Jump to content
Zultan

Apple Mac Capitalism Argument

Recommended Posts

The neg team uses Macs and debates capitalism. The aff says that the neg isn't crying about capitalism, they're using Macs! If they want to reject capitalism they should smash their computers and walk home.

 

What do you guys think about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument is not deployed effectively, nor is it particularly strategic based on people's predispositions against it, but it does raise an interesting question.

 

To what extend do we expect people to be consistent with their argumentation, would you vote for a team eating a hamburger while running ecofeminism, or using racial epitaphs while running CRT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument is not deployed effectively, nor is it particularly strategic based on people's predispositions against it, but it does raise an interesting question.

 

To what extend do we expect people to be consistent with their argumentation, would you vote for a team eating a hamburger while running ecofeminism, or using racial epitaphs while running CRT?

 

I do think that there are some internal contradictions. For example, I've seen people with sexist bumper stickers running kritiks of sexist language. When it comes to Cap, I mean, it's really not reasonable to force someone to stop using every manifestation of capitalism, just like it'd be insane to stop people from using technocratic thought products when using Heidegger. The more difficult ones people who argue the ballot destroys racism, and then have racist actions.

 

What I usually come to the conclusion of is that the aff can turn it easily, so they just do that. The only argument I find difficult is that the aff links to... so I guess it'd have to be an a priori issue... It is worrying... what do the heavyweights think about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not reasonable to expect them to stop using every manifestation of capitalism how is that not a solvency deficit to the alternative? Or, how does that not at least make the link a non-issue?

 

Edit: To clarify, the critique argument is my favorite argument, but I think to be taken seriously questions like this need to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT: You're racist

overidentifica

I do think that there are some internal contradictions. For example, I've seen people with sexist bumper stickers running kritiks of sexist language. When it comes to Cap, I mean, it's really not reasonable to force someone to stop using every manifestation of capitalism, just like it'd be insane to stop people from using technocratic thought products when using Heidegger. The more difficult ones people who argue the ballot destroys racism, and then have racist actions.

 

What I usually come to the conclusion of is that the aff can turn it easily, so they just do that. The only argument I find difficult is that the aff links to... so I guess it'd have to be an a priori issue... It is worrying... what do the heavyweights think about this?

 

We are using overidentification doh

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel like if the neg just says "if the judge votes neg, then we'll throw away our laptops", then that solves the offense at least until after the judge actually votes for the team. at which point nothing can really be done about it. like, as far as the judge is concerned, within the context of that round the neg actually defends rejection.

 

also, i feel like owning material objects even that have symbols of corporations (like Macs or PCs or Polo shirts, etc) doesn't necessarily mean you instantly embrace the ideology of capitalism. additionally, i think that the purpose of that debate is to question traditional practices and understanding of thought production which should be open to everyone, especially those who had formerly been (or currently are) participating within a system of capital.

 

i mean, you can pull a Mao K and say that since those teams haven't personally rejected capitalism, they can't really talk about it. but i don't think too many people would see that as legitimate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejecting capitalism in an academic context outweighs the laptop you're reading off of in terms of lessening humyn misery.

 

Also, engaging capitalism is probably the only way to fight it. Completely distancing oneself from capitalism would entail living alone in the woods, which does fuckall for the impoverished. And, even if you win a perfcon arg, the aff is still waaaaaaay more entrenched in the logic of capitalism (assuming there's a strong link arg), so it's still a voter.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not reasonable to expect them to stop using every manifestation of capitalism how is that not a solvency deficit to the alternative? Or, how does that not at least make the link a non-issue?

 

You have to remember that (when deployed correctly) the criticism isn't a rejection of all instances of capitalism. The neg can't fiat that capitalism gets overthrown. The K is merely a rejection of the capitalist epistemology/methodology/ideology/whatever other -ology that underpins the affirmative. The alternative is merely an intellectual endorsement of said rejection. People who pretend that the alt overthrows all of capitalism are silly.

 

While I would agree that Apple is evil, simply using a Macbook doesn't make them implicit in capitalism. The same Macbook could theoretically exist in a communist, socialist or other type of economic system; the only things that would change are the methods of production, distribution and acquisition.

 

The exceptions to this rule are...

 

I've seen people with sexist bumper stickers running kritiks of sexist language.

