Jump to content
Blank

Round 390: [MILITARY] TheHempKid (aff) vs. Blank (neg)

Recommended Posts

1. So... affirming the plan does what? :P

 

2. What's the "impact" to this Psychological Distancing?

 

3. Is Uncle Sam a pretty nice person WITHOUT the... er, XBOMB?

 

4. So... uh. People dying and we feel nothing versus People dying and we feel bad but don't stop. Why is the former worse? (Unless you don't advocate that the former is worse, then just please explain the thesis of your argument to me... xP)

 

5. So, why do your impacts matter so much? D;

 

6. How do you define the areas of Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait and Turkey? x3

 

EDIT: Uncle Sam is just one guy... correct?

Edited by Blank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. So... affirming the plan does what? :P

 

Its an affirmation of our relation to violence via the resolution.

 

2. What's the "impact" to this Psychological Distancing?

 

It makes any violence possible. Gregory indicates that in context of drones it creates an optical detatchment where drone operators no longer beleive they are firing at people but instead are firing at "targets," it essentially allows for dehuminization to occur to whomever we like and erases any sense of emotion or human consideration from entering into decision calc which makes any form of violence possible.

 

3. Is Uncle Sam a pretty nice person WITHOUT the... er, XBOMB?

 

I mean im sure he isnt completely evil all of the time, just like drone operators arent satan incarnate. Rather it is the relation and ontological framing that occurs in a distancing mindset that is bad and can lead even good people to do terrible things like when drone operators kill civilians will anti-tank hellfire missles.

 

4. So... uh. People dying and we feel nothing versus People dying and we feel bad but don't stop. Why is the former worse? (Unless you don't advocate that the former is worse, then just please explain the thesis of your argument to me... xP)

 

We do stop it, thats why we advocate the US eliminating the us of its Militarized drones in the topic countries. Its also larger then that, we argue that absent an ontological framing that allows us to distance ourselves from other individuals violence becomes almost unimaginable and things like diplomacy or working together become the choice that we choose.

 

5. So, why do your impacts matter so much? D;

 

A. This probably links to our criticism of debate where things like "civilian casualities" "dont matter" in comparison to giant nuclear war scenarios. We'll defend the death of civilians is morally problematic and should precede giant impacts.

B. As i explained above distancing is the ontological precondition for violence because it allows us to dehumanize and deface the enemy reducing them to less then animals, to blips on a screen. Its just like how people never feel bad when they kill people on call of duty.

 

6. How do you define the areas of Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait and Turkey? x3

 

A. word pics are dumb

B. We dont, the people inside of those borders do.

 

EDIT: Uncle Sam is just one guy... correct?

 

In context of the story in the 1 AC yeah we just describe one guy, but in context of debate and policy making as well as drone operators as a whole the metaphor contains alot more about the way the state, drone operators, other troops, and debaters have come to relate to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind that I changed the number of this round. There was some confusion in the round numbering, and Round 390 was skipped in the process. I figured this would be a much easier fix than having to go back and edit the round names of five other rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you don't mind that I changed the number of this round. There was some confusion in the round numbering, and Round 390 was skipped in the process. I figured this would be a much easier fix than having to go back and edit the round names of five other rounds.

 

Totally chill dude.

 

Thanks for taking care of it, we appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do stop it, thats why we advocate the US eliminating the us of its Militarized drones in the topic countries. Its also larger then that, we argue that absent an ontological framing that allows us to distance ourselves from other individuals violence becomes almost unimaginable and things like diplomacy or working together become the choice that we choose.

 

So, you'll advocate that distancing has been the cause of every war? [or, at least, in every war there was some sort of psychological distancing that made it possible]

 

Also, could you answer this question again please? I don't think you answered it. ^^;

 

People dying and we feel nothing versus People dying and we feel bad but don't stop. Why is the former worse? (Unless you don't advocate that the former is worse, then just please explain the thesis of your argument to me... xP)

Edited by Blank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do stop it, thats why we advocate the US eliminating the us of its Militarized drones in the topic countries. Its also larger then that, we argue that absent an ontological framing that allows us to distance ourselves from other individuals violence becomes almost unimaginable and things like diplomacy or working together become the choice that we choose.

