Jump to content
InTheFlesh

Round: 378: [MILITARY] InTheFlesh (aff) vs. CRusso (neg)

Recommended Posts

haha I actually already started another v-debate, but I want to do this. Give me a sec to post cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haha I actually already started another v-debate, but I want to do this. Give me a sec to post cross-x.

 

Oh shit, for some reason I typed in your name when I meant to type in "Blank".

I don't know how the fuck I made that mistake>_<

Oh well, it's spring break and I can do both haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What happens when the judge votes aff?

 

2. How is a molecular understanding of politics different from normal politics?

 

3. Do you claim fiat?

 

4. Will the state remain post-plan?

 

5. How do you change desire?

 

6. What is worse than death and why?

 

7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

 

8. How do you change liberalism?

 

9. What does the plan do?

 

10. Will you stand by your plan the entire round?

 

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

 

12. How does following desire solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What happens when the judge votes aff?

They affirm our method of resisting the state, that it is the best in the given situation.

2. How is a molecular understanding of politics different from normal politics?

In normal(?) politics, the politicians at the top of the totem pole get to make the decisions, where as molecular politics start from the individual and work up, rather than just starting at the top.

3. Do you claim fiat?

We fiat the passage of the plan.

4. Will the state remain post-plan?

It's a matter of if it's desired.

5. How do you change desire?

We don't allow desire to be overrun and discounted because of fear.

6. What is worse than death and why?

I'll defend that living a life controlled by fear, where we're able to have our thoughts twisted and our desires pushed to the side is worse.

7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

The contraption is explained in the critical text under the plan text.

8. How do you change liberalism?

I'll defend that the aff doesn't allow fear to be the deciding factor in what we desire. Look to Bell for more on this, "without fear, liberalism erodes as if into nothing."

9. What does the plan do?

Could you specify further?

10. Will you stand by your plan the entire round?

Yes?

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

We're in different rooms, silly.

12. How does following desire solve?

The state won't be able to ignore the citizens, rather than just going home after the weekend of our protests, we continue following until we're heard.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

The contraption is explained in the critical text under the plan text.

Yes, you say a politics of flux, a continuously changing strategy. Does this strategy have any goal or is it just follow desire?

9. What does the plan do?

Could you specify further?

You say substantially reduce military presence in Iraq. What does this mean?

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

We're in different rooms, silly.

Funny. How does it spill over from this debate. How does it convince the masses to become one with desire and change anything? Or are you just fiating everyone in the U.S. accepts your criticism?

 

12. Why is specifically removing troops from Iraq key to break down this fear of death obsession?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

The contraption is explained in the critical text under the plan text.

Yes, you say a politics of flux, a continuously changing strategy. Does this strategy have any goal or is it just follow desire?

The goal is to, with our bottom-up strategy, create change in how we relate to the government. To truly engage the political, rather than be ran over by it.

9. What does the plan do?

Could you specify further?

You say substantially reduce military presence in Iraq. What does this mean?

Ahh, gotcha. I wasn't sure which one you meant haha. Troops, infrastructure, all that jazz. We'll give you links.

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

We're in different rooms, silly.

Funny. How does it spill over from this debate. How does it convince the masses to become one with desire and change anything? Or are you just fiating everyone in the U.S. accepts your criticism?

We don't expect that everyone will instantly join our protests, we present a political strategy and defend that if given the choice, an agent should affirm our methodology. We create the mutations and escapes that our Patton evidence talks about with our critical text.

12. Why is specifically removing troops from Iraq key to break down this fear of death obsession?

It's not necessarily a death obsession, but a inability to be a part of the political scene. Removing troops from Iraq is key to engage politics in a way that is what the individual wants. Rather than letting the government overcode citizens as tolerable opposition, we engage the system and get what was wanted in the first place.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

The contraption is explained in the critical text under the plan text.

Yes, you say a politics of flux, a continuously changing strategy. Does this strategy have any goal or is it just follow desire?

The goal is to, with our bottom-up strategy, create change in how we relate to the government. To truly engage the political, rather than be ran over by it.

What does engaging the political mean though. Is it simply being aware of government politics, or is it storming into the white house and executing everyone?

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

We're in different rooms, silly.

