Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
txag15

Hillman on the aff

Recommended Posts

I saw this aff this past weekend. Pretty interesting. For the plan, it moved troops to the DMZ (untopical I know) but could work with anything saying withdrawal would incite a war. The first two cards said moving to the DMZ would incite a war then went into Hillman. I thought it was pretty appealing. And I hear ISU does this aff too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw this aff this past weekend. Pretty interesting. For the plan, it moved troops to the DMZ (untopical I know) but could work with anything saying withdrawal would incite a war. The first two cards said moving to the DMZ would incite a war then went into Hillman. I thought it was pretty appealing. And I hear ISU does this aff too?

I'm assuming you watched LBJ running this. That being said this case is idotic they way they are running it and gets killed by extra-t, espically when you spec a topical version of the aff (withdraw troops, read DA's to yourself).

But for the viability of this strat, i think it is a smart way to confuse neg teams and subsume most of their offense if they are policy heavy teams. I do however think this aff links really hard to cap though because it requires the aff team say the root of war is the psyche, not historico-material issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very familiar with Hillman's theory, but I assume he doesn't advocate extinction - i.e. he wants us to embrace war as a means to reduce violence (or make it not as bad) and would be opposed to the destruction of the human race.

 

If this is the case, I don't see why a CP to start a war with X country and reading cards that a Korean war would actually cause extinction as a net benefit wouldn't somewhat devastate this Aff.

 

You could back this up with some "always value to life/value to life arbitrary" cards to make sure you have an impact to extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not very familiar with Hillman's theory, but I assume he doesn't advocate extinction - i.e. he wants us to embrace war as a means to reduce violence (or make it not as bad) and would be opposed to the destruction of the human race.

 

If this is the case, I don't see why a CP to start a war with X country and reading cards that a Korean war would actually cause extinction as a net benefit wouldn't somewhat devastate this Aff.

 

You could back this up with some "always value to life/value to life arbitrary" cards to make sure you have an impact to extinction.

 

Because if an aff team is reading Hillman like spark they are silly, because the above strat would wreck them. However if anyone is reading a hillman aff they are not that dumb. They would be claiming the act of fiating/imagining a war would have "in round" (god i hate that term) impacts of making us interrogate our relations to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm assuming you watched LBJ running this. That being said this case is idotic they way they are running it and gets killed by extra-t, espically when you spec a topical version of the aff (withdraw troops, read DA's to yourself).

But for the viability of this strat, i think it is a smart way to confuse neg teams and subsume most of their offense if they are policy heavy teams. I do however think this aff links really hard to cap though because it requires the aff team say the root of war is the psyche, not historico-material issues.

Yes it was LBJ. And I never really thought of the link to cap that way, kudos sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because if an aff team is reading Hillman like spark they are silly, because the above strat would wreck them. However if anyone is reading a hillman aff they are not that dumb. They would be claiming the act of fiating/imagining a war would have "in round" (god i hate that term) impacts of making us interrogate our relations to violence.

 

Just read impact D on why they don't start a war, followed by a CP that does, all condo of course, followed by your standard anti-Hillman stuff and some extra-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just read impact D on why they don't start a war, followed by a CP that does, all condo of course, followed by your standard anti-Hillman stuff and some extra-T.

 

Except what would be the NB to the CP?

 

Read stuff that says war causes psyche numbing. Also, WHO ARE YOU TXAG? Hello, My name is Alex Dzeda.

 

I think this is an ok argument as well as some on case saying war causes rapes and violent abuses against civilians. Forcing them to defend they cause/are ok with imagining rapes makes voting aff seem a lot less happy.

 

BUT a good 2a running this aff will hammer home the distinction between impacts in fiat which they will be defending as good and "real world" impacts about the psychological effects of what we imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, if you attempted to add me on facebook, that might have failed considering my name is not alex dzeda.

lol i got you Mr. Barron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about how LBJ ran it, do they defend plan passage? In the 1ac on the wiki they don't seem to have framework or anything else saying otherwise. If not, how do they do their framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question about how LBJ ran it, do they defend plan passage? In the 1ac on the wiki they don't seem to have framework or anything else saying otherwise. If not, how do they do their framework?

 

Yes they defended plan passage. They claimed that us imaging(fiating) the war caused by plan passage had *in round* impacts of making us analyze our psyches to prevent war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they have offense to a warming scenario. If you read a counter plan that engages in combat (i.e. have the US fight South Korea soldiers) then you access the warrants that hillman makes better. Hillman does not want a nuclear war to happen, if you win a risk that a war with NK would go nuclear, then a counter plan that engages in in intimate war that doesn't escalate solves case better and risk of warming o/w.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...