 

So, you'll advocate that distancing has been the cause of every war? [or, at least, in every war there was some sort of psychological distancing that made it possible]

 

Distancing is an ontological precondition for violence. We'll defend that forms of psychological distancing have been tools in every war as a means to make violence easier.

 

Also, could you answer this question again please? I don't think you answered it. ^^;

 

People dying and we feel nothing versus People dying and we feel bad but don't stop. Why is the former worse? (Unless you don't advocate that the former is worse, then just please explain the thesis of your argument to me... xP)

 

Im not sure what you are asking, the part you copy and paste from above was my original answer.

 

If your looking for a "how we solve" argument then you missed the 1 AC - its not a question of what this round can do to end drone strikes rather it is the interogation of hte personal relationship to violecne that is necessary before political action can take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K, sorry, the questions were [hopefully this is more clear x3]

 

a) So, is Psychological distancing the cause of every war... ever?

 

B) Why is it so bad to have people not caring about destroying people with drones... if even without drones, people see the horrors of war, but don't stop fighting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K, sorry, the questions were [hopefully this is more clear x3]

 

a) So, is Psychological distancing the cause of every war... ever?

 

I mean there are thousands of didfferent things that have caused wars, however the only reason that wars became and continue to be so violent is because peoples ontolgically distance themselves from their "enemies"

 

B) Why is it so bad to have people not caring about destroying people with drones... if even without drones, people see the horrors of war, but don't stop fighting?

 

We argue that a rejection of distancing allows for us to stop war and violence. Also, the 1 AC poitns out how the only reason wars and violence still occur is that ontological distancing. Yes voting aff might not end all wars ever, but the ballot just represetns a choice between two relations to violence, if we win that rejecting distancing stops violence then we win the better relation to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Distancing is an ontological precondition for violence. We'll defend that forms of psychological distancing have been tools in every war as a means to make violence easier.

 

K, could you give me some examples of pre-drone ontological distancing in wars plox? ^..^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Distancing is an ontological precondition for violence. We'll defend that forms of psychological distancing have been tools in every war as a means to make violence easier.

 

K, could you give me some examples of pre-drone ontological distancing in wars plox? ^..^

 

The way that we used words like "gook" or "jap" in order to dehumanize the enemy so we didnt feel bad about killing them. The way we were conditioned to think of killing in terms of "missions" and "targets" in order to place objectivity into the picture. The way we convinced ourselves we were so different from the: Nazis, Communists, Savages, Terrorists, extremeists, warlords, dictators, militarist regimes etc. in order to justify war against them to put us back on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way that we used words like "gook" or "jap" in order to dehumanize the enemy so we didnt feel bad about killing them. The way we were conditioned to think of killing in terms of "missions" and "targets" in order to place objectivity into the picture. The way we convinced ourselves we were so different from the: Nazis, Communists, Savages, Terrorists, extremeists, warlords, dictators, militarist regimes etc. in order to justify war against them to put us back on top.

 

So, are drones, "gook", "jap", missions and targets, etc. all "created" with the purpose of dehumanization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way that we used words like "gook" or "jap" in order to dehumanize the enemy so we didnt feel bad about killing them. The way we were conditioned to think of killing in terms of "missions" and "targets" in order to place objectivity into the picture. The way we convinced ourselves we were so different from the: Nazis, Communists, Savages, Terrorists, extremeists, warlords, dictators, militarist regimes etc. in order to justify war against them to put us back on top.

 

So, are drones, "gook", "jap", missions and targets, etc. all "created" with the purpose of dehumanization?

 

Drones are created in the attempt to make war more "clean" and "safe," words are created to distance and dehumanize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... your metaphor of "Uncle Sam"... The whole thing about him being glued to the TV screen, not doing anything else. Was that just description, or does that mean something in the context of the rest of your 1AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... your metaphor of "Uncle Sam"... The whole thing about him being glued to the TV screen, not doing anything else. Was that just description, or does that mean something in the context of the rest of your 1AC?

 

Not really sure what your question is at all.

 

We've had a ton of CX questions can i have a 1NC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the question makes no sense. ._. Sorry.

 

1NC's up, 3 off.

