persuaded by a different frame if you win the flow.

 

sT:

1. generally a voter.

2. There are some stupid ones this year, and there will be some clearly topical affirmatives. Don’t expect me to vote on “withdrawal from Afghanistan is untopical because reduce =/= withdraw.” There are too many ways this is stupid.

3. I’d buy reasonability for this and a lot of other clearly topical plans.

4. I default to competing interps, but will be persuaded by reasonability.

 

K’s:

1. Repko’s thoughts on the K:

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. “Alt solves the case” is always a good argument to make.

5. I find myself viewing K debates like disad counterplan debate too often.

6. I find Perms and Link Turns particularly persuasive for K's on this topic.

 

 

Disads: a few thoughts

1. I like disads. Just thought I’d say that.

2. Affirmatives should try to make good analytics on disads, because they often have stupid stories.

3. i like case specififc links.

4. Give impact calc if you want to win. If only one team is giving impact calc, they have won a 100% risk on the impact level, and the debate becomes a lot easier for them as long as they are not behind on the Uniqueness/Link/I-L debates.

5. I like politics. Not much to say here.

6. I think that, on most disads, the debate comes down to the team with the better arguments and cards on the “lower debate” (as Scott Harris calls U/L/I-L parts of the disad) and the team doing the better impact calc and defense in the impact debate, or the “upper debate.” Those two items make up the way I evaluate disad case debates.

 

Theory:

1. I like Tim Mahoney’s paradigm on theory: “ “Voting issue – fairness and education” usually gets flowed as VI F@E and I presume that means it’s a voting issue if they go for whatever argument you have identified as a VI. If you expect it to be a voting issue if they don’t go for it then you need to give some type of warrant as to why the debate has been skewed by them merely making the argument.” I would add that I need this warrant to be articulated in the original shell.

2. T > theory

3. O/D is irrelevant in theory debates. If you have a good defense argument, I’ll give it to you.

4. I think that including theory in framework is the only way to move from these biases.

 

 

CP’s:

1. I don’t care if it solves case.

2. Perm’s are good arguments on many CP’s. They are tests of competition unless a net benefit is articulated before the 2ar, preferable the 2ac.

3. CP theory is becoming more and more legit

4. I think the neg should be allowed 1 conditional CP, Beyond that, I think that I start leaning towards the aff on condo theory if a good warrant for voters is given (see above).

5. If there is a CP or K in the 2nr I don’t give the neg the squo

 

Case:

1. affirmative: Be strategic – kick advantages you’re losing. If you’re winning Uniqueness and a link turn on a disad, and they have some damaging case args, kick case. Just make sure you have offense – in the long run, offense is the only purpose of having a case.

2. 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.

3. Case turns are pretty legit

4. CP/case turns makes a good strategy.

 

 

 

Think of my paradigm as a combination of the following two:

 

Large thoughts:

 

1. Debate is a communication activity. Good debaters recognize that' date=' time pressures and all, they can afford to explain and be funny. They identify communication failures and correct them.

 

2. I will reward aggressive strategies of any genre. It is always better to win on something crazy than it is to lose on something respectable. Put another way: Do not introduce a strategy in the constructives on which you are unwilling to give a final rebuttal.

 

3. By default, I will determine based on arguments in the round whether or not the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. Don’t be afraid to change this decision structure, but change it explicitly. Provide me a rubric with which to evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.

 

4. I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and explanation, I will disregard it. If I do not understand what a piece of evidence says by the end of the debate, I will not read it. Presumably the “tabula rasa” judge is by now only a strawperson, and I do not claim to be one.

 

[b']Small thoughts:[/b]

(Anything here can be changed by debating, except that topicality is a voting issue.)

 

1. Any aff. demonstrated not to defend a topical plan loses, as much at the end of the year as the beginning. “Debate-ability” alone does not make a plan topical, absent reasonable definitional support. If the aff. interpretation is good, a slightly better neg. interpretation may not be enough.

 

2. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

 

3. Phrases like “side constraint,” “decision rule,” “no value to life,” etc. are heavily value-laden, and, if any sensible explanation is present, you cannot afford to drop them.

 

4. Theory arguments inform how I resolve the debate but most likely do not resolve it alone. A situation in which I would reject the team is difficult to conceive (unless the argument I am rejecting is unconditional or some "voting issue" explanation is dropped). In the case of conditionality, this may mean making the CP unconditional.

 

5. Conditionality seems more sensible than not, at least to the extent of one CP. Many neg. teams, however, have gotten sloppy in their defense of it. If a conditional CP’s presence in the 2NR means that I cannot vote negative for the status quo, that must be made clear. In other words, I will assume I can “kick” a conditional CP after the debate. Dispositionality, to the extent I understand it, is silly and unimpressive.

