Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheHempKid

Round 386: [MILITARY] Stuffdmonkey (Aff) vs. Thehempkid (Neg)

Recommended Posts

1. I understand you don't defend fiat, but do you advocate the United States federal government taking the action described in your advocacy text?

 

2. Why do you capitalize "Militarized" in your advocacy text?

 

3. Your advocacy lets us "see" violence for how it really is, what does this do for the people who are suffering from violence?

 

4. What specific instances or examples of violence does your 1ac orient itself towards? Is it just the violence that drones are doing to foreign civilians overseas?

 

5. "The policy norm is one that privileges objectivity, body counts, and cost-benefit analysis over ethics, empathy and human casualties"

Aren't human casualties the same thing as body count?

 

6. How does your 1ac interact with the visibility of violence?

 

7. Why does advocating that the United States Federal Government do the plan change our relationship with violence?

 

8. Can you explain your cite 3, specifically the part where the author talks about "objects"?

 

9. What/who is uncle Sam?

 

10. “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember all that I am offering is the truth. Nothing more”

 

Can you explain the above quote and its relationship with your advocacy?

 

 

 

I like the way you formatted the 1ac, like with the citation page and stuff. Very cool. Probably going to be a few more follow-up questions later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I understand you don't defend fiat, but do you advocate the United States federal government taking the action described in your advocacy text?

 

I will defend that if the US were to stop using militarized drones from the topic countries it would be good.

 

2. Why do you capitalize "Militarized" in your advocacy text?

 

No reason, it just refers to the drones that are equiped to kill.

 

3. Your advocacy lets us "see" violence for how it really is, what does this do for the people who are suffering from violence?

 

Its not a question of what it does for others, or even what "change" it can bring, its a question of what ontological framing is better when we approach systems of violence and oppression, our framing actually allows us to confront violence or oppression at an individual level. From the view of the oppressed i would argue there is no distinction, it allows each person to see and think from their subject location without intereference or distancing.

 

4. What specific instances or examples of violence does your 1ac orient itself towards? Is it just the violence that drones are doing to foreign civilians overseas?

 

Foreign and domestic, people are being killed by hellfire missles abroad, and people die here because we are able to distance ourselves from them and make them some "other" we'll defend that the way individuals distance themselves from situations and ethics opens the only door for violence to occur.

 

5. "The policy norm is one that privileges objectivity, body counts, and cost-benefit analysis over ethics, empathy and human casualties"

Aren't human casualties the same thing as body count?

 

No, body counts refer to the military analysis of our people who have died, human casualties are the real human ramifications of actions, in the case of drones it is the women and children who are killed every day but ignored, human casualties also refers to the ramifications that arent death, i.e. the people who have their limbs blown off, or their entire body coveredin 3rd degree burns.

6. How does your 1ac interact with the visibility of violence?

 

What do you mean?

 

7. Why does advocating that the United States Federal Government do the plan change our relationship with violence?

 

its a question of how we approach, do we take faith in the "almighty" "savior" of the government, or do we make changes and decisions at the individual level. we think discussions of what the government should do trades off with discussions of what we as individuals should do.

 

8. Can you explain your cite 3, specifically the part where the author talks about "objects"?

 

The evidence speaks to the way that drones create war to be pixalated and unreal, that drone operators dont see people they see targets, they dont see cities, they see coordinates, removing any humanity from those we are killing making violence easier and killing totally acceptable.

 

9. What/who is uncle Sam?

 

Its a metaphor for the US government

 

10. “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember all that I am offering is the truth. Nothing more”

 

Can you explain the above quote and its relationship with your advocacy?

 

Drones are the forefront of militarized technology in the media, and they represent a whole new level of violence. We think that the ballot represents a choice between two competing views, one that rejects distancing, and one that the negative will bring up, we argue that rejecting distancing is necessary to deconstruct the false reality and relation to the world that has been created and perpetuated by "typical" policy discussions

 

 

 

I like the way you formatted the 1ac, like with the citation page and stuff. Very cool. Probably going to be a few more follow-up questions later.

