Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
holyfudge

Colo Kritik for 2011-2012

Recommended Posts

So, for a few weeks now, after I heard this year's resolution, I've had the stirrings of an idea for a kritik.

 

The kritik will basically pertain mainly to teams running colonization affirmatives. The kritik will have the general idea of: "Aff's use of colonization rhetoric is the root cause of the systematic environmental impacts advocated in their Aff."

 

So essentially, Aff keeps talking about Earth being disposable through all this "colonizing-Mars-talk." This rhetoric leads to the mindset (real-world impacts) that we can dispose of this planet. Leads to extinction? Solve root cause of impacts through the ballot.

 

But I, unfortunately, have a few problems.

1) The K needs a name.

2) I have no idea where to find evidence on this. Does anyone know any authors that sound like something along these lines?

 

Thanks!

 

P.S. This Kritik may be already as common and as well-known as...duct tape already, so just tell me if this idea has been circulated on the interwebs :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is this may yield an impact turn debate:

 

1) going to space/colonization key to saving the earth's environment

2) tech solves the environment

3) econ key to solving the environment

4) attempts to preserve pristine environment = totalitarianism

5) attempts to preserve pristine environment = paradoxically destroy the environment (or the environment bounces back--aka Gaia)

6) External impacts (tie brakers)--tech/science/space/economy key to solve

7) External impacts (tie brakers)--hegemony good/realism good (if they solve violence, they can access the environment)

8) malthus arguments bad (various flavors) & anti-technology arguments = bad stuff

 

Also, its very much about your alternative is. You can also try to fend off impact turns with clarifications of what the alternative is.

Ultimately, you'll probably have to answer the above--although most teams will probably only get out 3 or 4 of the impact scenarios.

 

Learn how to debate this & you learn much of the core of the topic in terms of Ks:

Arguably most of the debate on the eco or tech Ks on the topic will probably be pretty similar.

 

Links to everything. You should be able to run this K versus every aff.

1) 20% will probably run colonialism as an add-on

2) most of the space good arguments make similar assumptions about. If their aff plan doesn't link--their evidence or the assumptions of their evidence will.

 

Here's an a semi-interesting question: The aff might make the arg. that private space is inevitable or that militarized space by other countries are inevitable--the question remains how does your alternative interact with those inevitability. How can it solve them? (ie what agents adopt the alternative).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about this, but my primary instinct would be Heidegger's stuff on how leaving the Earth will just make it a standing reserve for resources, I'm sure you could spin that to disposibility.

Then you could read a biopolitics add-on (disposibility is biopolitics, then read an impact) and you could probably use Bookchin as an impact pertaining to humans outside of the pure environmental impact (this card says that the politics of disposibility of the environment spills over into relations with humans, making nuclear war inevitable).

 

As for the name, does it really matter? My instinct would be "Kritik of Colonial Environmentalism" but it's just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The K is very nonunique and the alternative can't solve other instances of colonization rhetoric. I don't see how this can win rounds.

 

As for the name: call it The Disposable Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the "other rounds" arg links to every k evar......

 

It becomes a role of the ballot, when we approach policy decisions what ontological framing should we have?

 

The k would obviously argue that the affirmatives colonization rhetoric is bad just like teams that read security this year would argue that security discourse is bad, they just have to win that the affirmatives ontological framing is bad and should be rejected. Granted they also have to win that policy first frameworks are bad, but thats true of any k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely Chaos is joking:

 

The K is very nonunique and the alternative can't solve other instances of colonization rhetoric. I don't see how this can win rounds.

 

As a representations K, I don't see as much what the issue is. This sort of mentality leads to you're doing bad things to me--therefore its ok/legitimate to do bad things. Its also part & parcel of the logic that the K takes issue with (the inevitability of technology--aka Manifest Destiny)

 

PS. Disposable Earth & Manifest Destiny both make decent names. I think I like disposable earth just a little bit more. I think I would theme the K toward the issue of escapism--because I think it suggests a cycle of behavior which will likely re-create itself in space (ie waste of resources & trashing & domination of ET if he/she/it exists).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the alternative doesn't solve other instances of colonization rhetoric it will not change the mindsets that are destroying the Earth in the status quo. There's no significant spill over from a debate round to the scientific community in general.

 

I'll retract my previous statement, this K will win debates, but it probably shouldn't because of the reason above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the alternative doesn't solve other instances of colonization rhetoric it will not change the mindsets that are destroying the Earth in the status quo. There's no significant spill over from a debate round to the scientific community in general..