 

6. Other CP theory: Attacking the competition of consultation, delay, and other wholly plan-inclusive CPs is likely more productive than attacking their legitimacy. Alternate actor fiat strikes me as a bizarre response to the claim that the USFG should act, although aff. teams rarely articulate these concerns adequately. "Topical CPs are a reason to vote aff" is a better argument than "PICs bad"; neither is great. If the best policy at the end of the round includes the plan, the aff. wins.

 

7. Theory generally: My personal bias, to the extent it’s relevant, is toward views that are logically derived from debate "first principles" or that facilitate good decision-making.

 

8. Kritiks can be highly strategic, if argument and explanation are provided in place of jargon. If my default decisionmaking framework doesn’t work for these, please change it explicitly. A powerful alternative often makes a powerful permutation.

 

9. If you find some aspect of their plan unclear, please ask about it in the cross-ex. If they find some aspect of your plan unclear, please answer.

 

10. Concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly or eventually answer the question “For whom am I to sign the ballot, and why?” is irrelevant, conceded or not.

 

11. Nit-pickiness: If you do not spend time before and during the debate to craft effective strategies for cross-ex, I am not a good judge for you. Title the first off-case argument in the 1NC. I am "you"; the other team is "they."

 

 

 

 

- I am less neg biased than I used to be. I am still very very good for the neg.

- negs win the highest percentage of rounds in front of me when the 2nr defends a counterplan with specific solvency evidence and a disad.

- I try to protect the 2nr as much as possible. dropped arguments in the 1ar are trouble. especially arguments why the disad turns the case

- dropped arguments are true arguments' date=' but just because an argument is dropped/true does not automatically mean it is absolute. for instance, if the neg dropped "no threshhold" that does not mean the risk of the disad is zero, only that there is no threshhold. [/font']

-just because an argument is not explicitly answered in the “they say X but” sense, does not automatically mean it is dropped. Many times a team says a bunch of things which functionally respond to/interact with what you said even if they did not say “off your 2nd argument”. This does not give you free reign to drop things and I will still try to protect teams (especially the 2nr) from totally new cross applications.

- I try to be very technical as a judge. things like "truth" and "connections" matter less for me than for other judges.

- that being said, there is a range on incredibly stupid arguments which are not impossible, but definitely tougher in front of me. Examples include most specification arguments, some k's, death good, etc. there was a time when i was the best judge in the world for every stupid theory cheap shot and bad T arg....that time has passed. technical debate skills are still very very important...but having high quality materials and good strategies is important too.

- evidence quality and evidence comparison are both important. I will not totally disregard sizable differences in ev quality just based on ev comparison; however, if one side has better ev but the other side has better ev comparison, I will usually value the in round ev comparison a little higher than the ev quality.

- I am very heavily in the offense/defense camp. defensive arguments can significantly reduce risk, but are rarely absolute. this is true both for theory and substantive arguments.

-I do not think of uniqueness/link etc in terms of an “absolute” direction, I think of it in terms of “risk of directions”. For instance, if the aff is net ahead on the link, they control the “net” direction of the link, but there is still probably a “risk” of a link, there is just a “larger risk” of a link turn. Viewing this in absolute terms doesn’t make sense to me. I think it is incredibly silly actually. I could give a long explanation for why I believe this way of thinking is easily demonstrated as flawed.

- I kind of hack out for try or die. its the one offsetting factor in my general neg hack status. beating try or die requires either a) a good time frame argument B) a HARM related defensive argument or counterplan or c) denying that the impact results in extinction - if extinction is truly 100% inevitable, and the time frame is quick, you will likely lose, even if you win a big risk of a disad or a large solvency takeout. the flip side of this is if the neg wins 100% chance of a link and impact to a disad that results in quick extinction, then uniqueness becomes largely irrelevant.

 

Default presumptions on judgement issues when they are not spoken to: (these presumptions can be changed by either side, this is just how I will resolve things if no one tries to resolve it for me):

- If a counterplan is conditional, the status quo is always an option, even if the 2NR “goes for” the counterplan. If the neg loses the counterplan I will still evaluate whether they win defending the status quo. If the neg does not speak to this and the aff argues that I should not default to the status quo because the 2nr went for the CP and did not cite the status quo as an option than I will defer to the aff on this because they are the only ones who have spoken to it. If a counterplan is dispositional and the 2nr goes for it, I will assume the status quo is not an option even if the aff wins a perm, unless the 2nr specifically says that they can default back to the status quo if they lose the counterplan.

- Calling something a voter and saying “reject team not theory” only applies to positions that are being extended by the other side. If the other side does not extend that position but does not answer the “voter” it is not “dropped” unless you have ALREADY explicitly explained why it should be a voter even if they don’t extend the argument. “reject team not theory” is not the same argument as “reject team even if they don’t extend the argument”. If your argument changes from the former to the latter, it is a new argument which the other team gets new answers to.