 

things like this. Even if they are "being ironic" (whatever that means). If you are reading a criticism of this nature, you shouldn't be making sexist/racist/ableist jokes or using the kind of rhetoric you criticise (like using the word "fuck", although to be fair there's never really a reason to say "fuck" in a debate round anyway).

 

I find this equally as troubling as people that will read criticisms of apocalyptic rhetoric and then read 2 disads with nuke war impacts with it. They justify it with conditionality but I think contradicting yourself in that way should definitely be a reason to not take the kritik as seriously, conditionality or no.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the purpose of that debate is to question traditional practices and understanding of thought production which should be open to everyone, especially those who had formerly been (or currently are) participating within a system of capital.

 

Also, engaging capitalism is probably the only way to fight it. Completely distancing oneself from capitalism would entail living alone in the woods, which does fuckall for the impoverished.

 

You have to remember that (when deployed correctly) the criticism isn't a rejection of all instances of capitalism. The neg can't fiat that capitalism gets overthrown. The K is merely a rejection of the capitalist epistemology/methodology/ideology/whatever other -ology that underpins the affirmative. The alternative is merely an intellectual endorsement of said rejection.

 

I basically agree with all of this, but all three seem like good arguments for why some sort of permutation would solve. Disallowing capitalists from trying to fix their ways, disallowing capitalists to offer solutions that engage the system in some way, and disallowing capitalists to admit to an ontological error in their representations while still advocating other plan benefits all seem like bad ways to have a K debate that would actually allow for the identified harms to be solved. It seems to me that most kritiks either A ) essentially function as post-fiat disads with moral impacts that are either non-unique or that are only unique through the use of an alt that abuses fiat, or B ) they function as pre-fiat criticisms of stuff that the Aff does that, while bad, is not required to be upheld by the Aff for the entire debate (unlike, say, their plan text). Obviously those aren't new arguments against K's, but the above quotes seem to imply these claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you have to set the building on fire from the inside; use the fascist's weapon against him; based god fucked my bitch.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neg team uses Macs and debates capitalism. The aff says that the neg isn't crying about capitalism, they're using Macs! If they want to reject capitalism they should smash their computers and walk home.

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

lol. this is an argument a team made against me at state finals last week..

it's a bad argument, indeed, that doesn't assume the context of the alternative or what the alt actually is/does. not all cap alts are rejection alts and even if the debate is about a rejection alt, the laptops can function as tools to disrupt capitalism and further reject cap. <agrees with tim> mac laptops can exist within a non-capitalist society too and while they are a manifestation of neoliberalism and capitalism, they don't necessarily facilitate capitalism.

 

it's interesting though... the aff team i hit used the phrase "they should smash their computers and walk home" almost word for word.

 

i also had a round at woodward this year consisting of the judge intervening with "STOP. the macbook argument is stupid. just stop. move on. move on please."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically agree with all of this, but all three seem like good arguments for why some sort of permutation would solve. Disallowing capitalists from trying to fix their ways, disallowing capitalists to offer solutions that engage the system in some way, and disallowing capitalists to admit to an ontological error in their representations while still advocating other plan benefits all seem like bad ways to have a K debate that would actually allow for the identified harms to be solved.

 

1. The perm still links to the K. Any part of the plan would still uphold capitalist thinking (I'm gonna use "thinking" as a blanket term for methodology, ideology, epistemology, etc.), which means the impacts function as disads to the perm.

 

2. That's severance.

 

3. You won't be able to find a part of the plan that a good K team won't turn into a link.

 

 

It seems to me that most kritiks either A ) essentially function as post-fiat disads with moral impacts that are either non-unique or that are only unique through the use of an alt that abuses fiat,

 

1. The alternatives give them uniqueness.

2. The alt doesn't ever use fiat.

 

 

or B ) they function as pre-fiat criticisms of stuff that the Aff does that, while bad, is not required to be upheld by the Aff for the entire debate (unlike, say, their plan text). Obviously those aren't new arguments against K's, but the above quotes seem to imply these claims.

 

Severance is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The perm still links to the K. Any part of the plan would still uphold capitalist thinking (I'm gonna use "thinking" as a blanket term for methodology, ideology, epistemology, etc.), which means the impacts function as disads to the perm.