Funny. How does it spill over from this debate. How does it convince the masses to become one with desire and change anything? Or are you just fiating everyone in the U.S. accepts your criticism?

We don't expect that everyone will instantly join our protests, we present a political strategy and defend that if given the choice, an agent should affirm our methodology. We create the mutations and escapes that our Patton evidence talks about with our critical text.

So if nobody else affirms your criticism, why should the judge vote aff?

12. Why is specifically removing troops from Iraq key to break down this fear of death obsession?

It's not necessarily a death obsession, but a inability to be a part of the political scene. Removing troops from Iraq is key to engage politics in a way that is what the individual wants. Rather than letting the government overcode citizens as tolerable opposition, we engage the system and get what was wanted in the first place.

This doesn't answer my question. Why is removing our troops from Iraq key instead of say, South Korea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7. You say we can challenge politics with a new contraption. What is that new contraption?

The contraption is explained in the critical text under the plan text.

Yes, you say a politics of flux, a continuously changing strategy. Does this strategy have any goal or is it just follow desire?

The goal is to, with our bottom-up strategy, create change in how we relate to the government. To truly engage the political, rather than be ran over by it.

What does engaging the political mean though. Is it simply being aware of government politics, or is it storming into the white house and executing everyone?

It's being able to stop those in charge from doing things that we don't from happening. Our Gilbert card talks about how nobody wanted to go to the war, and there were massive protests against it, but we still went to war. Engaging the political would mean stopping something like that from happening, rather than just giving up.

11. How does your revolution spill out from this room?

We're in different rooms, silly.

Funny. How does it spill over from this debate. How does it convince the masses to become one with desire and change anything? Or are you just fiating everyone in the U.S. accepts your criticism?

We don't expect that everyone will instantly join our protests, we present a political strategy and defend that if given the choice, an agent should affirm our methodology. We create the mutations and escapes that our Patton evidence talks about with our critical text.

So if nobody else affirms your criticism, why should the judge vote aff?

Voting it up would be affirming it. They would vote aff to agree that our methodology is the best given the situation.

12. Why is specifically removing troops from Iraq key to break down this fear of death obsession?

It's not necessarily a death obsession, but a inability to be a part of the political scene. Removing troops from Iraq is key to engage politics in a way that is what the individual wants. Rather than letting the government overcode citizens as tolerable opposition, we engage the system and get what was wanted in the first place.

This doesn't answer my question. Why is removing our troops from Iraq key instead of say, South Korea?

Look to my first response, and to the Gilbert evidence.

 

 

I may not be able to respond for a day or two, I'm taking my computer in to the shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll just post this last question any way.

How specifically do we stop the government from not doing what we want though in the future? Do you we just think and it's all better?

Edited by CRusso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, on another note, where in the Gilbert evidence does it say removal from Iraq is key?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my laptop back, sorry.

Cross-x before today ends, I have to reinstall everything, I had my laptop completely reformatted.

 

EDIT: can you cut your cards down to 2500 words?

Edited by InTheFlesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

1). If we end our advocacy statement with, "we will always defend the consequences of removing troops," what's the framework violation?

 

2). Doesn't your Shively evidence just talk about how it's good to have a starting point in terms of rules? Why is it that the negative should be able to choose the starting point?

 

3). On the CP double bind, what does our presence in these other countries have to do with not solving?

 

4). Can you define infrapolitics for me?

 

5). How can we withdraw troops from Iraq if we don't go through the necessary channels to do so? In terms of funding and the actual implementation of a withdraw.

 

6). How can your second CP claim to withdraw from Iraq, or even engage in the state, if you just basically ignore it?

 

7). In the first un-highlighted line of the second card in the second CP, doesn't it directly go against the thesis of your CP when it says, "paying close attention to political acts that are disguised or offstage helps us to map a real of possible dissent"?

 

8). If you just ignore the state, how can you pay close attention to these political acts in a way that will help lead to this dissent?

 

9). Would I be wrong to just assume condo?

 

10). How is the argument that your Zizek cards make mutually exclusive to the 1AC?

 

11). Looking to the Churchill card in the 1AC, doesn't it make similar arguments? That the radical protesters of the status quo cant effectuate change in the system?

 

12). How does simply rejecting the 1AC map on to the political?

