Jump to content
lasers :D

Ld Sept/oct Topic Discussion: Terrorist Rights

Recommended Posts

The circuit edges towards that direction, especially on topics where policy analysis comes in, but it's still not quite as intense. Thinking on your feet and adapting arguments and cheating is more important in LD, and it's usually difficult to do that with cards because cards tend to be very specific and interlock in a fashion more rigid than what you can do with analytic arguments.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that this should be in the LD FAQ section but watever.

If I want to write a security k, would it also be link, impact, alternative cards like policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so I took your advice Chaos and I made a critical torture ac- It basically goes that : Currently Us bases in M.E. involves torture/abuse -> Torture/abuse = the zero point of biopolitical control and dehum -> Bio power= bad and Dehum= Bad and then contention 2- the affirmative explores dark sites of torture and is critical to real world solvency of poltical violence-> Discourse shapes reality.

V: morality

Criterion: Human Worth - (No using humans as means to ends)

Out of the 1 AC i'm winning 3 things

1. a more Kantian version of ethics.

2. Consequentialism

3. Real world impacts.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]It basically goes that : Currently Us bases in M.E. involves torture/abuse ->

 

I don't understand why you're narrowing it down to this specifically unless you're reading plan theory or trying to dodge DAs.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]Torture/abuse = the zero point of biopolitical control and dehum -> Bio power= bad and Dehum= Bad

 

Why not just claim that torture is bad in itself? Dehum, maybe that's an additional impact. But bringing biopower into this seems superfluous.

 

Your link to biopower will probably be worse than their link to torture since last time I checked no one writes good cards about how the USFG is totally dependent on torture to maintain law and order over its populace. Biopower is about socialization processes, mostly, not overt violence. Actually, biopower generally doesn't make sense on this topic since biopower is all about domestic management and this is a lot about foreigners. Also, biopower is probably going to lose an impact debate against terrorism. Then again, pretty much everything is going to lose an impact debate against terrorism. Because of that, I suggest you either go all in on metaethics, go all in on the terrorism debate, or cheat.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]and then contention 2- the affirmative explores dark sites of torture and is critical to real world solvency of poltical violence-> Discourse shapes reality.

 

Why is this more strategic than just being normal and more topical?

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]V: morality

 

Aight.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]Criterion: Human Worth - (No using humans as means to ends)

 

I'm not the biggest fan, especially since the David Cumminsky card (spelling is wrong) is excellent on this issue.

 

But whateva.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]Out of the 1 AC i'm winning 3 things

 

First, you should be winning every argument you make out of the 1AC, obviz. Second, you should either be focusing on one really big argument with lots of little arguments contained within it for use in the next speech, or you should be winning dozens of smaller arguments that you'll later blow up in the debate, through cheating or impact comparison or K'ing or metaethics or whatever is possible. A middle of the road strategy like this just seems like you'll be too weak on each issue and there'll be too few issues for you to utilize your superior knowledge of your case to take advantage of what they might undercover.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]1. a more Kantian version of ethics.

 

I'm not a

 

standing_fan.jpg?1206633109

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]2. Consequentialism

 

Gear your entire affirmative towards answering their consequentialist arguments, because you have a big disadvantage on that issue and it's the one almost all negative cases will be oriented around. They can access extinction impacts much more easily than you, so you need to either win some sort of probability oriented framework argument or attack consequentialism or attack the specifics of their claims about terrorism, probably through a K.

 

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]3. Real world impacts.

 

Now you're vulnerable to a loss on framework, and you used extra speech time to achieve this. I see no benefit to this.

 

I mean, like, I guess you'll be more likely to win against awful teams who drop framework. But other than that...?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cross-x.c...-dropped-price/

 

for just four dollars you can get the politics of fear file -

 

Politics of fear file goes along perfect with this resolution, its great for both making affirmative arguments about the brutalities of the war on terror and refuting negative arguments.