 

Sure, but does the Aff link more than the Neg in this situation? What if the perm solves the link? Isn't that the whole point of a permutation, to solve the link? It seems like your argument that "a good K team" can turn any perm into a link, if true/important, would mean that Affs always lose to K's...

 

2. That's severance.

 

Is it? By admitting to an ontological error, they're not severing any part of the plan, which is the only thing that they advocate... Sure, everybody has the "representations are entangled with advocacy" cards, but that argument seems odd because you end up arguing that the Aff justified their plan with something that reflects a morally reprehensible misunderstanding by the Aff (i.e. the idea that cap is good), and then go on to say that they aren't allowed to change their outlook to one that recognizes the harms of capitalism; if we assume that K teams actually care about the critiques that they run (lol), this seems like an awfully counterproductive argument to be making if your goal is to actually bring about change in thinking. Granted, if you concede an econ advantage and then critique that outcome specifically, the K functions as a post-fiat moral disad that will always link, but you yourself said that this isn't ever the case because the alt "doesn't ever use fiat." The desirability of the plan is all that the Aff has to win in order to uphold the Rez, and you claim that the K doesn't criticize that (instead focusing on advantages/representations), but in the same breath you say that they have no way to avoid the link... If a team provides representations that link to the Cap K, you critique them, and then they admit to their errors, the alt has already happened; they rejected their capitalistic assumptions themselves, so the judge needn't intervene. And, don't say that the Aff probably doesn't actually care, because we all know that the Neg doesn't either, and either way it's subjective.

 

 

2. The alt doesn't ever use fiat.

 

If that were really true, most Negs would lose to "cap inevitable"... but in any case, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't use fiat, then it is limited to a request to the judge to vote Neg in order to solve capitalist thinking in this specific round. If the Neg also links to the K (i.e. the whole point of this thread), then a rejection alt results in a double-loss. If the alt is just "vote Neg", then it doesn't solve the impacts.

 

However, this quoted argument of yours also means that the only thing being solved for by the ballot is the Aff's capitalist thinking. If they admit that cap is bad, then the impact has already been solved...

 

Again, just my thoughts, but if somebody's going to respond, don't do so with blippy, one-sentence responses that reflect the assumption that your arguments are automatically or objectively correct. The whole reason for a discussion is the argument that they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but does the Aff link more than the Neg in this situation?

 

Yes, because the neg doesn't link at all. As I said, just using Macbooks isn't enough to perpetuate capitalist thought.

 

What if the perm solves the link? Isn't that the whole point of a permutation, to solve the link? It seems like your argument that "a good K team" can turn any perm into a link, if true/important, would mean that Affs always lose to K's...

 

Permutations are just tests of competition, they aren't there to "solve" anything. There are there merely to see if the K and the aff can be done together. If the neg wins a link, then it proves that the K is competitive and the perm is irrelevant. If the perm upholds any part of the plan, then it still upholds capitalist thinking and therefore is a)not net beneficial, and B) doesn't solve the link. It's probably also a reason the K is competitive.

 

 

 

Is it? By admitting to an ontological error, they're not severing any part of the plan

 

Yes they are. They are severing out of the methodology of the affirmative which (in this example) is entrenched in capitalism (which is bad). In your scenario, the neg would never be able to win a link to a K because the aff would just say "Oh sorry, my mistake" then read the same aff with no changes next time. The aff has to defend the methodology behind the plan, not just the words of the plan.

 

that argument seems odd because you end up arguing that the Aff justified their plan with something that reflects a morally reprehensible misunderstanding by the Aff (i.e. the idea that cap is good), and then go on to say that they aren't allowed to change their outlook to one that recognizes the harms of capitalism;

 

1. They are allowed to. Just not in the middle of the round for the reasons I gave above.

2. The aff is operating under the assumption that capitalism is a good thing. Therefore, they have to defend that capitalism is a good thing should the issue come up. If they don't think that capitalism is good, then they shouldn't be reading an aff that is rooted in capitalist thinking.

 

but you yourself said that this isn't ever the case because the alt "doesn't ever use fiat."

 

Right. The neg doesn't claim to solve all of capitalism because then the alternative would never solve. Rather, the criticism is of the capitalist methodology of the affirmative.

