Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CitizenOfUlysses

[Ld] March/april Targeted Killing (State/nat Quals)

Recommended Posts

My LDers are using the evazon politics of fear file on the neg. It has links to calling people terrorists, heg, econ, and democracy promotion. It's good for on case and it can be used for the nc construction too.

 

You coachin for Westside, Gonzaba?

 

If it doesn't have the beginning of precarious life in it, it should. Some very good arguments are made in that book.

 

Yeah, Frames of War (sequel to PL) is also pretty sweet for krit args on this topic. Do you have anything from Precarious Life you would mind posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't cut it; I just read it. That's the only advantage of local LD - no one cares about evidence for philosophical-type claims, which is how it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION CAUSES EXTINCTION

Henkin Atlantic Comm Qtly, Columbia, Spring 1988

 

Lawyers, even constitutional lawyers, argue "technically," with references to text and principles of construction, drawing lines, and insisting on sharp distinctions. Such discussion sometimes seems ludicrous when it addresses issues of life and death and Armaggedon. But behind the words of the Constitution and the technicalities of constitutional construction lie the basic values of the United States limited government even at the cost of inefficiency; safeguards against autarchy and oligarchy; democratic values represented differently in the presidency and in Congress, as well as in the intelligent participation and consent of the governed. In the nuclear age the technicalities of constitutionalism and of constitutional jurisprudence safeguard also the values and concerns of civilized people committed to human survival.

 

DON’T ROLL THE DICE – NONE OF THEIR IMPACTS OUTWEIGH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

John A. Eidsmoe is a Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF, 1992 3 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35, p. 57-9

 

Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the well proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which united national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional American liberty. It is possible that a constitutional convention could take place and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a scratch; in fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when the stakes are as high as one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation into what it is today, these odds are too great to take the risk.

 

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE RULEBOOK KEEPING US FROM CHAOS

Lawrence Reed [President of the Foundation for Economic Education], The Freeman Freedom or Free-for-All?, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/ideas-and-consequences-freedom-or-free-for-all/, September 2008

 

Imagine playing a game, baseball, cards, Monopoly, or whatever in which there was only one rule: anything goes. You could discard the instruction book from the start and make things up as you go. If it works, do it. If it feels good, why not? If opposing players have a disagreement (an obvious inevitability) well, you can just figure that out later. What kind of a game would this be? Chaotic, frustrating, unpredictable, impossible. Sooner or later, the whole thing would degenerate into a mad free-for-all. Somebody would have to knock heads together and bring order to the mess. Simple games would be intolerable played this way, but for many deadly serious things humans engage in, from driving on the highways to waging war, the consequences of throwing away the instruction book can be almost too frightful to imagine. The business of government is one of those deadly serious things, and like a game run amok, it's showing signs that the players don't care much for the rules any more, if they even know them at all. Don't think for a moment that by use of the term players I'm pointing fingers at politicians and somehow absolving everyone else of responsibility. In a sense, all of us are players; it's just that some are more actively so than others, and of those who are active, some are more destructively so than the rest. At the very least, every citizen has a stake in the outcome. The most profound political and philosophical trend of our time is a serious erosion of any consensus about what government is supposed to do and what it's not supposed to do. The instruction books on this matter are America's founding documents, namely the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution with its Bill of Rights. In the spirit of those great works, most Americans once shared a common view of the proper role of government the protection of life and property.

Chaos, I don't hold you accountable for this underlining, but this "evidence" is really horrible and the underlining changes the intent. The 1st card says that the noun being safeguarded is the values of the people who happen to value human survival. By changing the noun, the intent and warrant is changed. The constitution does NOT safeguard human survival. The constitution only safeguards particular values. You aren't actually able to warrant that human survival would end without the constitution.

 

The 2nd card uses colorful language that if the current government were to collapse it may not be recreated. It assumes the current government is the most valuable thing (without warrant) and points out that it is also possible it would be recreated. It also points out that other governments have failed in the past not to be recreated, but Italy and Greece still have current day functioning (barely) governments, thus counter proving that a government failing does not destine a people to chaos forever.

 

The 3rd card does a decent job of explaining why chaos is bad, but the part about the Constitution isn't even underlined, so all that has been established is that chaos is bad. If the constitution were replaced with a better document/government, chaos wouldn't be an issue.

 

Being non-consequencial on the aff is much more difficult and probably is counter to some of the aff's best arguments. Saying the world is better, more moral, with Bin Laden dead is pretty powerful stuff (not unbeatable, just powerful). I'm not sure why aff's would shy away from that. However, if you insist on being deotological, you can use many of the deotological arguments for captial punishment. it requires some twisting, but I think they can work.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

 

[The Constitution stops extinction cards] are legitimately hilariously bad

 

My entire point was that those cards are bad.