- Not all arguments have to be explicitly extended. For instance, if the neg does not question the terminal impact to an advantage in the 1nc, and the 2ac answers the advantage arguments but does not extend the terminal impact, this is not “new” in the 1ar.

 

CP stuff

- most cp theory objections are difficult in front of me.

- my strong presumption is that cp/perm theory other than dispo/conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team so long as a team makes that argument. I will admit that I have been having some scary thoughts about high tech ways the aff could convince me that “rejecting the argument” is not enough in the case of certain cp’s, but….they’d have to be really good on it. I can’t believe I just wrote that. Terrifying.

- ultra generic counterplans which compete on normal means or certainty of plan are almost certainly bad for debate. This is especially true when the condition is obviously totally unrelated to the aff (ie condition tactical withdrawal from Europe on Russian reciprocation with a comparative solvency advocate has a better defense than condition on European protection of the linx).

- if debated equally by both sides, cp's probably must be both textually and functionally competitive.

- both the aff and neg must have an offensive reason to prefer their interpretation

- if you are aff, the best way to defend a theory argument is to have a counterinterpretation of what the neg can do/counterplans they can run which solves most of the negs offense.

- most theory debates are won by comparisons/reasons your offense comes first.

- negs get away with defending lots of theoretically suspicious cps because the neg makes 15 arguments on theory and the aff drops a few.

 

Kritik stuff

- if you are aff, and you do not defend enactment of your plan, or defend your plan in context of the rest of your speech act, or do not have a plan, you should strike me.

- i am pretty bad for the k. if you are neg, I’m not the worst for the k, because I’m generally good for the neg, but you are almost certainly relatively better off going for something else in front of me.

- most times affs lose on the k because the neg makes a lot of different reason why the k comes first (turns the case, alt solves the case, ontology 1st, reps 1st, methodology 1st, no value to life, etc - and then the aff drops one. when the aff drops one of these arguments they almost always lose. when they don't the frequently win.

- most times the neg loses on the k its because the alt can't solve the case or achieve its own objectives. most negs read alt evidence that assumes rejection on a broader scale than just the instance of the affirmative. when the neg defends this broader alt, they have difficulties with perms, when they don't, they have difficulties with the alt.

- i am pretty good for the aff on framework questions. this doesn't make the k impossible for the neg, but it does mean that it is tough to win that the aff shouldn't get to defend implementation of their plan vs your k alt.

- the aff could win a ton of k rounds in front of me on we still get to weigh our aff, your k doesn't turn it or solve it, our impacts are fast and big, and your alt is stupid.

- it seems like most of the reason methodology comes first is because bad methods produce bad outcomes...which seems to beg the question of the outcome....this is useful for the aff.

 

Topicality stuff

- i am good for the neg on T

- that being said, i am worse for the neg on stupid T arguments than i was a couple years ago, possibly much worse.

- I’m becoming increasingly good for the aff on “impossible pics” arguments and “contrived interpretations bad”. The key for both sides on the “pics” question is to explain why X ground/limits are better lodged with the aff than the neg or vice versa.

- you must have a counterinterpretation or you will lose

- you must have an offensive reason to prefer your interpretation or you will lose.

- arguments like "reasonability" are pretty close to dead in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) What economic system will you support/what economic system results from the plan?

 

2) Do you defend any non-fiat impacts or implications?

 

3) What is the significance of your Zizek card on ethical action?

 

4) Do you claim any spillover arguments in terms of PMC use?

 

5) Do you solve for all of neoliberalism?

 

6) How are you defining neoliberalism?

 

7) Do regular troops cause colonialism?

 

8) Do you claim a spillover argument for all of colonialism?

 

9) Please explain your link scenarios for each advantage.

 

10) What exactly are the scenarios for war which will result from Neoliberalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Capitalism...

 

2. Yeah sure

 

3. Zizek is saying that we need to risk the impossible to eliminate neoliberalism. So if there's some disadvantage that might occur, we must risk that chance if we ever want to overcome the genocide instituted my neoliberalism.

 

4. Well like my Cypher evidence explains, the state has always had a monopolized control on violence. If we outsource this, we are allowing for complete neoliberalism, so yeah, I guess it's a spillover arg.

 

5. Misencik points out that private armies are the biggest components of neoliberalism, so we'll contend that we solve for the majority of it.

 

6. When the private sector basically controls governmental policies and those policies are influenced out of what benefits the few running the market, even if it comes at the expense of the many people not in control, ie normal citizens.

 

7. Not nearly as much as contractors. My Valero evidence points out that the U.S. deploying PMCs is similar to the European countries deploying private entities in colonies to reap the economic benefits.

 

8. Yeah

 

9. Neoliberalism - See number 4.

Colonialism - When we deploy the private market to maintain stability in certain regions of the world that are deemed "non-developed", we are using this reason as an excuse to benefit economically from maintaining a presence in that country. The USFG uses contractors as a third arm, when it can't use it's standard U.S. troops to maintain that presence and make profit.