 

The desirability of the plan is all that the Aff has to win in order to uphold the Rez, and you claim that the K doesn't criticize that (instead focusing on advantages/representations),

 

How is the K not a test of the desirability of the plan?

 

but in the same breath you say that they have no way to avoid the link

 

It wouldn't be any different than if they read an aff that reinstates the space shuttle, and I read a disad in which the link is predicated off of reinstating the space shuttle. There's no way to avoid that link either, but the aff doesn't care because they can defend that the space shuttle is good/would solve the impact to the disad.

 

... If a team provides representations that link to the Cap K, you critique them, and then they admit to their errors, the alt has already happened; they rejected their capitalistic assumptions themselves, so the judge needn't intervene.

 

The aff doesn't just get to "admit their errors" in the middle of the round. That's above.

 

If that were really true, most Negs would lose to "cap inevitable"... but in any case, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't use fiat, then it is limited to a request to the judge to vote Neg in order to solve capitalist thinking in this specific round. If the Neg also links to the K (i.e. the whole point of this thread), then a rejection alt results in a double-loss. If the alt is just "vote Neg", then it doesn't solve the impacts.

 

The neg doesn't also "link to the K". That's above.

 

Again, just my thoughts, but if somebody's going to respond, don't do so with blippy, one-sentence responses that reflect the assumption that your arguments are automatically or objectively correct. The whole reason for a discussion is the argument that they aren't.

 

There's never a circumstance in which severance is good. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think that there are some internal contradictions. For example, I've seen people with sexist bumper stickers running kritiks of sexist language. When it comes to Cap, I mean, it's really not reasonable to force someone to stop using every manifestation of capitalism, just like it'd be insane to stop people from using technocratic thought products when using Heidegger. The more difficult ones people who argue the ballot destroys racism, and then have racist actions.

 

This is tantamount to saying the N word in a round and running a racism critique with ZERO justification to explain. Its possible to have a spin as to why they get out of this. But thats a huge, huge barrier to explaining how this could possibly true. They aren't forcing them to do anything....just live a life consistent with their critique, which they picked. If you ran a critique of Time and still wore a watch--thats 180 degrees in the other direction. Or saying library books were bad and reading from quotes from library books. The list is endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Debate is a contest of ideas, not of actions.

 

Debate is what the debaters (including the judge as a filter or gatekeeper) collectively make it....but even outside that....these 4 args trump:

 

1. The critique argument usually says that distinction isn't important (it would directly say that rhetoric is action--dissolving the distinction.)

2. Actions speak louder than words. The 2008 disaster is a disconnect between corporate values and statements of the big investment banks....and how much they really care about community and customers.

3. Rhetoric says that everything is rhetoric (everything is potential rhetorical artifact...therefore everything is a potential piece of discourse. As such, non-verbal action is still discourse.)

4. Feminism says "The personal is political." In the same way, the personal is rhetorical, especially in the context of a debate round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it looks like there are two main points of contention: does the Neg link by using laptops, and what can an Aff do that isn't considered abusive severance.

Macbooks:

This really depends on the what the Neg uses as a link.

Situations where the Neg is probably safe from a perf-con argument:

The Aff says "we use and preserve capitalism, which is good"; however, that never really happens.

The Aff defends a post-fiat advantage that would preserve capitalism (i.e. an econ advantage); however, in this case the K would be a post-fiat moral disad, and you seem to be of the belief that a K could never be like that.

The Aff advocates that some inherently capitalistic advantage (i.e. anything to do with mining) is desirable; this is a little more situational, but it does provide a pretty good pre-fiat K link. This is probably what you are talking about, but it is definitely not the only situation where the Neg will try to garner a link.

 

 

Link scenarios that probably link to the Neg as well, enough to at least bring up:

The Aff advocates using the USFG (a capitalist entity), spending money (a cornerstone of capitalism), or exploring space (which, if you buy half of the generic link cards in Cap K files, is inherently capitalist).

 

 

Using the USFG is only arguable bad because it involves engaging capitalism for any purpose other than dismantling it; the Neg engaged the system by buying the laptops. Even if the Aff links more because they bought stuff too and advocated using the USFG, it just shows that the alt can't solve all instances of the link that are under the judge's jurisdiction to solve, meaning that the Neg can't access the full weight of their impacts, making it very easy for the Aff to outweigh them. Also, it shows that it's ok to "work within the system," and even support it a little bit, just as long as you recognize that it's bad. Oh look, it's a perm!