 

13). Your second case argument, how is that responsive at all to the premise of our 1AC, if we focus on how the majority of US citizens didn't want to go to war, regardless of the situation in Iraq?

 

14). On the case turn, how does this function in this round? When did we kritik dependability on the state, rather than engagement?

 

15). How does Obama's election prove things are changing, when state politics have gone in the same direction as they were before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CX:

1). If we end our advocacy statement with, "we will always defend the consequences of removing troops," what's the framework violation?

You gain advantages and solvency outside actions of the USfg

 

2). Doesn't your Shively evidence just talk about how it's good to have a starting point in terms of rules? Why is it that the negative should be able to choose the starting point?

Yes, and our interpretation says that debating about policies passed by the USfg is the most predictable and Ignatieff, Lutz, and extra T are all other reasons why you should prefer our starting point.

 

3). On the CP double bind, what does our presence in these other countries have to do with not solving?

The fear of death mentality/state power still exists.

 

4). Can you define infrapolitics for me?

Infrapolitics of the politics of the anonymous,which focuses on our daily actions and individual protests through the masses in secrecy against the elites in power.

 

5). How can we withdraw troops from Iraq if we don't go through the necessary channels to do so? In terms of funding and the actual implementation of a withdraw.

We don't fiat that the USfg will remove troops from Iraq, our methodology is one that resists state power better than that of the affirmative and can lead to political changes.

 

 

6). How can your second CP claim to withdraw from Iraq, or even engage in the state, if you just basically ignore it?

We don't ignore it, we just don't pledge ourselves to it like the 1ac - we create resistance and understanding of state power in the world of the individuals.

 

7). In the first un-highlighted line of the second card in the second CP, doesn't it directly go against the thesis of your CP when it says, "paying close attention to political acts that are disguised or offstage helps us to map a real of possible dissent"?

I don't see how this would - it's saying that when we create this form of resistance which focuses on the political actions of the state then that creates a better method of politics.

 

8). If you just ignore the state, how can you pay close attention to these political acts in a way that will help lead to this dissent?

See above - we don't ignore the state.

 

9). Would I be wrong to just assume condo?

Haha I saw in another v-debate multiple worlds as a status. But yes, condo.

10). How is the argument that your Zizek cards make mutually exclusive to the 1AC?

Your believe that you can create this universal value of a nomadic mindset when that value is not neutral and the state is rather in control of all political movements such as the 1AC which dooms your method to failure until we reject the universality that exists.

 

11). Looking to the Churchill card in the 1AC, doesn't it make similar arguments? That the radical protesters of the status quo cant effectuate change in the system?

We're saying the way you try to change those protests is wrong.

 

12). How does simply rejecting the 1AC map on to the political?

Can you clarify? I don't understand that sentence.

 

13). Your second case argument, how is that responsive at all to the premise of our 1AC, if we focus on how the majority of US citizens didn't want to go to war, regardless of the situation in Iraq?

We're saying the USfg was justified in its actions going against the people in order to overthrow the oppressive regime of Saddam.

 

14). On the case turn, how does this function in this round? When did we kritik dependability on the state, rather than engagement?

You try to engage state power by using it which allows the state to create more behind the scenes action without changing anything.

 

15). How does Obama's election prove things are changing, when state politics have gone in the same direction as they were before?

The people were mad at Bush, they elected a new president. This shows we're moving in the right direction of a government that answers the people. And we'll argue that Obama's administration is not as oppressive as Bush's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). If we end our advocacy statement with, "we will always defend the consequences of removing troops," what's the framework violation?

You gain advantages and solvency outside actions of the USfg

So is this just an attempt to exclude critical advantages then?

 

5). How can we withdraw troops from Iraq if we don't go through the necessary channels to do so? In terms of funding and the actual implementation of a withdraw.

We don't fiat that the USfg will remove troops from Iraq, our methodology is one that resists state power better than that of the affirmative and can lead to political changes.

Considering that your net benefit is based of fear of what possibly could happen, how can you claim to solve for the case?

 

7). In the first un-highlighted line of the second card in the second CP, doesn't it directly go against the thesis of your CP when it says, "paying close attention to political acts that are disguised or offstage helps us to map a real of possible dissent"?

I don't see how this would - it's saying that when we create this form of resistance which focuses on the political actions of the state then that creates a better method of politics.