 

Saying the world is better, more moral, with Bin Laden dead is pretty powerful stuff (not unbeatable, just powerful). I'm not sure why aff's would shy away from that.

 

This is a separate issue, but how would you answer the "Hitler kills the president" argument as the affirmative? Assuming that we're only talking about "good" instances of foreign policy skews the debate from the start; it precludes essentially all negative ground except deontology and it precludes lots of consequentialist turn ground too. I think that tools are at best amoral because they can only be morally good if geared at good ends. At worst, killing is inherently immoral, so we shouldn't do it. I think this is a very strong negative argument against consequentialist cases.

 

I agree that all good affirmative cases are consequentialist though. I just think this rez allows for the negative to win much more easily than the affirmative.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

 

 

 

My entire point was that those cards are bad.

 

 

 

This is a separate issue, but how would you answer the "Hitler kills the president" argument as the affirmative? Assuming that we're only talking about "good" instances of foreign policy skews the debate from the start; it precludes essentially all negative ground except deontology and it precludes lots of consequentialist turn ground too. I think that tools are at best amoral because they can only be morally good if geared at good ends. At worst, killing is inherently immoral, so we shouldn't do it. I think this is a very strong negative argument against consequentialist cases.

 

I agree that all good affirmative cases are consequentialist though. I just think this rez allows for the negative to win much more easily than the affirmative.

LOL!!! My bad!!! Ha!!

 

To answer your question, I would coach my students that if the foreign policy is in the best interest of the people of the country, then it is good. Thus,if "Hitler kills the president" is in the best interest of the German people circa 1939, then it would have been a foreign policy tool that was good. Bad for the US people, but good for them. That probably feeds into a negative who is running deontology and then it comes down to framework.

 

Tools are amoral. The use of tools is a moral question. The foreign policy doesn't have to be moral, just the use of it. A gun is immoral. Using a gun is a moral question.

 

Aff can win that killing is moral. Self defense, mercy killing, and captial punishment all have debatable justifications that the ending of life can be moral. Often the best justifications for killing is based in consequencialism, though it doesn't have to be (I've heard an excellent use of Kant to defend capital punishment).

 

I think the affirmative plays to the bias of the lay judge. The US uses targetting killings and most Americans would say that is a good thing. The neg has to overcome the judge believing that killing Osama Bin Laden was a good thing. That should not be undervalued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always my understanding that the Bin Laden killing did not constitute targeted killing. I don't know a terrible amount about the details, but I thought that it was going to be an attempted capture that escalated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always my understanding that the Bin Laden killing did not constitute targeted killing. I don't know a terrible amount about the details, but I thought that it was going to be an attempted capture that escalated.

From Alan Dershowitz; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/targeted-killing-vindicat_b_856538.html The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, both morally and legally.

Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.

 

I wouldn't bother underlining it, it says exactly want is needed. The article goes on to justify targetted killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Alan Dershowitz; http://www.huffingto...t_b_856538.html The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, both morally and legally.

Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.

 

I wouldn't bother underlining it, it says exactly want is needed. The article goes on to justify targetted killings.

I'll accept the premise that it was targeted killing, but... Alan Dershowitz?

Girls.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll accept the premise that it was targeted killing, but... Alan Dershowitz?

 

LOL, fair enough. He's no less credible than Mead... (I'm not setting the bar incredibly high).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mead's a Senior Fellow at CFR :)

 

I don't know if this is still useful to anyone but I spent way too long researching this topic and posted an analysis of it at: http://debate-centra...hp?f=12&t=35815

It brings great joy to my heart to read your analysis and find it is exactly what I've been coaching on the topic. Did you consider Nozick on the Aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aight, just had my first of the two tournaments I will have on this topic (Nat Quals and State), ended up qualifying for nationals so life is pretty good, let's talk about this topic.

 

I gotta say that I love this topic a lot. The neg ground for subtle kritikal argumentation that flies in front of lay/traditional/pf type judges is STELLAR. I think I used the same Nietzsche securitization card every time I negated this topic as a solid turn on the aff, and nearly every judge bought it. Also, everybody ever should read Precarious Life or have some knowledge of what Judith Butler has to say on this topic, what she says is something I believe is incredibly important to understand not just as a debater, but as a person just living in the world after 9/11. Seriously, the topic relevant stuff she has to say about our interactions with terrorists, which is what a lot of the debate in my district centered upon, is incredibly cardable and understandable for nearly anybody, even people who don't usually like to access any of that kind of critical theory/philosophy. I didn't properly understand what she really meant (even though I thought I did) until I saw it play out in the context of this topic.