 

10. Basically what Santos explains gives two warranted scenarios for war in his cards. The first one, is that when there is violence such as terrorism, the reason it occurs is because the extreme force has not been used against the terrorist in order to stimulate profit. The other is that when the market is threatened, it does horrible things in order to safe itself, such as war to preserve the market's continuance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Capitalism...

So you don't defend an end of capitalism?

 

2. Yeah sure

And they are...?

 

3. Zizek is saying that we need to risk the impossible to eliminate neoliberalism. So if there's some disadvantage that might occur, we must risk that chance if we ever want to overcome the genocide instituted my neoliberalism.

So we need to ignore any possible downside in order to achieve the plan?Are there any examples of impacts that would not be worth ignoring?

 

4. Well like my Cypher evidence explains, the state has always had a monopolized control on violence. If we outsource this, we are allowing for complete neoliberalism, so yeah, I guess it's a spillover arg.

No. I meant do you make a spillover argument to withdrawing other PMCs.

 

5. Misencik points out that private armies are the biggest components of neoliberalism, so we'll contend that we solve for the majority of it.

How much is 'the majority'. What does the world look like post plan?

 

6. When the private sector basically controls governmental policies and those policies are influenced out of what benefits the few running the market, even if it comes at the expense of the many people not in control, ie normal citizens.

So a lot like how things are now?

 

7. Not nearly as much as contractors. My Valero evidence points out that the U.S. deploying PMCs is similar to the European countries deploying private entities in colonies to reap the economic benefits.

What is the difference if we contract out or use our own soldiers to rape and pillage people? Lets go microlevel. If a woman is raped by a soldier, what difference does it make if he was contracted or not?

 

8. Yeah

Thats cool. Mind telling me what it is?

 

9. Neoliberalism - See number 4.

Colonialism - When we deploy the private market to maintain stability in certain regions of the world that are deemed "non-developed", we are using this reason as an excuse to benefit economically from maintaining a presence in that country. The USFG uses contractors as a third arm, when it can't use it's standard U.S. troops to maintain that presence and make profit.

What difference does it make if we use PMCs or regular troops to enforce the market?

 

10. Basically what Santos explains gives two warranted scenarios for war in his cards. The first one, is that when there is violence such as terrorism, the reason it occurs is because the extreme force has not been used against the terrorist in order to stimulate profit. The other is that when the market is threatened, it does horrible things in order to safe itself, such as war to preserve the market's continuance.

But do you have any actual scenarios of someone attacking someone else? Any indication of who might launch an assualt? Why they would do it? Who they would do it on? How they would respond? Any such argument? I don't even care (right now) about the epistemology you use to acquire the scenario, I just want to know if you have one and if so how it unfolds.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, just certain forms of it. So no, not defending an end of capitalism.

 

2. Genocide, suicide, and war, if that's what you're asking here.

 

3. Not exactly. Our Stewart evidence talks about how the neoliberal utopia constructs false threats in order to justify preserving the free market monopoly. Thus, even though there are these "impacts", we should risk them despite their extinction rhetoric to bring down the neoliberal empire.

 

4. Oh OK, yeah, if we remove our PMCs, they'll stay gone, and the U.S. employs more PMCs then any other country.

 

5. Enough to solve for the impacts, and world post-plan we'll have eliminated the main cause of war and violence by the private market.

 

6. I'd say a lot of our impacts are happening now. Santos lists the Iraq war as an effect of neoliberalism. However, with Obama increasing the use of PMCs to outrageous amounts, the impacts will get far worse.

 

7. If he's contracted, the USFG doesn't have to assume responsibility for it. The company does, even though the U.S. is the one employing them. A U.S. soldier would be help accountable by the USFG.

 

8. If we remove PMCs, we remove the U.S.'s third military hand which ends our colonial operations.

 

9. See number 7.

 

10. Like I mentioned earlier, Santos lists the Iraq war as a specific scenario for war, but as for future events, nothing really specific, just the overall cause of genocide and war globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, just certain forms of it. So no, not defending an end of capitalism.

Can you provide any sort of brightline as to what 'form' of capitalism is bad and which is good? What is the defining characteristic of each form?

 

2. Genocide, suicide, and war, if that's what you're asking here.

So voting affirmative in this vdebate will literally stop genocide, suicide, and war in the real world? I think you misunderstand. Are there any non-fiat implications to the plan?To make this perfectly clear, do you say that the judge should vote for you for any reason other than the impacts of the plan passing within a fiated world?

 

3. Not exactly. Our Stewart evidence talks about how the neoliberal utopia constructs false threats in order to justify preserving the free market monopoly. Thus, even though there are these "impacts", we should risk them despite their extinction rhetoric to bring down the neoliberal empire.

Are there any impacts that we should weigh on par with your affirmative?