 

 

Spending money is a bad link too, basically for the same reasons.

 

 

The exploration link is more interesting. There are two ways to spin it: 1) "Exploration will result in exploitation and more capitalist thinking." - This is post-fiat again, and you categorically exclude those links from consideration. 2) "The Aff must believe that exploitation is good, or they wouldn't advocate space exploration." - If the Aff didn't have an advantage that directly links to Cap (econ, mining, heg, or really anything that favors the US over anybody else), then the Neg has no way to prove that the Aff is truly capitalist through their discourse (remember, there is a difference between capitalists and anti-capitalists who don't devote all of their time to actively dismantling it). Therefore, the Neg would have to look at the Aff's actions. That would allow the Aff to look to the Neg's actions, where we see that they supported the system by buying laptops just so they could pick up a few ballots.

 

 

If I'm not making myself clear, here are a few link cards taken directly from a Cap K file on Open Evidence:

"The desire to explore and develop space is not neutral – it is rooted in capitalist ideology; Parker 2009"

 

Hmm... Seems like this gives no reason to believe that the Aff team is inherently capitalist, unless you want to defend that all calls for space exploration must be driven by secret capitalist desires, by definition...

 

"Nothing changes in space - profit motive makes resource exploitation inevitable and unquestioned under their framework; Tort 2005"

 

Just so you know, the bolded portion is a post-fiat argument. The "unquestioned" portion is getting a little better, but it's still just a link of omission. Even if the Neg doesn't link (because they advocate doing something about it), they can't really garner uniqueness: they can't do anything about all of the other people who don't devote all of their time to dismantling capitalism, which means that the Neg loses to "Cap inevitable."

 

"Space exploration spills over to capitalist domination of space; Parker 2009"

 

Oh look, more post-fiat links... By the way, that means that either 1) the impact is therefore post-fiat, or 2) the Neg tries to run it pre-fiat, saying "they advocated something that would lead to capitalism!", but if (as you seem to believe) the K is about mindsets, then you can't really punish the Aff for a way of thinking that they didn't illustrate in the speech; after all, it was the Neg who claimed that they were advocating something that would lead to more capitalism eventually.

 

"The get off the rock mentality only leads to continuation of exploitative practices - only the alternative can solve inevitability arguments; Lin 2006"

 

This one is better, because it seems to criticize a mindset instead of an effect, but the card itself only says that the anthropogenic problems on Earth will eventually follow us if we don't change our mindset. This only matters for the mindsets of the people who actually decide what our policies are (i.e. not the Aff), and you'll notice that the tag is also trying to leverage the alternative against inevitability claims, which (as I believe you said) the Neg isn't supposed to be doing. Maybe this isn't how you run the Cap K, but at the very least it shows that there are teams that run it in a way that would make all of the arguments in previous posts relevant.

 

Ok, one more, this time an impact card:

 

"Global capitalism threatens survival; Zizek 1999"

 

Surely I don't have to explain the problems with using this as your impact while arguing that inevitability claims don't matter because you are restricting your criticism to the capitalist mindsets present in this single round...

If you have doubts, feel free to double-check me; it's the SDI file on OE.

 

 

Next, severance:

 

Yes they are. They are severing out of the methodology of the affirmative which (in this example) is entrenched in capitalism (which is bad). In your scenario, the neg would never be able to win a link to a K because the aff would just say "Oh sorry, my mistake" then read the same aff with no changes next time. The aff has to defend the methodology behind the plan, not just the words of the plan.

Well, the good news is that you admit that the Aff isn't severing out of their plan text. However, your claim that they must defend the methodology is completely unwarranted, and in fact the only reason you give is normative, saying that Negs would never get to win a link. First of all, that is false: look to the links above. They use post-fiat implications as links. And, if the Aff defends an econ advantage, they will have said that collapse is coming in the SQ, so they've done half of the work needed to use the Cap K as an impact turn.