What does the world of the CP look like in comparison to the aff? I think I'm just missing something about it.

 

9). Would I be wrong to just assume condo?

Haha I saw in another v-debate multiple worlds as a status. But yes, condo.

I'm a stupid novice, cut me some slack:P

 

10). How is the argument that your Zizek cards make mutually exclusive to the 1AC?

Your believe that you can create this universal value of a nomadic mindset when that value is not neutral and the state is rather in control of all political movements such as the 1AC which dooms your method to failure until we reject the universality that exists.

How do you reject this, "universality"? What specifically are you talking about?

 

11). Looking to the Churchill card in the 1AC, doesn't it make similar arguments? That the radical protesters of the status quo cant effectuate change in the system?

We're saying the way you try to change those protests is wrong.

Specifically, why? Doesn't this then conflict with your CPs?

 

12). How does simply rejecting the 1AC map on to the political?

Can you clarify? I don't understand that sentence.

Through the reject alt, how does the kritik solve case?

 

15). How does Obama's election prove things are changing, when state politics have gone in the same direction as they were before?

The people were mad at Bush, they elected a new president. This shows we're moving in the right direction of a government that answers the people. And we'll argue that Obama's administration is not as oppressive as Bush's.

So even though Obama has sent more troops into the Middle East things are improving? If the policies of the two administrations are essentially the same, isn't Obama's election just, "symbolic comfort," as talked about in the 1AC Churchill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1). If we end our advocacy statement with, "we will always defend the consequences of removing troops," what's the framework violation?

You gain advantages and solvency outside actions of the USfg

So is this just an attempt to exclude critical advantages then?

No...? Just critical advantages that are stemmed off something other than action than the USfg.

 

5). How can we withdraw troops from Iraq if we don't go through the necessary channels to do so? In terms of funding and the actual implementation of a withdraw.

We don't fiat that the USfg will remove troops from Iraq, our methodology is one that resists state power better than that of the affirmative and can lead to political changes.

Considering that your net benefit is based of fear of what possibly could happen, how can you claim to solve for the case?

Your evidence is talking about how we engage the state, it doesn't mention anything about fear of death. We can engage the state and become aware of politics and still prevent death.

 

7). In the first un-highlighted line of the second card in the second CP, doesn't it directly go against the thesis of your CP when it says, "paying close attention to political acts that are disguised or offstage helps us to map a real of possible dissent"?

I don't see how this would - it's saying that when we create this form of resistance which focuses on the political actions of the state then that creates a better method of politics.

What does the world of the CP look like in comparison to the aff? I think I'm just missing something about it.

We would social resistance indirectly rejecting state politics - Bleiker talks about how bathroom graffiti is an example of how the power of the unknown can slowly change state power through personal resistance as opposed to your affirmative which uses the USfg to compromise and create equality in politics.

 

9). Would I be wrong to just assume condo?

Haha I saw in another v-debate multiple worlds as a status. But yes, condo.

I'm a stupid novice, cut me some slack:P

No this was another round, I don't believe it was yours, I just thought it was funny. You're fine.

 

10). How is the argument that your Zizek cards make mutually exclusive to the 1AC?

Your believe that you can create this universal value of a nomadic mindset when that value is not neutral and the state is rather in control of all political movements such as the 1AC which dooms your method to failure until we reject the universality that exists.

How do you reject this, "universality"? What specifically are you talking about?

We reject the assumption that the 1AC makes that modern politics is universal and can be changed by your radical politics, and by realizing this, we can allow for true universalism which can begin political action.

 

11). Looking to the Churchill card in the 1AC, doesn't it make similar arguments? That the radical protesters of the status quo cant effectuate change in the system?

We're saying the way you try to change those protests is wrong.

Specifically, why? Doesn't this then conflict with your CPs?

First, CPs are condo, second we're saying that you believe that you can change the political sphere my your schizophrenic view of thinking, when true state power prevents any change your criticism can accomplish. Our argument is only when we realize that it is impossible to change this concrete structure can we begin true change.

 

12). How does simply rejecting the 1AC map on to the political?

Can you clarify? I don't understand that sentence.

Through the reject alt, how does the kritik solve case?

It will allow us to create the framework for a new method of thinking.