 

Awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna keep to the original order of my questions.

 

1. What specific "good" effects would this action have?

 

3. In the context of your advocacy, and drones specifically, who are the oppressed?

 

4. Give me an example of how someone could die "here" because of distancing from others "abroad"

 

6. Sorry this one was a little vague, after reading your 1ac it seemed like you were making points about how violence is less "real" when we see it from the other side of a computer screen, this is obviously a question of the way that we visualize violence. How does your advocacy approach the question of this visibility?

 

7. If this is true then why do you advocate USFG action as a "good" idea, as per question 1.

 

9. Why did you choose a metaphor that represented the government as masculine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just gonna keep to the original order of my questions.

 

1. What specific "good" effects would this action have?

 

i dont know. the 1 ac takes the stance that drones are bad, we defedn taht ending that is good.

 

3. In the context of your advocacy, and drones specifically, who are the oppressed?

 

Probably a large group of people, alot are unknown because of the secrecy of the military.

 

4. Give me an example of how someone could die "here" because of distancing from others "abroad"

 

Distancing doesnt just happen abroad. Distancing is an ontological framing, used both in out there, and domestically

 

6. Sorry this one was a little vague, after reading your 1ac it seemed like you were making points about how violence is less "real" when we see it from the other side of a computer screen, this is obviously a question of the way that we visualize violence. How does your advocacy approach the question of this visibility?

 

We think that distancing ourselves from violence, whether through a video screen or through our own thought processes is bad because it makes violence easy

 

7. If this is true then why do you advocate USFG action as a "good" idea, as per question 1.

 

We aknowledge that it would be good, but we think the debate should be more about what we as individuals should do in confronting violence

 

9. Why did you choose a metaphor that represented the government as masculine?

 

Because we criticze the masculine calculation that the US uses in drones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably gonna be the last round of questions.

 

3. Give me an example of how distancing happens here, and how it does violence to people here.

 

9. I'm gonna need to expand on this question...

 

A. Indicate where specifically in the 1ac you criticize masculinity.

 

B. What about calculation is masculine?

 

C. At any point in this debate will you claim advantages off of this criticism of masculinity?

 

New question: Does your advocacy have to be topical under the resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably gonna be the last round of questions.

 

3. Give me an example of how distancing happens here, and how it does violence to people here.

 

People psychologically distance themselves from undocumented immigrants in order to justify the massive levels of police brutality as well as death from preventable diseases.

 

9. I'm gonna need to expand on this question...

 

A. Indicate where specifically in the 1ac you criticize masculinity.

 

We criticize the way the government acts, in a masculine fashion desiring strong quick and violent answers to questions rather then any other form of consideration

 

B. What about calculation is masculine?

 

Certain words and concepts are epistamologically coded in international relations, calcualtion becomes the masculine attempt ot forgoe emotion in the decision making process

 

C. At any point in this debate will you claim advantages off of this criticism of masculinity?

 

If you read fem, we will probably agree with you, but the primary criticism in the 1 ac does not claim advantages from criticizing masculinity

 

New question: Does your advocacy have to be topical under the resolution?

 

to that i respond what is topical.

 

in all seriousness though we criticize the tendency for debates to devolve into theoretical T debates missing any in depth discussion on ideas, and destroying any point of changing topics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, that's all I need. This is my first vdebate, would you mind explaining how to get mediafire working?

 

First you need to get an account with them, which is pretty simple. Just click the sign up button and fill it all out.

 

Then you go back to mediafire and click upload, then choose the file that you want to post. It will let you do so then you copy the link and paste it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON CHOW

What does it mean to intelectualize someone

So we should exile ourselves form the community?

Then why do you debate?