 

4. Oh OK, yeah, if we remove our PMCs, they'll stay gone, and the U.S. employs more PMCs then any other country.

No. I mean do you make a spillover argument to withdrawing PMCs? I am not asking about durable fiat, I am asking about whether or not you will defend the US withdrawing all PMCs and if you do how you get there.

 

5. Enough to solve for the impacts, and world post-plan we'll have eliminated the main cause of war and violence by the private market.

Do you have a brightline, or should we all just take it on good faith that you solve 'enough' and that there even is a point that is 'enough'?

 

8. If we remove PMCs, we remove the U.S.'s third military hand which ends our colonial operations.

So PMCs are our only method of being colonialist? The other two military hands are incapable of it?

 

10. Like I mentioned earlier, Santos lists the Iraq war as a specific scenario for war, but as for future events, nothing really specific, just the overall cause of genocide and war globally.

So you can provide no scenarios in the future whatsoever of any kind of war or escalation that will lead to the impacts you outline, but you are positive that someone will fight someone else unless we do your plan. Correct?

-

Edited by bond1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not really a brightline, but a world in which the status quo and political is not influenced by the private sector.

 

2. Ah, I see. You running certain arguments that preserve the neoliberal utopia that represent the goal to preserve the squo.

 

3. Real world impacts that are happening now. Otherwise, they fall into the category of false threats.

 

4. OK, we'll contend that the USFG, will remoive all PMCs, and I guess by ending all contracts with them if you're looking for something specific.

 

5. We'll go with good faith. But beyond that, all our evidence points out that contractors are the biggest and final forms of neoliberalism so we'll solve for the substantial impacts of the 1AC.

 

8. Not incapable of, but our impacts are caused by the private sector doing it.

 

10. Theoretically, yes. It's not specifically someone fighting someone, but major forms of violence, so also including genocide, Santos talks about shantytowns, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Not really a brightline, but a world in which the status quo and political is not influenced by the private sector.

So capitalism is good as long as it doesn't influence politics. Two questions:

1) What cards in the 1AC speak to this mindset.

2) What cards in the 1AC give you solvency for stopping it from impacting the political but not going away?

 

2. Ah, I see. You running certain arguments that preserve the neoliberal utopia that represent the goal to preserve the squo.

1) What advantages from the 1AC deserve a vote, if any, for reasons other than fiating the plan passage.

2) What would these arguments in your answer be?

3. Real world impacts that are happening now. Otherwise, they fall into the category of false threats.

So no predictive threats whatsoever can ever be right and should immediately be rejected on face value?

 

4. OK, we'll contend that the USFG, will remoive all PMCs, and I guess by ending all contracts with them if you're looking for something specific.

The plan will, or as a result? If as a result, then how do you get to this and where is the evidence?.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. All of our cards talk about how capitalism to the extreme is bad. We're not advocating an alternative to capitalism, you asked in CX if we endorse it, the answer is yes, but when it is brought to the extent that governmental policies are enacted to benefit the pvt and hurts the majority common people, that's bad.

 

2. Our evidence talks about how we're eliminating the core concept of it. If the majority of something is gone, it obviously can't work.

 

3. Vote aff for prevention of genocide, suicide, and mass war.

 

4. Well our Santos evidence talks about how neoliberalism causes genocide, war etc. An act to preserve that, through for example, a competitive policy option that does not eliminate neolib, and allows death to continue, is a reason to vote you down.

 

5. We can bring up evidence later that they do that, but it'd be a result of the plan.

 

6. As a result, and I can bring up evidence later that the USFG has the ability to terminate contracts.

Edited by NicksTieIsGay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry this CX is so long, but it feels a little like pulling teeth. Often the question I asked isn't answered. I'll try to be as specific as I can for these follow ups.

1. All of our cards talk about how capitalism to the extreme is bad. We're not advocating an alternative to capitalism, you asked in CX if we endorse it, the answer is yes, but when it is brought to the extent that governmental policies are enacted to benefit the pvt and hurts the majority common people, that's bad.

I understand this. My questions were:

1) Where is the brightline? How much control is too much control? When have you achieved enough?

2) What does the world look like in terms of capitalism post plan?

3) What cards in the 1AC speak to this mindset of 'cap is good, but not if its in control'.

4) What cards give you solvency for stopping cap from being 'in control' but not getting rid of it altogether.

 

2. Our evidence talks about how we're eliminating the core concept of it. If the majority of something is gone, it obviously can't work.

Where is the brightline? How much is too much, how little is enough to solve?

Where is the evidence that you reach this brightline?

3. Vote aff for prevention of genocide, suicide, and mass war.

Perhaps you do not understand pre-fiat. What I am asking is are there any in-round advantages. Genocide, suicide, and mass war will obviously not be solved by voting for you in this vdebate. They are advantages you solve in the hypothetical world of plan passage, but are not a direct result of this round actually happening. So unless you say otherwise, I am just going to go ahead and assume that you do not have any pre-fiat advantages and we can just move on.