You also make the implicit claim that the K would be unable to elicit real-world change because the Aff would have no incentive to just read the same plan again. Well, if you run the K as above, that's not an issue, but if you don't, then I would just point out that the Neg doesn't care either; they just want to win rounds. Also, even if you consider it severance, the Aff doesn't change; they just research impact turns, meaning that no real education about the evils of capitalism happens. In fact, it actually gets turned.

Also, I don't think that "methodology" is a good word for this... it implies implementation, which is governed by normal means and is a post-fiat issue anyway. Ontology, representations, discourse, thinking, et cetera; those would be more accurate. At that point, the claim seems much less justifiable on its face.

 

Random other problems I had with your responses:

Permutations are just tests of competition, they aren't there to "solve" anything. There are there merely to see if the K and the aff can be done together. If the neg wins a link, then it proves that the K is competitive and the perm is irrelevant. If the perm upholds any part of the plan, then it still upholds capitalist thinking and therefore is a)not net beneficial, and B) doesn't solve the link. It's probably also a reason the K is competitive.

 

I disagree. Perms are tests of competition, yes, but they have just as much potential to solve stuff as the alt does. If the alt is meant to solve something, then the portion of the perm that comes from the alt is going to solve too... Yes, the Neg could try to win a link from the plan portion of the perm, but my point is that it might not matter. If the alt is "reject (the Aff's) capitalist justifications," then a perm of "pass the plan an reject its capitalist justifications" would solve the link, and would be strategic as long as the Aff had a non-capitalist advantage to use as leverage against the Neg's other arguments. You don't have to write the word "Negative" on a piece of paper in order to reject a certain way of thinking...

 

2. The aff is operating under the assumption that capitalism is a good thing. Therefore, they have to defend that capitalism is a good thing should the issue come up. If they don't think that capitalism is good, then they shouldn't be reading an aff that is rooted in capitalist thinking.

 

I find this logical progression interesting, particularly the jump from the first to the second statement. If I run a debris affirmative, and happen to be operating under the assumption that 2+2 is 5, I don't have to defend that that is correct should the issue come up. Why? Because it is in no way crucial to the accuracy of my claims (i.e. that solving debris is good). You will probably say "that example is ridiculous, bad math isn't related to debris!" - Mostly true, but my whole point is that there are Affs that get hit by the Cap K even though their case isn't based on the argument that capitalism is good. Two very capitalist people could run a case that has no econ advantages, mining, or even rhetoric saying that capitalism is good; if the Neg knew (and, for the sake of argument, could somehow prove) that they are capitalists, then your argument would say that they should lose. However, the K in that situation would have absolutely no impact on whether the plan is a good idea.

And, your third sentence is based on the assumption that they are actually "rooted in capitalist thinking," which I'm trying to show is very hard to prove in certain cases, even though Negs say it anyway. Also, your third sentence is a justification for perf-con arguments. Let me try to mimic its construction: "If they don't think that capitalism is good, then they shouldn't be making purchases that are rooted in capitalist thinking."

 

How is the K not a test of the desirability of the plan?

 

Above. You yourself keep saying that the link is the ontology/thinking of the Affirmative; if so, then you have just admitted that the K doesn't care about the actual plan, in which case it has no bearing on its desirability.

If it is a test of desirability, it is post-fiat. Fiat is not a magic wand; it's a tool for determining desirability of certain actions.

At best, you could win that the K is a test of the desirability of intellectually endorsing the plan (i.e. voting for it). That argument is at the core of every framework debate ever, and I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't get anywhere repeating that exchange here.

 

It wouldn't be any different than if they read an aff that reinstates the space shuttle, and I read a disad in which the link is predicated off of reinstating the space shuttle. There's no way to avoid that link either, but the aff doesn't care because they can defend that the space shuttle is good/would solve the impact to the disad.

 

I wouldn't disagree with you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You keep saying that K's are never post-fiat, yet you compare them to disads, which are always post-fiat... Yes, there is no way to avoid such a link because the Aff mandates it. No plan text ever reads "Support capitalist thinking." That's what you keep saying the link is on the K, yet I think it's fair to say that no Aff ever mandates that... therefore, the claim that the Aff increases capitalist thinking has to be predicated off of something other than the plan text, which I'm arguing is the only thing that they have to defend in order to prove that the Resolution is true. Even if both team members were zealous capitalists who also happened to think that killing people is fun, that wouldn't make the Resolution any less true if they presented good warrants for it's truth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debate is what the debaters (including the judge as a filter or gatekeeper) collectively make it....