 

15). How does Obama's election prove things are changing, when state politics have gone in the same direction as they were before?

The people were mad at Bush, they elected a new president. This shows we're moving in the right direction of a government that answers the people. And we'll argue that Obama's administration is not as oppressive as Bush's.

So even though Obama has sent more troops into the Middle East things are improving? If the policies of the two administrations are essentially the same, isn't Obama's election just, "symbolic comfort," as talked about in the 1AC Churchill?

No. Your argument is focusing on what people want, and the people wanted Obama, they elected him. That's gotta mean something. Even if it isn't much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I just have a few more based off 10 for clarification.

What exactly is, "true universalism"?

 

How do we view politics as universal?

 

If modern politics isn't universal, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, I just have a few more based off 10 for clarification.

What exactly is, "true universalism"?

A new moral law that both the 1ac and 1nc advocate in achieving.

How do we view politics as universal?

Zizek believes that through two forms of negation, we can overcome modern political oppression. The first form of negation is similar to the 1AC. The 2nd however, rejects the form of state power even though it is a huge part of our lives, and this leaving within the system can break down the system.

If modern politics isn't universal, what is it?

Both the 1AC and 1NC believe modern politics is a one-sided instrument that the state controls for its own interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&G protest aff? Sounds like the kind of round I'd love to judge. Paradigm:

T- I don't like it when T is read on a plan that's clearly topical, but we all do it anyway. If you want me to vote on it then you need to spend a lot of time on it and provide a crystal clear reason why there is in-round abuse or an equally clear and well-warranted reason why in-round abuse is a bad standard, backed up with a solid potential abuse story. My threshold is pretty high on this.

 

Other theory- I hate theory debates because every round I've been in or seen it was just two ships passing in the dark. There should be a very, VERY good reason as to how there was abuse and why this abuse mattered in the end. Like T, providing reasons why in-round abuse is a bad standard and providing a great potential abuse story will also make me vote, but also like T I prefer to not vote on theory.

 

DAs- I'm good with anything here, it's the bread-and-butter of a straight-up policy strat. Just make sure you win each part of the DA clearly and give a good reason why it outweighs, and preferably turns case.

 

CPs- if they're competitive and their impacts (whether they solve more than case or if they're combined with something on case that makes an advantage irrelevant or beneficial to the neg) then I'll vote on it. Again, I'm just looking for a clear story, preferably line-by-line, of why you're winning each essential part of the CP.

 

Framework- my least favorite debate of all time because most of the time they're either non-responsive generic blocks or just not true. However, providing a well-warranted reason why your framework is best for debate or for the individuals in the debate will make me lean your way. If it's framework against a K, I won't vote on that alone if you're winning it on the aff- you need to have some offensive reason why I should vote aff or I will vote neg on presumption. If you're winning framework on the neg against a weird K aff, clearly winning this argument can give you the round depending on what the 1AR is. Just make this story extremely clear and know that if you want me to vote on it you're going to have to go all-in, just like any other theory.

 

Case- probably the most vanilla debate, but if the aff is left with no reasons to pass the plan I'll vote neg, the same goes with conceded case turns independent of other arguments. Just make it clear in the 2NR that they either don't solve case or they worsen case and I'll vote neg. Similarly, every 2AR should have a little case at the very least so that I'm left with a reason to not just reject the neg but an incentive to pass the plan (unless you're going 5 minutes on theory or, God forbid, T is a reverse voter).

 

K- I saved the best for last. I like K debates generally, but don't expect me to want to vote on it more than other arguments. I will probably understand your K (yes, probably even your "standard" D&G) but that's no reason to not be clear with your story or to have a clear overview/explanation of what exactly the aff does that's bad. In my mind, you need to win a few key things to win on a K. First, you need to win any theory on the K, including framework. If you don't win this, it's probably game over if you go all-in on the K. You also need to win a clear link, hopefully it was conceded either in a speech or in cross-x but if it wasn't you need a clear explanation of why anything they say in terms of a no-link argument isn't true. You also need to win an impact (preferably, an impact that turns case plus an additional impact independent of this case turn) and that your alt solves. You need to be particularly careful of perms, if there's any chance that they're not mutually exclusive I won't vote on the K so this is something you need to shut down in the 2NR.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...