Jump to content
Carissa

Fasching '93

Recommended Posts

Can someone please explain the theises behind Fasching's Comparative Religious Ethics: A Narrative Approach? Also, I've ran into a few affiramtive's with Fasching evidence claiming to solve accessabilty- what would be a good neg strat considering it's disabilities yet not the common dossability aff we've seen this year?

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The core arguments RE Fasching affirmatives:
  • Realism Bad
  • Levinas/Encounter with the other good.
  • Sacrificial ethics--in terms of the other = bad (indict of Util)
  • You should be able to read all these cards.  Also I think there was a Fasching aff that came out of camp last year & neg that went along with it.  I may be conflating years.  They should be ready for some of this.

Some options:

  • K of Ethics
  • Realism Good
  • The Other Other.  Derrida.
  • Doesn't he ground his stuff on Levinas.
  • Make them defend something.  PIK out of government.  Although as I recall this aff is meant to pre-empt that.  Something like government engagement key to prevent genocide.
  • K of Transportation.  Put a double-bind around performance.  Link it to in round discourse.

That should actually be sufficient:  I'm probably not explaining "the other" correctly or our obligation to them correctly.

 

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/51946-fasching-case-neg/

 

Maury has an interp on this file that we have to be OPEN to their narratives....not them necessarily.  This distinction makes absolutely no sense to me.

We should listen to the homeless, but we don't have an obligation to help them.  

 

* The camp files I'm referring to are probably from the Poverty Topic....I believe they should still be on the Open Evidence Project.....and you should be able to see aff & neg strategies from that topic or others topics on the Wiki.  

 

If you check out the college caselist....you should be able to find some stuff too (aka by doing a search by author and/or author and neg or author and aff).    This is a semi-common argument--in the sense that one or two teams seem to run the argument each year on both the college & high school topics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please elaborate on The other Other- Derrida. I've yet to come across this argument, what's the premises?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The core arguments RE Fasching affirmatives:
  • Realism Bad

Perhaps you or someone else can explain this to me: it seems like every thread I go, someone suggests to read "realism bad" in response to some case, or K, or whatnot. How is this argument so relevant to so many ideas and arguments? And what exactly does it refer to - is there some comprehensive "realism bad" file that everyone has I've just never come across or something?

 

Sorry to slightly derail the thread btw, I'm very interested in learning about answering Fascing

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Realsim Bad" or "Realism Good" are the srgumetns of viewing the SQ and whether or not we should except them. Concerning Fasching, he makes the decision to move forward in society claiming the SQ to be flawed; however, as the neg I guess you can argue "realism Bad". But I haven't found specific cards on this- still working on that! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism good = power politics good.

1. The obligations of nations are to seek security for their citizens (aka national security).

2. International politics = anarchy or close to it. It resembles the Hobbesian state of nature (SON) which was "nasty, brutish, and short"

3. National security in this case means defensive armaments at a minimum. Using your power to deter other nations from invading your nation or putting your citizens at risk.

4. The ultimate version of this was during the Cold War the US & the Soviets maintained massive nuclear forces to supposedly deter the other nation from nuking it.

5. Corrollary Principle: Decrease in power (aka hegemony) leads to other nations filling the gap.

6. Deterence Good--solves conflict. Hege good--solves conflict. Military good--solves conflict

 

Realism bad

1. Rational agents. Leaders don't act as rational agents

2. Assessments of security & risk aren't objective & they almost always assume an intention to use

3. These threat assessments resort in worst case scenarios--which become self fulfilling prophecy

4. It usually talks about how "security" is a social contract or at least partially a social construct. That language frames & mediates how we think about security & politics & risk.

5. Similar argument: "Security" thinking applied to non-security issues = militarized thinking. Militarized thinking is bad--= root cause of war.

6. There are probably a half dozen versions of this argument. These are some of the core

 

BTW, if you don't have a realism good file....you should probably get one. They can be in the form of a K toolbox or K answers.....and you should also be able to find similar arguments in Securitization K files (aka in the answer section).

 

Heres the HS wiki:

http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/search/view/fasching

 

I would also search for more generic disability neg.

