Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The1

Occidental Conformity Bad / Exceptionalism Bad Kritikal Aff?

Recommended Posts

This was another idea i had for a kritikal aff.

I could critique the resolution for entrenching a mindset exceptionalism and/or occidental conformity. This mindset in debaters spreads throughout the community and stuff like that which results in racism and stuff like that?

I wanted to run this because I somewhat believe in it. Not for squirrely purposes. I feel like there are a bunch of holes in it though...

Any ideas, tips, comments would be appreciated.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smart man. i actually am in the process of cutting one. im trying to finish reading up on all the lit first though.like the US going into space causes an exceptionalism mindset. i too believe in it and i thought it was a great idea. my plan is DnGish. Barbarian philosophy, removing yourself from the panopticon of America in favor of nomadic hiding. its from Spanos's book Spector of Vietnam. There is a lot of amazing evidence you can cut from it. Also, you can look into Foucault. I know Spanos is foucauldian so they work well with each other. Framework would be a big issue. what other holes are you thinking of?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bluewaffle -

Yea i was really considering using Biopower literature from Foucault. It would fit in nicely. I was thinking perhaps they could argue that the point of debate is that there is never unison upon anything; and that there is always the opponent side which must refute certain concepts made. In this specific instance/resolution, the affirmative may make points supporting exceptionalism/occidental conformity, however the negative can always refute that, and that clash makes it so that there is never full on unison thus full entrenchment of the exceptionalist mindset; because we see both sides. Thats a potential argument.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bluewaffle -

Yea i was really considering using Biopower literature from Foucault. It would fit in nicely. I was thinking perhaps they could argue that the point of debate is that there is never unison upon anything; and that there is always the opponent side which must refute certain concepts made. In this specific instance/resolution, the affirmative may make points supporting exceptionalism/occidental conformity, however the negative can always refute that, and that clash makes it so that there is never full on unison thus full entrenchment of the exceptionalist mindset; because we see both sides. Thats a potential argument.

 

 

When you argue points of debate or accepting/refusing points made then isn't that just framework? Im fairly new at debating kritikally so you may want to get other advise about this, but you could argue that the ballot is a point of resistance to American sovereignty. So just because the clash makes it so that people do not agree on the idea that exceptionalism is horrible wont cancel out solvency. Also, there is a spanos card that says that the neg authors are bias due to their exceptionalist mindset. im not sure where it is but i have it somewhere.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that that would indeed be a sufficient answer, and it would also be very efficient to work with that Spanos evidence as well. Attacking the core.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bluewaffle -

Yea i was really considering using Biopower literature from Foucault. It would fit in nicely. I was thinking perhaps they could argue that the point of debate is that there is never unison upon anything; and that there is always the opponent side which must refute certain concepts made. In this specific instance/resolution, the affirmative may make points supporting exceptionalism/occidental conformity, however the negative can always refute that, and that clash makes it so that there is never full on unison thus full entrenchment of the exceptionalist mindset; because we see both sides. Thats a potential argument.

 

the problem is translating that into a specific voting issue that lets you win. If you have to look at both sides to prevent a full entrenchment of exceptionalist mindsets, than that's a reason for a double-win or a double-loss, it's not a reason for you to win the ballot. Additionally, the way the argument is phrased here would ensure it contradicts any normative claims made in the rest of your 1AC.

 

 

When you argue points of debate or accepting/refusing points made then isn't that just framework? Im fairly new at debating kritikally so you may want to get other advise about this, but you could argue that the ballot is a point of resistance to American sovereignty. So just because the clash makes it so that people do not agree on the idea that exceptionalism is horrible wont cancel out solvency. Also, there is a spanos card that says that the neg authors are bias due to their exceptionalist mindset. im not sure where it is but i have it somewhere.

 

oh briar...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread worries me... Spanos does draw on Foucault, but not nearly as much as the people in this thread seem to think, in fact he's primarily a Heideggarian... Just food for thought.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...