 

Agreed, I'm not trying to justify intervening against the Mac argument.

 

but even outside that....these 4 args trump:

 

1. The critique argument usually says that distinction isn't important (it would directly say that rhetoric is action--dissolving the distinction.)

2. Actions speak louder than words. The 2008 disaster is a disconnect between corporate values and statements of the big investment banks....and how much they really care about community and customers.

3. Rhetoric says that everything is rhetoric (everything is potential rhetorical artifact...therefore everything is a potential piece of discourse. As such, non-verbal action is still discourse.)

 

All three of those arguments conflate actions/words with ideas.

 

The reason that I think debate should be a contest of ideas rather than words is that some ideas can't be efficiently noncontradictorily expressed in a competitive or capitalist or _____________ system such as debate, but those ideas are worth hearing and debating about anyways. We should talk about and learn about even those theories which say that expressing those theories through a certain medium is a bad thing. There's no risk of offense from the direction of those theories since we'd just use the medium to communicate other theories even if we ignored those specific theories. There's only a risk that learning about those theories causes us to adopt them and change our behavior, or that those theories are wrong (consider that learning about flawed theories can still be extremely important for ones education).

 

This is a framework argument that should be made in round, and there are "layers" to how far back this argument can go. If learning about the supposed real world effects of our discourse is important (and I think it is) then the layer should be moved one step farther back. It could probably go even farther back than that, although I'm having a hard time imagining in what circumstances it would do so.

 

4. Feminism says "The personal is political." In the same way, the personal is rhetorical, especially in the context of a debate round.

 

Switch side debate is not meant to be personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That arguement would only make sense if you we're stupid enough to claim out of round effects for solving capitalism, even then they would have to be saying rejecting every instance/withdrawing from the ideology of capital is key. I think that argument is better deployed against Oppression teams, even then it'd be largely non-responsive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the good news is that you admit that the Aff isn't severing out of their plan text. However, your claim that they must defend the methodology is completely unwarranted, and in fact the only reason you give is normative, saying that Negs would never get to win a link. First of all, that is false: look to the links above. They use post-fiat implications as links. And, if the Aff defends an econ advantage, they will have said that collapse is coming in the SQ, so they've done half of the work needed to use the Cap K as an impact turn.

 

It's absolutely true though. You aren't allowed to change your methodology mid-round just because somebody reads a kritik. That's probably also another big link to whatever K they happen to be reading, not to mention abusive as all hell.

 

You also make the implicit claim that the K would be unable to elicit real-world change because the Aff would have no incentive to just read the same plan again.

 

That's totally not what I was saying. My point was that if the aff were allowed to do what you think they should, then they would just do that every time somebody reads a K against them. I DO think that the K can elict real world change (just look at the fact that people gender-edit cards now) but that doesn't mean that that happens every time somebody reads a cap K.

 

Also, I don't think that "methodology" is a good word for this... it implies implementation, which is governed by normal means and is a post-fiat issue anyway. Ontology, representations, discourse, thinking, et cetera; those would be more accurate. At that point, the claim seems much less justifiable on its face.

 

How is methodology a "post-fiat" issue, and how does it imply implementation?

 

 

I disagree. Perms are tests of competition, yes, but they have just as much potential to solve stuff as the alt does. If the alt is meant to solve something, then the portion of the perm that comes from the alt is going to solve too... Yes, the Neg could try to win a link from the plan portion of the perm, but my point is that it might not matter. If the alt is "reject (the Aff's) capitalist justifications," then a perm of "pass the plan an reject its capitalist justifications" would solve the link, and would be strategic as long as the Aff had a non-capitalist advantage to use as leverage against the Neg's other arguments. You don't have to write the word "Negative" on a piece of paper in order to reject a certain way of thinking...

 

There's several problems here:

 

1. If the neg wins a link, it proves that the K is competitive and the perm goes away. You don't get to advocate a perm.

2. Assuming that that's the alternative that's read (which is worded horribly but whatever), then the permutation would either be severance (like crazy) or links to the K/wouldn't solve because it still advocates some form of capitalist thinking. There's no such thing as a "non-capitalist advantage" if the neg is doing their job properly.