 

Uh, the first K applies to Contention 3, the second one applies to Contention 2 / 1, and ASPEC is just... yeah. ;^;

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?867v8fq5la261zx

 

As far as the first K

1. Whats the link?

2. What is "creative immanence"

 

Second K

1. What is the thesis to this arg

2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes?

3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones

4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex.

5. How does the aff not try to make peace?

6. How do we make the "US a zombie to drones"

7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting out against other motivations for war?

8. What are the "other motivations" for war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if my answers are too short / I misunderstood, I'm really tired ATM D:

 

First K

 

1. Whats the link?

Uh. You antagonize a form of debate. Basically the second part of the 1AC envisions debate as a battle between the traditional, "OMG EVERYTHING NUEK WURR AAAAH" debate and another form of debate (presumably one that is more helpful in the real world, and is less of a game), and this destroys creative immanence.

 

 

2. What is "creative immanence"

K, basically what we mean by creative immanence is that every truth claim of the 1AC only makes sense because of its entanglement in a creative "flow" with its opposites. This "flow" is what we call creative immanence.

 

Second K

 

1. What is the thesis to this arg

K, so the 1AC antagonizes the drones rather than the people that made the drones. The 1AC sees the weapons as the problem, and they fail to see that the real problem is the people committing violence. Drones don't kill people, people do. Just like the term "Nazi", drones were created by the people IN ORDER to create ontological distancing.

 

2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes?

We'll defend that you make drones seem like flesh-eating demon spawn without really holding people to blame for making said flesh-eating demon spawn. I feel kinda bad for Uncle Sam. :[

 

3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones

Though the card is contextualized towards nukes, if you just replace "nuke" with "weapon" the card perfectly applies to your aff. So while it might be about nukes, the same exact theory applies to drones.

 

4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex.

You have the wrong solution -- antagonizing weapons makes it easy for the USFG to be like "KK WE REMOVED SUM WEAPONS FROM THAT POOR SAP COUNTRY SO WE LOOK GOOD NOW LETS GO DOMINATE SOME OTHER POOR SAP COUNTRY." In other words, antagonizing the weapons won't result in the shift in your stance against dominance.

 

5. How does the aff not try to make peace?

You don't hold people responsible for their actions, instead proclaiming war on weapons [drones in this case]

 

 

6. How do we make the "US a zombie to drones"

"That was before he bought call of duty. Now he cant get off the couch, he just sits there in the dark, in his underwear, eating cheetos and drinking diet coke. His eyes are glazed red from the ever-present glow of the television screen. He barely even blinks. He never goes outside. He channels all that aggression into the war games he plays on his XBOMB. It’s not violent, it’s a simulation. It’s a game."

 

“You are watching the most violent actions that man carries out, but you are not there. It’s antiseptic..."

 

"moral disengagement is becoming the norm"

 

If not a "zombie" to drones, you're still making it clear that drones make people not care about... uh, people. xP

 

7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us

from acting out against other motivations for war?

The "war against weapons" conceals the political conflict and violence raging, and how we as humans are "seduced" by war.

 

 

8. What are the "other motivations" for war.

See the above. xP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First K

 

1. Whats the link?

Uh. You antagonize a form of debate. Basically the second part of the 1AC envisions debate as a battle between the traditional, "OMG EVERYTHING NUEK WURR AAAAH" debate and another form of debate (presumably one that is more helpful in the real world, and is less of a game), and this destroys creative immanence.

 

How does envisionoing multiple forms of approaching debate destroy "creative immanence"

 

 

2. What is "creative immanence"

K, basically what we mean by creative immanence is that every truth claim of the 1AC only makes sense because of its entanglement in a creative "flow" with its opposites. This "flow" is what we call creative immanence.

 

Can you re-explain that?

 

Especialy in context of waht the alt embraces?

 

Second K

 

1. What is the thesis to this arg

K, so the 1AC antagonizes the drones rather than the people that made the drones. The 1AC sees the weapons as the problem, and they fail to see that the real problem is the people committing violence. Drones don't kill people, people do. Just like the term "Nazi", drones were created by the people IN ORDER to create ontological distancing.

 

2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes?