 

4. Well our Santos evidence talks about how neoliberalism causes genocide, war etc. An act to preserve that, through for example, a competitive policy option that does not eliminate neolib, and allows death to continue, is a reason to vote you down.

So your argument boils down to "not solving for the aff is bad"?

 

5. We can bring up evidence later that they do that, but it'd be a result of the plan.

I don't see how this answers the question at all. I will repost it. " So no predictive threats whatsoever can ever be right and should immediately be rejected on face value?"

 

6. As a result, and I can bring up evidence later that the USFG has the ability to terminate contracts.

So nothing in the 1AC speaks to the elimination of all PMCs as a result of the plan? If I am incorrect here, please point out the card.

 

Note, in places where I request carded evidence from the 1AC, would you please be so kind as to paste a section of the card that speaks to what you mean. Several reasons 1) judges won't go and hunt down the card 2) it saves time 3) it makes it easier to both verify your answer and to find that part in the card 4) you have to read through them anyways to find the card so you might as well. Thank you.

Edited by bond1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. OK, like our del Prado evidence points out, The outsourcing of a number of basic functions traditionally carried out by national armies or police forces, known as the “top-down” privatization, has blurred the borderlines between the public services of the State and the private commercial sector creating a dangerous “grey zone”. In situations of armed conflict the employees of transnational private military and security companies, contracted as civilians but militarily armed, operate in these “grey zones”., the state has always had a control on violence. This is the brightline. If they outsource, they control over anything, neoliberalism occurs. That's basically as close to a brightline as I can give you.

 

2. I guess social market capitalism, where the basic need of security is provided by the state versus PMCs.

 

3. Our Robinson evidence talks about how specifically when we outsource military functions, we see war and shit. the laboratories is part of a greater phenomenon of military privatization occurring under the Bush Administration. This development is worrisome as privatization of conventional and nuclear military production and operations creates a greater structural imperative for war, the expansion of military and nuclear activities, and the testing and use of conventional military and nuclear products. On the argument where do we have cards that say cap is good, we're not saying in the entire 1ac it's bad, and the Robinson evidence does a pretty good job of talking about how cap to the extreme of privatizing military functions is bad.

 

4. Ok, refer back to del Prado, when we outsource security, people die and the state loses power. It's common analytics that if we remove something that's causing bad stuff, that bad stuff will end. del Prado says PMCs are what weaken sovereignty. Thus is we remove them, then we remove what is causing a decrease in power, and we solve. As far as getting rid of it all together, I don't see where in the 1AC we advocate for an abolishment of cap, i don't see why we need cards that say we won't do it.

 

5. See number 1.

 

6. Yeah, I really don't understand this question. But I guess other then the advantages, no there's not a reason.

 

7. Yeah

 

8. Oh my bad, I was doing an edit and I guess it messed up. If it's an impact such as extinction or nuclear war we've never seen but have been talking about for the past 50 years, then it should not be evaluated.

 

9. I guess there's not a card in the 1AC that specifies removal, but we'll still defend the spillover arg that if we win, they will be removed permanently and eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, schweet, sorry if stuff is unclear. That's why I'm doing this debate is to get expierence running this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mediafire.com/?0ozbrowheluamr6

 

WC is 2450 - Order is 2 Off, Solvency, Neolib, Colonialism, Impact Calc

 

If you aren't in the habit of reading evidence, would you at least do it for the K. I feel that it makes it much easier to explain kritiks if you read the evidence I present for you. Ok, cool, so CX whenever.

Edited by bond1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Status of the alt?

 

2. Explain story of the K.

 

3. How does war become inevitable when we use ethics?

 

4. If I understand the K, won't other states use ethics besides plan? If so, why is rejecting specifically the plan key?

 

5. Explain Dillon and Reid.

 

6. If we simply ignore ethics, how does that solve for violence? If a nation is massacring a people, are we not supposed to intervene because if we do, we're all fucked?

 

7. Status of CP.

 

8. How do you access Agamben?

 

9. On you Krahmann card, if neoliberalism ensures accountability, why are we seeing cases such as Blackwater where they murder innocent people?

 

10. Explain the Sullivan card on sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Status of the alt?

Conditional.

 

2. Explain story of the K.

When you claim that ethics are imperative, and then set out a set of ethics to live by, you create this dichotomy of good and evil. People outside of your ethic are not allowed, because of the supreme nature of your ethic. Negation is no longer allowed. Those that dare to are cast out of the High Church of Humanity and labeled as something less than human. In order to continue your ethic of humanity as singular, war on difference, on those that disagree, must be waged; war becomes inevitable and endless. Furthermore, this war is uniquely worse than before. Wars fought in the name of morality, in the name of humanity, justify limitless attrocities in the name of 'the good'. Furthermore, liberal governance will create serial policy failure, as will be described further below. The alternative is to view the world instead as a plurality of contradicting viewpoints and indifferently view them. The alt accepts the divisions between people and set lines of power. This stops exclusion from being hidden, swept under the rug, and brings it to the light where it can be limited and regulated.

