Jump to content
o0MetalHead0o

Round 496 [Space] O0Metalhead0O(Aff) Vs Crusso(Neg)

Recommended Posts

Hey sorry about the wait. I haven't been online all day. Here's your cross-x.

1. All of the voting issue evidence is why representing the state is a good thing.

2. Sure, but I claim fairness as an internal into real world change and education.

3. I'm saying that a policy-based world to solving the harms of the 1AC is preferable to the discursive stance of the 1AC.

4. McClean is an impact to why my education is good.

5. The march on Washington, protesting the war in Iraq. The anti-globalization movement in Seattle 1999. The Occupy movement is an example of free-speech being co-opted for getting too close.

6. Our first Zizek evidence explains how the liberal democratic order wants it's people to use freedom of speech to give them the notion that they are free in the sense of changing the bureaucracy. Your discourse though ignores the hegemonic ideology that is the root cause of your impacts, and allows capitalism to solve in a humanitarian way, preserving it's existence. This is especially true in your context as advocating patriarchy rejection as the highest ethical obligation.

7. My framework allows the neg to read a critical alternative, but the aff should have to stick to a policy option.

8. Chow is a solvency takeout, saying while your aff focuses on ending the systemic violence of the state, capitalism will still fuel biopolitical violence in an on going series of events.

9. Our alternative is that whoever prevents the best political strategy in the round is who the judge votes for. I don't have to win everyone outside this room will accept the alt, but in the context of this debate it's the best option.

 

Also I'm fine with all the judges. It's cool to have a big panel. 2NC should be up tonight or tomorrow. I'm just going to post the block all at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does debate differ from any other high school class if we can simply talk about whatever we want to?

2. Why is it impossible to talk about feminism in the context of my framework?

3. How would there ever be true educational discourse if clash is eliminated by having virtually zero common ground?

4. Your Dillon evidence is talking about fighting security. How does this relate to the aff?

5. How is it possible to know what is a true feminine and true masculine identity?

6. How do we gain any new education if under your interpretation debaters will literally run the same argument every year?

7. What is patriarchal about Zizek's psychoanalytic viewpoint?

8. You say a lot I'm a form of masculine revolution that furthers the state, but what warrant do you have as to why?

9. How does the perm-do-both solve when my alternative calls for a state of self-censorship while your aff is premised off using discourse to fight oppression?

10. Will your speech act solve oppression when the judge votes aff?

11. How does the alternative exclude your ideology in a different way than the plan excludes the alt?

 

I just got my wisdom teeth out that's why there's the delay. I'm working on the block though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does debate differ from any other high school class if we can simply talk about whatever we want to?

Teacher leads the class. In what highschool class can I talk about firefly and irigaray? Classes are structured, and there is no clash in classes.

2. Why is it impossible to talk about feminism in the context of my framework?

OUR evidence indicates that The state is masculine, calculative, highly structured, etc... Any critique using the state would be coopted by the masculine

3. How would there ever be true educational discourse if clash is eliminated by having virtually zero common ground?

There is ground for you, the aff loses if you prove that it is bad. There are soooo many critiques of irigaray. Essentialism, intersectionality, western fem, nietzsche, anthopocentrism etc...There is clash in this round so there is no ground loss just because you cant run an international CP

4. Your Dillon evidence is talking about fighting security. How does this relate to the aff?

It isnt// It says that when you place limits on our thinking it doesnt allow us to effectively examine ideas. If we say that we cant talk about certain topics, especially kritikal ones, opression and genocide will go unanswered.

5. How is it possible to know what is a true feminine and true masculine identity?

Our evidence doesnt talk about identity, it talks about discourse. The masculine is calculative, technical, etc... The feminine needs to be the antithesis of that to disrupt it. Irrational, non-linear, etc...

6. How do we gain any new education if under your interpretation debaters will literally run the same argument every year?

This aff was directly inspired by the space topic, that is why it will change every year. Also debaters debate for 3-4 years, so every year there is new debates injected into the community. If we win Green and Hicks this doesnt even matter because believing your aff is the only way you get education

7. What is patriarchal about Zizek's psychoanalytic viewpoint

Zizek and Lacon support Freud in his psychoanalysis, which was essentialist in nature and boiled down discourse to sex, rather than masculine vs feminine.

8. You say a lot I'm a form of masculine revolution that furthers the state, but what warrant do you have as to whY?

The act of self censorship is a calculative form of action that withholds information with devious means, it will be cooted by the masculine because the only way to disrupt a masculine system is with feminine discourse

9. How does the perm-do-both solve when my alternative calls for a state of self-censorship while your aff is premised off using discourse to fight oppression?