 

Something that also kind of disturbed me about this topic is the rhetoric people use about terrorists. I mean, I guess I've always known that the rhetoric about terrorists has always been harmful and that terror talk arguments are pretty true, but I never really understood the extent of how much it's affected the American public until seeing how debaters were using the term. Seriously, some rounds made me think the aff was basically advocating for what amounted to extermination. I think we sometimes gotta take a step back and realize that some of these people are just acting in fear and retaliation just like we are. Calling some Afghani farmer whose crops were burned and whose kids were killed by a fucking Hellfire missile and who then decides to take up and AK 47 and start shooting at the people who he sees as having destroyed his family and livelihood a terrorist that Murikah has to kill for our "self preservation" just doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, sure, a good majority of who we call terrorists may not have that kind of motive or pretext behind their actions, but a lot of them are just a bunch of angry kids who were fed the same type of line our young angry kids are fed.

 

I actually got a lot more emotionally involved in this topic than I thought I would be, mostly because I thought the rounds weren't going to be as contextualized as people decided to make them. Kinda weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neg ground for subtle kritikal argumentation that flies in front of lay/traditional/pf type judges is STELLAR. I think I used the same Nietzsche securitization card every time I negated this topic as a solid turn on the aff, and nearly every judge bought it.

Cites? All my securitization files make reference to Nietzsche in the non-underlined text, but I didn't actually find any Nietzsche cards.

edit: Oh god, I can just see me trying to read any of Precarious Life at nat quals.

RFD: Neg is a godless pinko terrorist sympathizer, I vote aff, NEWT 2012

 

Such is Kentucky debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cites? All my securitization files make reference to Nietzsche in the non-underlined text, but I didn't actually find any Nietzsche cards.

edit: Oh god, I can just see me trying to read any of Precarious Life at nat quals.

RFD: Neg is a godless pinko terrorist sympathizer, I vote aff, NEWT 2012

 

Such is Kentucky debate.

 

I'm at work right now, will definitely post the card when I get home. I got it from a Nietzsche backfile from a former Millard South debater, they cut a lot of the cards themselves from nietzsche himself. It's actually pretty cool.

 

Also, I would suggest just trying out the Precarious life stuff, especially about vulnerability. Of course, always include some pathos-laden cards about how 90% of deaths from drone attacks in Pakistan are civilians and you usually have some pretty palatable and sensible stuff. I dunno, you would think Nebraska pf judges thrown into the LD pool would run away from buying any of this stuff but the only round I dropped at Nat Quals was to a Baudrillard NC on a 3-0; two of the judges were policy/ld folks, but the last one was one who showed up more in the PF pool. I mean, I've even heard a kid who went 5-0 at a lay tournament running Zizek (not in Nebraska). It all depends on how you word it and how jargon laden you make it.

 

The aff is not nearly as fun as the neg, but it's still pretty cool.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be the card about the lightning bolt...? That's the main Nietzsche securitization card that I know about.

 

Butler specifically addresses the "Pinko terrorist sympathizer" tendency of discourse. That's what her entire introduction is, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be the card about the lightning bolt...? That's the main Nietzsche securitization card that I know about.

 

Butler specifically addresses the "Pinko terrorist sympathizer" tendency of discourse. That's what her entire introduction is, actually.

Yeah, I've read it, but letting my judge know that that (his/her) viewpoint is ignorant isn't going to make him/her sympathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I will. It seems like fun.

Just out of curiosity, what are your requirements for qualifying at nationals?

 

Uh, we had a tournament which was split into two districts, NE north and NE south, you debated until you had two losses and then you were out. Basically you debated until you were one of the last two standing. My district was small, but still kinda difficult, especially with the judging being a complete crapshoot. My final round had a LD judge, a Policy judge, and a PF judge all on the same panel. Fun round.

 

Here's the card. Also, scratch what I said about the MS file, I just realized I actually got it from an article Zizek wrote about Iran getting nukes. I have horrid memory; I remember finding this about 2-3 years ago, so yeah. It's a nice card that has simple yet fun language that's enjoyable to read and that lay judges love and that flow judges will buy. It's a nice realism bad kind of card that one can read. I just pulled it out of a backfile from the PMF topic I made and slammed it on the flow in my first neg round on whim, then just used it as a nice starting point for turns for the rest of the tournament.