 

3. How does war become inevitable when we use ethics?

This is covered above, but to rephrase, what ethics do is set an outline for what is and is not acceptable. However, it does this to such a commanding degree that it controls every action and demands that nothing be higher. Look at your Zizek card, it says that we must risk the impossible for your ethics. The term human becomes evaluative rather than descriptive. In such a world, those who disagree are necesarily subhuman, and a war must be fought against them in order to preserve your system of ethics.

 

4. If I understand the K, won't other states use ethics besides plan? If so, why is rejecting specifically the plan key?

Frankly, this question is incoherent. I am not linking to plan passage, I am linking to your advantage's structure. This kritik does not operate within fiat. It is not a counterplan, nor an alternative course of action. It is a kritik of how you view the world, and so offers an alternative view of the world. How other states act is in every way completely irrelevant.

 

5. Explain Dillon and Reid.

Your liberal governance serves to address problems with linear solutions. Problem: Neoliberalism --> Solution: Plan. However, the world is hardly this simple, there is a complex network of power and knowledge. You create a muck of this, creating problems you seek to solve. Then you reproblematize them all over again. This happens because of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of humanism that mandate such actions.

 

6. If we simply ignore ethics, how does that solve for violence? If a nation is massacring a people, are we not supposed to intervene because if we do, we're all fucked?

First, you assume incorrectly that adopting an ethics will work. Its not like until now no ethics has ever existed. Second, we are supposed to intervene. However, the alt proposes a world wherein we are not driven by an ethics (which does not solve for war, as is abundantly described above) but because we clearly understand the divisions that exist in the world and act accordingly.

 

7. Status of CP.

Conditional.

 

8. How do you access Agamben?

First, PMCs are in fact mercenaries. They meet all the criterion. Second, this means that calling them PMCs is nothing more than a facade, and a state of exception in the name of perpetuating war. This state of exception is the same logic used to justify all biopolitical control.

 

9. On you Krahmann card, if neoliberalism ensures accountability, why are we seeing cases such as Blackwater where they murder innocent people?

And what happened to Blackwater? They got pummeled into the ground. The heat was so bad they had to change their name. They cleaned up. Why? Because of profit motivation. They make no money when they get bad press, because the government will not higher a PMC with the then reputation of Blackwater. I am not arguing that neoliberalism will force all PMCs to behave always under every imaginable circumstance forever, just that it keeps the mojarity in line most of the time.

 

10. Explain the Sullivan card on sovereignty.

Sure. Sovereignty is not actually carrying out an order, but doing it. You can be sovereign and not be doing the action of the choice you were aloud to make. In this way, PMCs are not decreasing the sovereignty of the state, because all decisions of war are securely in the hands of the state. We don't have rogue PMCs running around starting wars for no particular state; states remain in control.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ok. Pause. Lets do the 1AC and not think about ethics. Would that solve back for the K?

 

2. So basically, if people are murdering other people, we should stop them, just not think about ethics?

 

3. Ok, so if we remove PMCs- oh shit, I just said PMCs, now the state is going to kill us all, does thatoy one usage cause the entire state destroy us?

 

4. On your solvency number 5, you say all of our cards say cap sucks. Where in my 1AC does it say that?

 

5. On the number 6 solvency, how does not having specific cards that say when the state privatizes the military, shit gets bad set a brightline sor solvency?

 

6. On number 8 on the neolib flow, Santos specifically says the war in Iraq is a product of neoliberalism, isn't this an example of war?

 

7. Your Dela Cruz evidence on the colonialism flow is from a special agent, why should we care about what he has to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ok. Pause. Lets do the 1AC and not think about ethics. Would that solve back for the K?

If you could 1) Defeat severance theory and 2) Find a way to make this coherent then yes. The problem is that your entire aff is based on ethics. I'm not linking to the Zizek card, your aff takes a stance on 'Neoliberalism is bad'. That is enough to link you. Now, its more nuanced than that obviously, but the point is somewhat watered down for Cross-examination.

 

2. So basically, if people are murdering other people, we should stop them, just not think about ethics?

Not necesarily. Your scenario doesn't really give a whole lot to work with in its vagueness and I'm worried you'll take my answer out of context. The alt would have us intervene if it was in our interest in regards to both lines of power and friend/enemy distinctions. Be certain the ethical or idealistic calculations would never enter into it.

 

3. Ok, so if we remove PMCs- oh shit, I just said PMCs, now the state is going to kill us all, does thatoy one usage cause the entire state destroy us?