They are not mutually exclusive, there is no call to action in the 1ac, it just exposes oppression, you can chose to fight that oppression anyway you want.

10. Will your speech act solve oppression when the judge votes aff?

No, the role of the ballot is that whoever exposes oppression more should win. I did that when I read the 1AC, so the judge should vote for me.

11. How does the alternative exclude your ideology in a different way than the plan excludes the alt?

The 1AC doesn't exclude the alt, you can resist the systems you see as bad anyway you want. The alt is exclusionary because it is a call to action under a banner of self censorship, therefore there is a STARTING POINT to your community, thats secomb, whenever you posit a starting point to a community that means that anyone that does not participate in that starting point is excluded, on the outside of your community. The community and framework of the 1AC allows all forms of discourse. See, we don't have a starting point to our community, it is inclusive of all discourses, and we let them all interact and play out, you purposefully exclude discourses for the purpose of self censorship.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I've been swamped with homework this week. I'll try and get it up tomorrow during school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decision: Aff

 

RFD:

-2NR does zero analysis on why the perm doesn't solve and just extends the timeframe theory from the other perm, so if the 2AR can give me any reason to not consider it a timeframe perm then there's no reason not to vote aff on it, so the Perm do Both goes aff

-Also, the 2AR explanation of framework means I can't vote on a K if it doesn't expose oppression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote aff

 

Reason is that the 2NR really under covered the perm do both, there is no real argument that I can draw a line from either the block or 2NR that says the Aff is an actual engagement of the political which would mean that the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Some thoughts:

 

Aff wins the link debate: I really think he is way ahead of you on this debate. Especially since Im granting 100% of case that says static binary representations allow for oppression and masculine discourse to dominate and that the aff's fluidity allows us to transgress the system of the masculine through a sort of problematic of identity. The state isnt able to pin down the aff to a single advocacy nor even comprehend or internalize the movement. When the state isnt able to define the movement it cant appropriately respond to the movement. This is why I dont give you much weight on the impact calculus at the point where the aff doesnt cause the impacts in the first place.

 

I did have the time frame perm on the 2AC flow: I would have liked for CRusso to have made something of the fact that on the Framework flow Metalhead said that debaters should be held accountable for their arguments and their discourse in the round and then he says oops sorry didnt mean that perm; reject that argument not me. That is definitely not taking responsibility for his discourse in the round and would mean that you could have turned his framework as leverage against the aff and his responses to Zizek.

 

Overall really good round and congrats to Metalhead Winning with at least 3 ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot to the judges as well as CRusso, seriously I hit that Zizek K sooo mcuh this year, great round man

 

1 Problem though, skimming the thread we have 6 judges XD. So whoever's decision comes in last wont count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teleport Massive, Firewalker, and Warturtle have yet to decide

Way to go Logan! Beating Zizek for the... 12th or so time? Nice way to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote neg on the timeframe perms bad argument. yes, you don't go for the perm, but you also don't actually answer this, and the neg does a decent amount of work on impacting it out to some degree, I feel that allowing the aff to have TF perms is bad. Even then, I don't get a bit of reason why I shouldn't reject the team- you even point out that

 

they just happen directly after one another

 

in the speech- I also checked the 1AR-2AR for that last answer, but I don't give you the new "don't vote on potential abuse" arg here, and secondly, if you'd just extended reject perm not team, you would have been fine- but what you said in the 2AR was insufficient, and your best args were also new, so I don't evaluate them.

 

that said, this was very difficult imo, because I think would have voted aff on the solvency deficit on the alt- one thing the Neg drops in the 2NR is this commodification solvency deficit, which I think is strong enough to take out the alt- perm's a wash because yes, his analysis is shoddy, so is yours-and even then, I don't really get the actual net benefit to the perm anyway- so I don't evaluate it as much as the others. At the same time, when I don't give the aff the perm, it comes down to whether the alt SD outweighs the double bind based on the link, and I think the aff explained the commodification impact better than the neg articulated the state co-option.

 

TL;DR- if aff answers perm theory better, then I vote aff on Solvency Deficit between the alt and case. but Aff does not answer theory particuarly well or much at all, so I vote neg on timeframe perms are illegit. and is a reason to reject the team.

 

Edit- I didn't read the other RFD's before I posted, but after looking but I agree with HI-dig-air that the original reject perm not team arg could have gotten you in trouble as well, with the discourse stuff.

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...