 

here's a little sample for you of the heat of this file... the cards get way better

 

 

Mumia Abu Jamal in 09 (Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. The USA. City Lights Books. P. 70)

 

In an entirely different sense than the way I use it, U.S. military authorities, politicians, and prison administrators seize on the usage of the phrase “the worst of the worst†to justify the barbarities practiced against prisoners. They use it to justify the isolation, abuse, and torture of prisoners in places like the federal lockup known as Marion Control Unit in Illinois, and in various such units in two-thirds of the states, and more recently—and infamously—at the U.S. military prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Bagram, Afghanistan. Of course, characterizing their captives as the “worst of the worst†is usually a pretext deployed to deflect criticism of official treatment. But such pale excuses have somewhat limited utility in light of the testimonies, photos, and videos that have emerged from the U.S. torture centers around the globe. In the infamous photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, one can see the almost manic glee reflected in the shiny, white faces of Americans—several of whom were American prison guards in their civilian lives—as they thrilled at the abuse, torture, and humiliation of stripped Iraqi men, at the prison that had been made infamous by the pains inflicted upon opponents of the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein. Only the Americans, with their electronic toys capable of sending digital images abroad, could have outdone the Ba’ath Party in depravity and infamy. What millions saw in the garish reflections of Iraq was but a foreign edition of the reality of American prisons: places of legalized torture, humiliation and abuse—practices exported from domestic U.S. hellholes to ones overseas. As law professor David Cole has observed, the epithet “worst of the worst†(an expression used repeatedly by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on television) could hardly apply to many ensconced in the Guantanamo torture and interrogation camp, for only 8 percent of the detainees are alleged to be fighters for Al Qaeda.1 Among those detained there are people from China known as Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic minority speaking a Turkic tongue, who are being refused re-entry to their homeland despite having been cleared of terrorism charges. Constitutional lawyer Michael Ratner, who has written widely about this and represented people encaged in Guantanamo before the U.S. Supreme Court, notes: The U.S. military dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering large sums of money for information leading to the capture of terrorists. Many apparently took up the offer and turned in innocent civilians for their bounty. A military interrogator at Camp Delta estimates that as many as 20 percent of the men in captivity at Guantanamo are innocent. Dozens of prisoners—if not more—are described in U.S. intelligence reports as farmers, taxi drivers, laborers, and shoemakers. According to these reports, at least 59 individuals from Afghanistan and Pakistan were captured and shipped to Guantanamo despite not fitting the screening criteria for such a transfer. As one military official who served as an interrogator observed, “If they weren’t terrorists before, they certainly could be now.â€2 Are these people—or their torturers—the worst of the worst?

Edited by Brian D. Gonzaba
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=lasers :D' timestamp='1345497145' post='860690]

Okay so I took your advice Chaos and I made a critical torture ac- It basically goes that : Currently Us bases in M.E. involves torture/abuse -> Torture/abuse = the zero point of biopolitical control and dehum -> Bio power= bad and Dehum= Bad and then contention 2- the affirmative explores dark sites of torture and is critical to real world solvency of poltical violence-> Discourse shapes reality.

V: morality

Criterion: Human Worth - (No using humans as means to ends)

Out of the 1 AC i'm winning 3 things

1. a more Kantian version of ethics.

2. Consequentialism

3. Real world impacts.

Any thoughts?

 

First of all, I would not recommend running a discursive AC unless you have a lot of answers built into it on the discourse level, otherwise the negative an just spread you out with a ton of discourse turns. Second, it seems like you are saying you are winning a consequentialist version of ethics, which is also somewhat Kantian. The problem with this is that by definition consequentialism uses people as means to an end, so you seem to be contradiction yourself. Chaos/rawwrcat is right as well when talking about answering their impacts and the potential loss of framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, it seems like you are saying you are winning a consequentialist version of ethics, which is also somewhat Kantian. The problem with this is that by definition consequentialism uses people as means to an end, so you seem to be contradiction yourself

 

I think he was just saying that he'll win even if the other team proves consequentialism, because he'll prove torture is bad in a consequential sense, although he'll still defend Kant mainly.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was just saying that he'll win even if the other team proves consequentialism, because he'll prove torture is bad in a consequential sense, although he'll still defend Kant mainly.

 

The only problem with that is that if he s using a Kantian version of ethics he needs to be proving an intention to do harm, which is somewhat harm in terms of a government. The way I see it you are going to have to spend a significant chunk of time establishing that, since it is the main link into your standard, as well as a lot of time making consequentialist impacts that outweigh possible negative ones. This leaves a lot less time to develop framework and discourse arguments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like everyone is looking at a torture and morality standpoint for the Aff? I was thinking more on the lines of equality. Possibly tying it into the constitution, while also linking in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like everyone is looking at a torture and morality standpoint for the Aff? I was thinking more on the lines of equality. Possibly tying it into the constitution, while also linking in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any thoughts?

 

I think that to make this work, since it such an obvious approach to the topic, you would need to make your argument very nuanced and framework/substantive arguments that eliminate a lot of negative ground/responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like everyone is looking at a torture and morality standpoint for the Aff? I was thinking more on the lines of equality. Possibly tying it into the constitution, while also linking in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any thoughts?