 

ON MANN

1. So is the first Mann card a criticism of criticisms staying in one static position?

2. What is the "Master Text"

3. What is inherently bad about a "position"

4. What stops us from being able to embrace multiple "positions"

5. Explain what your UC Berkley card is about

6. So your alternative is based on the idea of being able to move from place to place idea to idea correct?

7. If that is true, what does yoru alternative do about ethics, i.e. are there certian isntances in your alt where we would throw away ethics like rejecting distancing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ON CHOW

What does it mean to intelectualize someone

Spurr says that intellectualization occurs when Western thinkers define "Others" based on their relationship to Western power. This occurs in the 1ac when you construct the "Other" as the victim of violence perpetuated by the drone. In other words, you create a vision of the status quo that situates the West as the oppressor, the colonizer, the imperialist. Chow explains why this is problematic. The other aspect of intellectualization is that when we construct "others" as victims of violence we inevitably widen the distance between us and them, making it harder for true empathy to occur, that's why the K turns your distancing advantage.

 

So we should exile ourselves form the community?

There's an important distinction here, we aren't advocating exile from the community, rather, exile from the modes of academic thought that take root in the intellectualized gaze. We think that debate, and our community, will be a better place if we stop focusing on "others" as subjects of domination. We think that this epistemic orientation is problematic because it inevitably widens the gap between us and them.

 

Then why do you debate?

This isn't a criticism of debate, just the way you framed your advocacy. We are not advocating exile from the community, just the negative modes of thought that prevail within it.

 

 

ON MANN

1. So is the first Mann card a criticism of criticisms staying in one static position?

No, the first Mann card is critical of the way academics entrench themselves in a singular advocacy because it is either the norm, or the accepted strategy.

 

2. What is the "Master Text"

The master text is just the singular position you are willingly enslaved by. The term "master text" invokes a master-slave relationship between the critic and the ideology you have bound yourself to. Mann discusses the way in which this relationship is fundamentally erotic, but also violent, as the critic is deprived of any actual revolutionary potential in utter subservience to the master text. Mann discusses that the sickly convergence of these dual aspects of the relationship -eros (love) and thanatos (death) is the very masochistic nature of criticism.

 

3. What is inherently bad about a "position"

Nothing, our argument is just that when we are attempting to be revolutionary, or resistant, we need to adopt a unique tactical stance to combat the system. Our argument is that a defined, and visible strategy is useless when compared to an invisible and nomadic set of tactics.

 

4. What stops us from being able to embrace multiple "positions"

Not really sure what you mean by this, but if you're talking in the context of the 1ac, it would be your presentation of the advocacy as an indefinite and irretrievable course of action. This is uniquely evident in the Matrix quote you present, where you quote, "there is no turning back." Our argument is just that we should have the ability to turn back if the prescriptions you outline don't work out the way you thought they would.

 

5. Explain what your UC Berkley card is about

This card makes two arguments:

First, it discusses the University of California, and how it controls and manages revolutionary potential by using it as a symbolic opposition. This act makes the system itself appear more coherent and positive than it really is. Your plan text is a mask for the violence that could possibly continue if it everything doesn't go according to plan.

 

Second, the card talks about how institutions that consistently espouse discourse of reform and positivity shut out the potential for radicality and nihilism, two ingredients necessary to a true revolutionary stance.

 

6. So your alternative is based on the idea of being able to move from place to place idea to idea correct?

Kind of, we just think that the 1ac is a better presentation without the plan. We don't put forth an alternative in the traditional sense, because that would engage in the same strategic thinking that the 1ac does, instead we propose a tactics of stealth bombing.

 

7. If that is true, what does yoru alternative do about ethics, i.e. are there certian isntances in your alt where we would throw away ethics like

rejecting distancing?

I'm a little confused by this question. We think that we can still reject distance without the plan text, in fact, none of the other representations in your 1ac demand a static advocacy.

Any ETA on the 2ac?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey. I'm gonna need to postpone till this weekend, I've got a ton of shit that I didn't expect would come up. Sorry for the delay but there's no real way around it :/. On the other hand it might actually give us some time to get judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey. I'm gonna need to postpone till this weekend, I've got a ton of shit that I didn't expect would come up. Sorry for the delay but there's no real way around it :/. On the other hand it might actually give us some time to get judges.

 

Bump. Are you planning to finish this round?

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...