 

I find this logical progression interesting, particularly the jump from the first to the second statement. If I run a debris affirmative, and happen to be operating under the assumption that 2+2 is 5, I don't have to defend that that is correct should the issue come up. Why? Because it is in no way crucial to the accuracy of my claims (i.e. that solving debris is good). You will probably say "that example is ridiculous, bad math isn't related to debris!"

 

I agree that this is a stupid example, but not for the reason you give. It would be one thing to reject bad math, it's something else entirely to reject one of the principles on which the aff is based upon.

 

- Mostly true, but my whole point is that there are Affs that get hit by the Cap K even though their case isn't based on the argument that capitalism is good. Two very capitalist people could run a case that has no econ advantages, mining, or even rhetoric saying that capitalism is good; if the Neg knew (and, for the sake of argument, could somehow prove) that they are capitalists, then your argument would say that they should lose. However, the K in that situation would have absolutely no impact on whether the plan is a good idea.

And, your third sentence is based on the assumption that they are actually "rooted in capitalist thinking," which I'm trying to show is very hard to prove in certain cases, even though Negs say it anyway.

 

You don't need to have explicit rhetoric about how awesome capitalism is to be capitalist. It's funny that you post all those generic links to space exploration above and then try to say that the people in this example don't link. News flash- unless they are an affirmative that explicitly rejects capitalism (and even then...), there's probably some way that they link to the cap K.

 

Also, your third sentence is a justification for perf-con arguments. Let me try to mimic its construction: "If they don't think that capitalism is good, then they shouldn't be making purchases that are rooted in capitalist thinking."

 

If they think all of capitalism is bad, they probably shouldn't do that either. Most of the teams that read that cap k would probably say that there are good aspects to capitalism, it's just that they have been over-shadowed by what Zizek would call the "excesses of capitalism" that cause all of the impacts.

 

Above. You yourself keep saying that the link is the ontology/thinking of the Affirmative; if so, then you have just admitted that the K doesn't care about the actual plan, in which case it has no bearing on its desirability.

If it is a test of desirability, it is post-fiat. Fiat is not a magic wand; it's a tool for determining desirability of certain actions.

At best, you could win that the K is a test of the desirability of intellectually endorsing the plan (i.e. voting for it). That argument is at the core of every framework debate ever, and I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't get anywhere repeating that exchange here.

 

That's just plain wrong. If I win an impact to the foundation of the affirmative, then I prove that it isn't desirable.

 

Before I go any further: you keep throwing around the phrases "post-fiat" and "post-fiat moral disad". The K should never (and does never) funcition in a post-fiat world. They are questions of the assumptions of the affirmative which are pre-fiat considerations. That's debate 101.

 

I wouldn't disagree with you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You keep saying that K's are never post-fiat, yet you compare them to disads, which are always post-fiat... Yes, there is no way to avoid such a link because the Aff mandates it. No plan text ever reads "Support capitalist thinking." That's what you keep saying the link is on the K, yet I think it's fair to say that no Aff ever mandates that... therefore, the claim that the Aff increases capitalist thinking has to be predicated off of something other than the plan text, which I'm arguing is the only thing that they have to defend in order to prove that the Resolution is true. Even if both team members were zealous capitalists who also happened to think that killing people is fun, that wouldn't make the Resolution any less true if they presented good warrants for it's truth.

 

I'm not comparing them to disads, I'm making a point. If you say that something is good (implicitly or explicitly) and I claim a link off of it, you don't have room to complain about it, you have to defend it. I never once said that the links come from the plan text, and yes, I do think it's fair that most affs mandate capitalist thinking. You don't have to be explicit about something to support it. It comes back to the desirability argument. If I win a link to the aff and an impact, then it proves that the plan is not desirable and therefore that the alternative is preferable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YoungGun, your post is awful and doesn't clash at all with what he was saying.

 

Make framework arguments, don't just repeat the framework claims over and over and over again.

 

His post was based on the assumption that the plan is the focus of debate.

Yours was based on the assumption that representations are the focus of debate.

Neither of you did anything to address the underlying problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like there is a question that needs to be answered that is being assumed. Why is using a mac capitalist? The act of purchasing a mac probably perpetuates capitalism, but using one? That seems like a stretch.

  • Downvote 1

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...