 

Well, I mentioned this briefly earlier, which is really pretty similar. It was motivated by the same line of thought that you're following currently.

 

A tricky rebuttal extension of this argument would go as follows: "if the due process DOESN'T work, then US citizens should also have it revoked. Both US citizens and noncitizens should have the same constitutional protections, that is, neither of them should have any sort of these protections because it increases the risk of terrorism". Phrasing it that way is also nice because it allows you to still contest that the due process argument does work (although if you're in a tricky strategic situation a wholesale concession might be here your best interest here). At the very least, your opponents will get time skewed a lot by this argument. I love cheating.

 

I think using it as a tricky cheapshot is much better than using it as a main strategy. Firstly, I don't think that arguments based on the normative force of the Constitution or the UN charter will be very strong, especially when compared to the destruction of the world (and thus the UN and the USA along with billions of lives). Secondly, I think this short little argument can capture all of the force of a much longer argument about justice and fairness and equality, even though it's short. That frees up time for other stuff. Thirdly, doing it this way makes it an "even-if" type argument which can be conceded in certain situations very easily, giving you more flexibility and preventing your opponent from narrowing the strategic workings of the debate (you want to be the one to do that, so you can do it in your interest and prevent them from doing it in their own interest). Fourth, tricky cheatpshots are fun and awesome and probably key to your survival as affirmative, given massive systemic neg bias and all.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I mentioned this briefly earlier, which is really pretty similar. It was motivated by the same line of thought that you're following currently.

 

 

 

I think using it as a tricky cheapshot is much better than using it as a main strategy. Firstly, I don't think that arguments based on the normative force of the Constitution or the UN charter will be very strong, especially when compared to the destruction of the world (and thus the UN and the USA along with billions of lives). Secondly, I think this short little argument can capture all of the force of a much longer argument about justice and fairness and equality, even though it's short. That frees up time for other stuff. Thirdly, doing it this way makes it an "even-if" type argument which can be conceded in certain situations very easily, giving you more flexibility and preventing your opponent from narrowing the strategic workings of the debate (you want to be the one to do that, so you can do it in your interest and prevent them from doing it in their own interest). Fourth, tricky cheatpshots are fun and awesome and probably key to your survival as affirmative, given massive systemic neg bias and all.

 

I think I may actually do something with this idea. It sort of ties in with another thought I had in concerns with American terrorists. The Oklahoma City Bombing that occurred in 1992 was at the time, considered one of the biggest terrorists attacks in US history. It was literally advertised all over the world. The important aspect when looking at this bombing is the fact that it was done by Domestic Terrorists. The two men responsible for the bombings were given a fair trial. So if we give American terrorists a fair trial, would it not be the right thing to do to give accused citizens a fair trial as well? With your idea, you could tie it back into this example. If we don't give accused terrorists their due process, we shouldn't give american's their due process either because they are capable of committing the same acts of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.

 

Also, I think ecoterrorists are pretty big. I'm pretty sure if you compiled a list of terror attacks on USA then 85% would be domestic. (Hint, try wikipedia or something. I know that a PFer at NFLs a few years ago [like, maybe five years, or something] on a terrorism topic had great arguments on why domestic terrorists did bad things and were horrible, because our coach made us watch a PF video my sophomore year of high school).

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda unrelated, but would ending the war on terror be neg cp ground? The aff assumes we should be trying terrorists in the first place, so I guess the neg could say we shouldnt even do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lolz, just let the terrorists go free counterplan.

 

I don't know if it's competitive (maybe, via mutual exclusivity, or generic K claims about hidden assumptions and masking), but it sounds really strategic otherwise.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or at least a CP saying give terrorists to home nations. imperialism K ground and maybe soft power adv. But I literally can't find anything on it other than neocons saying murika is best, other nations will torture them etc. If anyone can find an article on it, Id love to know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked wikipedia:

 

Domestic terrorism in the United States between 1980 and 2000 consisted of 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts by the FBI. These 250 attacks are considered domestic by the FBI because they were carried out by U.S. citizens.[1]

 

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

Checking citation one leads to http://www.cfr.org/t...ed-states/p9236 which is going to be one of the best pieces of evidence of this whole topic. And it's explicitly advocating my idea of reversing the way this topic functions, ie arguing that US citizens shouldn't get constitutional rights in cases of terrorism. I still recommend using the argument only conditionally as an "even-if" type piece of defense, but it's looking really strong right now.

  • 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...