 

...but that's not responsive to the k. like, not at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but that's not responsive to the k. like, not at all.

 

this. There's a reason this argument doesn't win very many rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Chaos has a good point. Are you saying that he's wrong, or just that it doesn't matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the alternative doesn't solve other instances of colonization rhetoric it will not change the mindsets that are destroying the Earth in the status quo. There's no significant spill over from a debate round to the scientific community in general.

 

I'll retract my previous statement, this K will win debates, but it probably shouldn't because of the reason above.

 

How is that any different from any other critique?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is this may yield an impact turn debate:

 

2) tech solves the environment

3) econ key to solving the environment

4) attempts to preserve pristine environment = totalitarianism

6) External impacts (tie brakers)--tech/science/space/economy key to solve

7) External impacts (tie brakers)--hegemony good/realism good (if they solve violence, they can access the environment)

8) malthus arguments bad (various flavors) & anti-technology arguments = bad stuff

 

I don't understand how any of these are "impact turns". The thesis of the K does not seem to be "technology bad" or "economic growth bad" (it's not dedev...). Logically, the argument that "technology solves the environment" does not seem to be responsive to the argument that "discursively representing the earth as disposable is bad". I can't see any logical reason why hegemony good is an answer as well. There is also no link to "malthus bad" arguments. An impact turn to this K needs to be "representing the earth as disposable is good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Chaos has a good point. Are you saying that he's wrong, or just that it doesn't matter?

 

Both. The alt creates uniqueness for the K - when the judge votes neg they don't vote necessarily to "do the alt" but they vote to endorse a world where the alt has already been enacted or to endorse the world of the alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Chaos has a good point. Are you saying that he's wrong, or just that it doesn't matter?

 

The criticism is of the way the affirmative represents the world. There are two general reasons why "alt doesn't solve other instances" isn't a good response. The first is a generic framework argument, and is usually articulated as such: "You wouldn't give a team a pass for using sexist or racist language, so you shouldn't either for this sort of harmful rhetoric." The premise is that the words we use matter and shape real-world policy by shaping the way we view the world. The second argument is that even without an alternative, the K demonstrates that the affirmative makes the world worse in some way, even if it is only marginally, and thus should be voted down. A third argument that is tangentially related would be that because the affirmative misidentifies the cause of their harms, they won't be able to solve and thus fail to meet stock issue burdens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea isn't a K. There's no strategic advantage to having an alt, or an external impact. This is really just a methodological solvency argument. You would be better off reading a different K (cap, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Fear of Death, etc) and then making this argument in the block. It'll help illustrate the link as well as let you weigh your impacts and alt more heavily against the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is what this argument comes down to: you can either confirm or deny the exist of neiztche and you can either affirm or deny the existence of the pragmatic and dogmatic progressive epistemologies. If you do predicate the argument on the aforementioned ideas then you gain a paradoxical and quintessential affirmative case. Furthermore, the underlying belly of this argument all revolves around the ontological miscues committed by the 20th century philosophers: primarily Heidegger and Zizek.

Interesting point but I think you are mistaken. If we take Being as our starting point for corporeal politics and construct an epistemology not centered exclusively on the subaltern but instead on the divergence between understanding and exploratory thinking then it is indeed possible to 'bridge the lack' if you will, of anti-nuclear-nuclearism and emerge with a new form of Foucauldian ethics of the self that are both life affirming and progressively changing that allow for individual exceptionalism and a form of neopets.com that allows for 4chan.org to suck my dick.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how any of these are "impact turns". The thesis of the K does not seem to be "technology bad" or "economic growth bad" (it's not dedev...). Logically, the argument that "technology solves the environment" does not seem to be responsive to the argument that "discursively representing the earth as disposable is bad". I can't see any logical reason why hegemony good is an answer as well. There is also no link to "malthus bad" arguments. An impact turn to this K needs to be "representing the earth as disposable is good".

 

Admittedly not all versions of the K will speak to the above issues. Some versions of this K might have malthusian overtones/rhetoric--but the great majority probably won't apply.

 

How to you get the impact turns. The reps don't exist in a vacuum--they do things:

1) I think the impact turns answer a prior question. Are the reps good? How to they function in the real world.

2) The end result of many of the alts for this kind of K--even if not explicitly in the text.

 

Also, the hegemony arguments are probably far more applicable across a range of these types of Ks than some of the other arguments.

 

Further, space solves scarcity, which is the root cause of the argument & all their scenarios.

 

I'm curious how the space = oneness (& peace/less conflict) debate will go down.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...