 

If they claim narratives. You can run counter-narratives. And decide why yours are better. My guess is the way to provide better narratives would be to provide more diversity--right this solves for

1) their claims of inclusion/diversity & "others" arguably better. people with disabilities who are rich or white aren't quite as important--they don't have the same oppression or the degree of oppression. You need a clear advocacy statement (which would kind of function like a counterplan)

2) Or you could contextualize their narratives.

3) Or read your own narratives (of minorities with disabilities & their transportation woes).

 

There are some decent narratives bad arguments. Many are found in Law Reviews (aka on lexis. They begin I think around the 1987 to 1995 area). Farber & Sherry.

 

Note: they are two different arguments.

1. They are saying--narratives are transformative--they do things in the world.

2. The criticisms will likely be that narratives manipulate the truth.

 

Two related considerations:

So its arguable you could kind of hold both things to be true. For instance, fairy tales--tell stories--but they might help society in some way.

I think though you can implicate the narratives bad--in that they can tell bad stories about identity.

 

So your claims of how it implicates truth/falsehood.....should address probably and ideally

1) truth

2) what it does in the world--how it changes our perceptions--what it accomplishes

3) perhaps ethics. I would think that Facshing would have an issue with lying about stories & how effective lies could be. But I'm honestly not sure.

 

The problem, here, however isn't that narratives are wrong/bad....but rather they can be abused. And so can probably ever other form of argument/proof/data. Some would probably do something like: narratives bad/science good as an alternative--but they may indict with "objectivity impossible/objectivity a myth"

 

You could also select "first person" narratives--and saying they are bad or potentially manipulative.

 

Or you could go another direction--say poetry/rap......get the cards that say its good....claim that as a story.....explain why its a better story than theirs.

Or do both rap/poetry + narrative. And claim by doing both you solve better.

Most all the rap bad arguments assume gangster rap on the radio--not rap you made up for political transformation telling the stories of disabled people.

 

Ultimately these debates will likely be about how in round performance relates to identity formation & meaning formation--and in term the identities of the disabled. Looking at the disabled as individuals....rather than a collective--and the ways you do that. Ie look at them as snowflakes rather than a hoarde or mass or statistics......will potentially be good--because that implicates the Fashing evidence.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I understand, Realsim Bad" or "Realism Good" are the srgumetns of viewing the SQ and whether or not we should except them. Concerning Fasching, he makes the decision to move forward in society claiming the SQ to be flawed; however, as the neg I guess you can argue "realism Bad". But I haven't found specific cards on this- still working on that! :)

 

Realism is not just the idea that we should accept the way the world works. It is the idea that in any given situation, political actors will act in their best interests. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism is a Hobbsiean idea that states are in an anarchic competition for resources and power and will act on their own best/self interests. One of the main applications are therefor that we can predict international actors because they act in a particular way. It's sort of viewing the IR field as a chess board.

 

Fasching says (and I have not run him and I'm sure Sam is more knowledgeable on this) that we should have inclusive ethics instead of ethics that separate based off difference, in a nutshell. He is like Levinias except more theological. If you understand Nieztsche that is one of the best options to run. If you have some time Liberty's God K is a particularly devastating strategy and can be run as a PIC out of the state.

 

Derrida's Other Others is a great blanket answer to Levinias. It is about the idea of the Other who witnesses the exchange between the self and other. I am not fully knowledgable on this but Zizek wrote an article titled something along the lines of Smashing the Face of the Other which explains this and can be cut as a K.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing an advanced search of the URL (aka Google advanced search and limit it to the Open Evidence URL which is below) will solve your not having: realism good/realism bad

http://www.debatecoaches.org/

 

Caveat: I honestly don't know how the cite is organized.....so it may just be easier to click through the links for the 2 years that are hosted on the cite....and go to Critiques & Critique Answers and figure out what you need.

 

There is also a thread on here which has ZIP files of old topics.

 

There is also a thread on here with K answers which I started.  I don't know what a keyword would be except "kritic answers or critique answers".....I think I mentioned the the3nr

 

 If you have some time Liberty's God K is a particularly devastating strategy and can be run as a PIC out of the state.

 

I think this means go to the college wiki & search for this.  It might be smart to have this bookmarked.

 

http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/

  • Upvote 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...