We'll defend that you make drones seem like flesh-eating demon spawn without really holding people to blame for making said flesh-eating demon spawn. I feel kinda bad for Uncle Sam. :[

 

Why do you feel bad for Uncle Sam?

 

3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones

Though the card is contextualized towards nukes, if you just replace "nuke" with "weapon" the card perfectly applies to your aff. So while it might be about nukes, the same exact theory applies to drones.

 

Can i replace words in cards if i feel like it?

 

4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex.

You have the wrong solution -- antagonizing weapons makes it easy for the USFG to be like "KK WE REMOVED SUM WEAPONS FROM THAT POOR SAP COUNTRY SO WE LOOK GOOD NOW LETS GO DOMINATE SOME OTHER POOR SAP COUNTRY." In other words, antagonizing the weapons won't result in the shift in your stance against dominance.

 

So this is predicated on the idea that the 1 AC only criticizes drones and nothing else, correct?

 

7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us

from acting out against other motivations for war?

The "war against weapons" conceals the political conflict and violence raging, and how we as humans are "seduced" by war.

 

How? What specifically "distracts" us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Whats the link?

Uh. You antagonize a form of debate. Basically the second part of the 1AC envisions debate as a battle between the traditional, "OMG EVERYTHING NUEK WURR AAAAH" debate and another form of debate (presumably one that is more helpful in the real world, and is less of a game), and this destroys creative immanence.

 

How does envisioning multiple forms of approaching debate destroy "creative immanence"

 

Well, the thing is, you don't. ._. You reject the current form of debate, basically calling it a game for "drones".

 

 

2. What is "creative immanence"

K, basically what we mean by creative immanence is that every truth claim of the 1AC only makes sense because of its entanglement in a creative "flow" with its opposites. This "flow" is what we call creative immanence.

 

Can you re-explain that? Especialy in context of waht the alt embraces?

 

Basically, if you look up the word "good" in the dictionary, and keep finding synonyms again and again, you'll eventually arrive at the word "bad." The concept of a weekend only makes sense because of the concept of a weekday. But your favoring of one side of this "coin" disrupts the flow of creativity.

 

So the alt is basically to is to abandon the desire to control the flow of events. To re-align ourselves with the rest of reality in the flow of creativity and reveal the ultimate flow that runs through every word and everything.

 

Second K

 

2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes?

We'll defend that you make drones seem like flesh-eating demon spawn without really holding people to blame for making said flesh-eating demon spawn. I feel kinda bad for Uncle Sam. :[

 

Why do you feel bad for Uncle Sam?

 

Uh... your narrative phrases his love of violence as "problems", and you say "I don't think Uncle Sam is any better off the way he is." I mean, even if I don't feel BAD for him, I'm at least not really mad at the people committing violence and I am mad at the drones.

 

3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones

Though the card is contextualized towards nukes, if you just replace "nuke" with "weapon" the card perfectly applies to your aff. So while it might be about nukes, the same exact theory applies to drones.

 

Can i replace words in cards if i feel like it?

 

I realized how stupid that sounded after I wrote it. ._. Ok, yeah, that card's specific towards nukes, but our argument still pretty much applies to your aff without that card. I can provide a drone-specific one in the Block. xP

 

And, no. xP

 

4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex.

You have the wrong solution -- antagonizing weapons makes it easy for the USFG to be like "KK WE REMOVED SUM WEAPONS FROM THAT POOR SAP COUNTRY SO WE LOOK GOOD NOW LETS GO DOMINATE SOME OTHER POOR SAP COUNTRY." In other words, antagonizing the weapons won't result in the shift in your stance against dominance.

 

So this is predicated on the idea that the 1 AC only criticizes drones and nothing else, correct?

 

Our point is that you blame the drones for the ontological distancing created by people. xP

 

7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us

from acting out against other motivations for war?

The "war against weapons" conceals the political conflict and violence raging, and how we as humans are "seduced" by war.

 

How? What specifically "distracts" us?

 

We're so busy RAEGing at weapons that we are unable to comprehend / do stuff about the other causes of violence. Of course, the government would jump at this, too -- claiming "war on drones" is a scapegoat for it to not have to take blame for creating all of these tools used for distancing.

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...