 

heres the cite: Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche: "Daybreak": Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Trans. Maudemarie Clark, Brian Leiter, and R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print

 

No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and as far as Butler goes, what is her alt, so to speak, when she says that it's US-centric to characterize 9/11 as the US reaping what it sowed? I mean, I conceptually understand how that IS still America focused, but I don't understand how else you can phrase it. What is the alternative to thinking how we do now/thinking like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and as far as Butler goes, what is her alt, so to speak, when she says that it's US-centric to characterize 9/11 as the US reaping what it sowed? I mean, I conceptually understand how that IS still America focused, but I don't understand how else you can phrase it. What is the alternative to thinking how we do now/thinking like that?

 

I mean, I didn't run it as a K. Like, I just set up my framework around the whole concept of vulnerability (v-morality c-reciprocal respect for vulnerability), and then talked about stuff about how TK specifically harmed our ability to respect vulnerability, through stuff about revenge, grievability of life, preclusion of discourse (if you want you can bring in some cool Habermas-based analysis here). Hell, you don't even need to run anything from Butler, just incorporate the ideas into your speech while on the flow in your rebuttal

 

But if you are gonna run it like a K, I would say that you could say that by blaming solely the US for 9/11 and talking about "reaping what we sow" ignores the conditions that lead to terrorism in the first place in the Middle East, like tribal warfare and culture, radical imams who spew a bunch of hateful bullshit, a general misunderstanding of the attitudes of Americans combined with a bit of antagonistic Occidentalism, stuff like that. It ignores the actual context of the actions of those who we call terrorists, and removes all "blame" and agency from their actions. What we do and how we choose to act is a combination of our agency and the conditions/context (like the text of Derrida) that we are surrounded and affected by. By saying it was all the US's fault, we shut off the agency of those who are angry at us and do horribly shitty things in the name of that anger, and at the same time we focus only on the actions of the United States and not on anything else. I guess the alternative would be accept the roles of both agency and our conditions/the people who we are surrounded by and who our vulnerability is subject to, ya ken? And then move on through a stop to violence, an attempt at diplomacy, talks, use examples from the Israel/Palestine conflict where efforts of non violent resistance are completely ignored by mainstream media but still do exist on both sides of the wall. I dunno, go full on pathos on this shit. It kinda lends itself to that sort of delivery. Try it out on your parents or teachers and ask them if they feel convinced. This isn't some post structuralist hoighty toighty jargon-laden esoteric theory that will fly over people's heads, it's some actually persuasive and easy to understand stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We both act and are acted upon, and our responsibility lies between the two. She says something like that somewhere in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I didn't run it as a K. Like, I just set up my framework around the whole concept of vulnerability (v-morality c-reciprocal respect for vulnerability), and then talked about stuff about how TK specifically harmed our ability to respect vulnerability, through stuff about revenge, grievability of life, preclusion of discourse (if you want you can bring in some cool Habermas-based analysis here). Hell, you don't even need to run anything from Butler, just incorporate the ideas into your speech while on the flow in your rebuttal

 

But if you are gonna run it like a K, I would say that you could say that by blaming solely the US for 9/11 and talking about "reaping what we sow" ignores the conditions that lead to terrorism in the first place in the Middle East, like tribal warfare and culture, radical imams who spew a bunch of hateful bullshit, a general misunderstanding of the attitudes of Americans combined with a bit of antagonistic Occidentalism, stuff like that. It ignores the actual context of the actions of those who we call terrorists, and removes all "blame" and agency from their actions. What we do and how we choose to act is a combination of our agency and the conditions/context (like the text of Derrida) that we are surrounded and affected by. By saying it was all the US's fault, we shut off the agency of those who are angry at us and do horribly shitty things in the name of that anger, and at the same time we focus only on the actions of the United States and not on anything else. I guess the alternative would be accept the roles of both agency and our conditions/the people who we are surrounded by and who our vulnerability is subject to, ya ken? And then move on through a stop to violence, an attempt at diplomacy, talks, use examples from the Israel/Palestine conflict where efforts of non violent resistance are completely ignored by mainstream media but still do exist on both sides of the wall. I dunno, go full on pathos on this shit. It kinda lends itself to that sort of delivery. Try it out on your parents or teachers and ask them if they feel convinced. This isn't some post structuralist hoighty toighty jargon-laden esoteric theory that will fly over people's heads, it's some actually persuasive and easy to understand stuff.

This is interesting, but I didn't intend to ask the question from a kritikal perspective, I meant "alternative" in the sense of common parlance. You did actually answer my question in the bolded text though, so thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get public sympathy on your side, read the stupid Kony 2012 arguments. Easy way to get lay ballots, I think.

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...