Jump to content
swagondeck

Round 563- Bannister (Aff) Vs Miro (Neg)

Recommended Posts

So you will spike out of China should fund the plan, but wouldn't spike out of "We demand that China funds the plan!"? What's the functional difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure if that would even consitute a spike. All we'll say is "they dont make a demand, so no solvency"

if you want to defend fiat thats fine, but you probably won't solve the activism portion of our advocacy. 

The difference... look to Purcell. Demands solve, especially in this instance...

 

This seems like a non-issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you advocate (the demand on the federal government) your plan text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, 1NC will be up by tomorrow or sooner (probably, I don't have HW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since your document was about 200 words over, mine might be as well, okay? (so we might want to change it to 2200/1400, as opposed to 2000/1200)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I count highlighted ones (for yours, I just highlighted all the tags too, and it came out to almost 2,200 (if you add the authors, it would probably be slightly over))

 

Also, one last question, What is a bike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay but you just manually count? 

 

A pedal-driven vehicle with two wheels, although the bike lanes will be accessible to three-wheeled bikes as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay but you just manually count? 

 

A pedal-driven vehicle with two wheels, although the bike lanes will be accessible to three-wheeled bikes as well. 

no sorry, I do ctrl+f, and then there's a trick to getting all the highlighted word (I can show you later), then I paste them into an empty doc, and word count it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool.

 

AAAAAAAND troy can judge, he's cool. 

 

 

DnG State PIC:

 

how does micropolitical action actually build bike lanes? How do we implement these things? 

 

your conley evidence just says how good rhizomatic politics is... and why the state is bad. But what's the link to the final project of a free, rhizomatic, public space?

 

Your first piece of DnG says "our agency"... what is that? 

 

How do we allow for fascism when the aff creates the public space neccesary to challenge "fascist" collectives in the first place? 

 

Deleuze and Parnet say that we trade off with immediate micropolitical action- how are we not micropolitics? Is the only link our use of the state? And what's the warrant here?

 

For Goals v. Process, where in the 1ac is the "goal" for our demand? How are we process focus?

 

Taoism: 

 

How is slabbert qualified? This dude is making some pretty big claims about the human subject, and he can't even do HTLM correctly. 

 

How can we embrace suffering when we're cut off from the external in a world of automobility? 

 

your fancy new 3rd off: 

 

If we win that we allow for analysis of the bike's functions, do we win this flow?

 

The first card talks about utilizing educational things... how is this unique to bikes? also, is ANY of this unique to bikes?

 

Do you posit any new ontological relationship?

 

How do we affirm the substance and agency of the bike?

 

Isn't viewing bikes as tools better than our current relationship to the car?

 

Can you isolate any unique impact to the aff? 

 

Case:

 

where in the 1ac did we say that structural violence created by the government and multinational corporations a mistake...?

 

name some of these "evil cycling companies intent on biopolitical control"? 

 

 

 

I think that's it for now. I'll have the 2ac up by tomorrow. i have very little HW... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DnG State PIC:

 

how does micropolitical action actually build bike lanes? How do we implement these things?

How does political action build bike lanes? How does the government? We don't have any set process (that wouldn't be truly rhizomatic [not that we ever can be])... We disconnect from the state, using our own agency to do this. -- Some action is better than none at all.

 

your conley evidence just says how good rhizomatic politics is... and why the state is bad. But what's the link to the final project of a free, rhizomatic, public space?

Whole point is we aren't trying to link to the final project of a free, rhizomatic, public space... We're linking to your process. Also, you haven't won that your plan creates rhizomatic space.. (it can't truly be rhizomatic when the state is still instituting territoritalities)... your plan is only addressing the effect, not the cause.

 

Your first piece of DnG says "our agency"... what is that?

 

How do we allow for fascism when the aff creates the public space neccesary to challenge "fascist" collectives in the first place?

Cooption, inherently your aff won't create this truly rhizomatic space, because the state will just territorialize. Also, because you have set goals in mind, you can never be truly rhizomatic. We're not (necessarily) attacking the goal of your plan, but the process.

 

Deleuze and Parnet say that we trade off with immediate micropolitical action- how are we not micropolitics? Is the only link our use of the state? And what's the warrant here?

You are like, look at all these problems in the world! State, we demand that you do something about this! Okay, now that that's done, let's wait around for something to happen.

 

For Goals v. Process, where in the 1ac is the "goal" for our demand? How are we process focus?

Right to the Streets, destroying automobility, stopping disenfranchisement.

 

Taoism:

 

How is slabbert qualified? This dude is making some pretty big claims about the human subject, and he can't even do HTLM correctly.