No. You saying it is not equivocal to the euphamism being adopted into governmental policy. Additionally, you have several misconceptions. First, the impact is already beginning to happen. Biopolitics is the cause of the Iraq war, and as a mentality will continue to cause wars. Second, I never say the state will 'destroy us'. I don't read a nuclear war impact or anything, because the impact is systemic. Only confronting the state of exception can solve for the biopolitical mindset.

 

4. On your solvency number 5, you say all of our cards say cap sucks. Where in my 1AC does it say that?

I'm saying that the cards are about capitalism in general. I can't show you where the cards say 'Neoliberalism is good, but capitalism is ok' because it doesn't exist. That distinction is never clarified. Your authors NEVER thought that someone would make it. All of your authors are in fact, anticapitalist. If you can show me where in your evidence this distinction is made, then this will be resolved.

 

On the colonialism flow you outright say "The U.S. uses the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a form of neocolonialism in which violent atrocities are committed in the name of the capitalist individualism." Capitalism is what this evidence, and your tagline, links to. Just capitalism.

 

5. On the number 6 solvency, how does not having specific cards that say when the state privatizes the military, shit gets bad set a brightline sor solvency?

Your question is confusing, but I think it means that your cards set the brightline as PMCs are bad. However, this is not the brightline for solving for Neoliberalism. You treat a symptom, not the disease. Its incoherent to argue that Neoliberalism causes us to use PMCs, so stopping them from using PMCs will cause the entire mindset to vanish. You have neither a brightline as to how much damage must be done to get rid of Neoliberalism itself, nor evidence that you can reach this non-existent brightline.

 

6. On number 8 on the neolib flow, Santos specifically says the war in Iraq is a product of neoliberalism, isn't this an example of war?

I meant future scenarios. You have no possible scenarios for any wars that could unfold past now that is a result of neoliberalism.

 

7. Your Dela Cruz evidence on the colonialism flow is from a special agent, why should we care about what he has to say?

He was associated with the mission that is being described. Its logically fallacious to attack the source without relating that attack to why he shouldn't be trusted. His argument cites an empirical example of how withdrawing PMCs can be used to gain further control over a country. The fact that he is a special agent does nothing to discount this argument. I would respond with why shouldn't we care about what he has to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. OK, so lets go back in time for a specific scenario. The Holocaust. Jews are dieing and being slaughtered. Lets say that the USFG knew this was happening at the time. Do we,

A. Intervene, if so why?

B. Not intervene - If so why?

 

2. OK, so the impact to you biopolitics scenario is it's the root cause of systemic violence, etc. You give an example of this being the Iraq war. How is this different from the attack you made on my neoliberalism impact that it's a structural impact, with a previous example being, the Iraq War?

 

3. How do we have no solvency though if we don't advocate for a removal of capitalism for the entire debate? All of our cards talk about how neoliberalism occurs when the military is privatized. It never says capitalism occurs because of privatized military, and there's virtually no argument on the inherent structures of capitalism. Why should we lost ground on something we're not even talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. OK, so lets go back in time for a specific scenario. The Holocaust. Jews are dieing and being slaughtered. Lets say that the USFG knew this was happening at the time. Do we,

We intervene because the Nazi party of Germany is our enemy. In both expanding throughout Europe and allying with Japan who bombed us they represent an existential threat to us so we have no choice but to intervene.

 

2. OK, so the impact to you biopolitics scenario is it's the root cause of systemic violence, etc. You give an example of this being the Iraq war. How is this different from the attack you made on my neoliberalism impact that it's a structural impact, with a previous example being, the Iraq War?

It isn't. I am structuring several even-if scenarios. I disagree with the plan (case arguments) but even if solving was good, there is still a better option.

 

3. How do we have no solvency though if we don't advocate for a removal of capitalism for the entire debate? All of our cards talk about how neoliberalism occurs when the military is privatized. It never says capitalism occurs because of privatized military, and there's virtually no argument on the inherent structures of capitalism. Why should we lost ground on something we're not even talking about?

Neoliberalism is a political ideology that is inseperable from capitalist beliefs, by definition. Your cards assume this. Capitalism is the hand and neoliberalism the glove. If you don't solve for capitalism, how can you solve for the impacts of neoliberalism? If you can isolate an impact of neoliberalism that is not caused by a capitalist ideology, then you can access that impact outside of this solvency takeout. Outside that, you have no solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO one final question on the K, we are basically supposed to do all actions based off of selfish greed, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO one final question on the K, we are basically supposed to do all actions based off of selfish greed, correct?

Several things to address here:

1) You are inherently asking this question from the pedestal of your morality.

2) This is horribly, horribly, wrong. The alt would have us not act based off of any one moral code, because to do so limits out all other views of humanity. Instead, we should understand that the world has a plurality of visions and we should accept this accordingly and with indifference to one or the other. If you want to say that that is selfish greed, then go ahead. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.

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...