Slabbert isn't making these claims so much as expressing claims central to the taoist belieft. He's also qualified as a teacher of the tao, so it's not his arguments so much as the arguments of the tao. I'm not sure what you're asking about the HTLM... unless you meant HTML (that would be ironic).

 

How can we embrace suffering when we're cut off from the external in a world of automobility?

I never advocate for embracing suffering. I advocate for opening oneself up to suffering, ie. not be constantly trying to "run" from it with a "plan".

 

your fancy new 3rd off:

(lol -- super fanceh)

 

If we win that we allow for analysis of the bike's functions, do we win this flow?

No? We aren't discussing analysis of the bikes functions. We critique the way you only present the bike as a "tool" to be used to combat automobility. You discuss how we can "use" the bike to gain back people's right to the streets... You present the bike in relation to the way people use it for things.

 

The first card talks about utilizing educational things... how is this unique to bikes? also, is ANY of this unique to bikes?

The article talks about these things in relation to education as an example (ie. "similarly"), but is actually a broader critique (read the article, it's interesting.) None of this is unique to bikes, but the argument still applies, (it applies to all objects).

 

Do you posit any new ontological relationship?

Yes, see "alt". Though, there is a distinction to be made between ontology and O3.

 

How do we affirm the substance and agency of the bike?

By not just reducing an object to it's relations (read the bryant card for more!)

 

Isn't viewing bikes as tools better than our current relationship to the car?

You're still viewing them both as tools -- we propose rejecting this rhetoric. One isn't "better" than the other.

 

Can you isolate any unique impact to the aff?

"Unique impact to the aff" explain? Violent Dualism and politics is the key impact. (We'll explain more in the block)

 

Case:

 

where in the 1ac did we say that structural violence created by the government and multinational corporations a mistake...?

You frame your 1ac as saying, look at all these problems in the Urban environment. Maybe if we demand that the government implements bikes, that'll help! But you assume that the government will listen to you, that automobility wasn't part of the governments plans the whole time.

 

name some of these "evil cycling companies intent on biopolitical control"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bicycle_brands_and_manufacturing_companies -- but seriously, many cycling companies. The ones that engage in the discourses described in the Gilley evidence (and more!).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool... yeah it'll be up by tomorrow. 

 

Three more: 

1. You never answered what your "agency" is for DnG. Refer to DnG q #3

 

2. How can we "open ourself to suffering" in a world of automobility.

 

3. Does the PIC build bike lanes, yes or no. I realize thats not the focus, but still... and if so WHO DOES IT, MAN

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool... yeah it'll be up by tomorrow. 

 

Three more: 

1. You never answered what your "agency" is for DnG. Refer to DnG q #3

oops. Our agency is what it means, our own actions, doings, etc.

 

2. How can we "open ourself to suffering" in a world of automobility.

By not running from suffering, by realizing, yeah, things suck. Automobility does not stop that from occurring. Also, that's not the entire alt.

 

3. Does the PIC build bike lanes, yes or no. I realize thats not the focus, but still... and if so WHO DOES IT, MAN

Not so much of a PIC but still, building bike lanes and our Counter Advocacy are NOT mutually exclusive, it's only are focus and political process that are. If anyone is going to build it, it is going to be US, not institution! 

Edit: When I say US I do NOT mean the United States

 

Also (unrelated), are you the 2a?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i am. I'm 2n for some outrounds too... why? 

 

3. So what you're saying is... you build bike lanes and locking mechanisms? How?? Is that something you claim to do? or can it just "happen" in the world of the PIC

i know it's not a pic but cmon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i am. I'm 2n for some outrounds too... why? 

 

3. So what you're saying is... you build bike lanes and locking mechanisms? How?? Is that something you claim to do? or can it just "happen" in the world of the PIC

i know it's not a pic but cmon.

3. What...? I claim that the two world aren't mutually exclusive, only the process. So implementing a resistance (to automobility) is not something we "claim to do", but something that can happen.

It's not a PIC.

 

Edit: I was wondering just out of curiosity.. I'm almost always the 2N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. What...? I claim that the two world aren't mutually exclusive, only the process. So implementing a resistance (to automobility) is not something we "claim to do", but something that can happen.

It's not a PIC.

 

Edit: I was wondering just out of curiosity.. I'm almost always the 2N.

i was joking about the PIC thing. 

 

3. Thats cool.

 

and yeah ill probably be double 2s next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and yeah ill probably be double 2s next year. 

I'm really uncomfortable about doing that, because my partner isn't very fast, so I am worried about the 1A position. 

 

Edit: How has that worked out for you?

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...