Jump to content
swagondeck

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

Recommended Posts

Sorry 'bout the long delay...

 

Some of CX

 

Case

What would you do on neg, if you went against this aff?

one off wilderson, public space link is good

Where does Rao say we always need to demand action? (quote from the card)

¶ Making demands of the state consisted not only of advocating for specific physical outcomes, but also ensuring the deep integration and consideration of the ‘cycling perspective’ into every level of the official policy and planning process

he's saying how important it is to demand action and ensure deep integration. 

Would people still use cars? What about for long journeys?

we don't ban cars. you're missing the point, it's about people connecting with their cities and local space

Where does our Gilley card mention Europe?

i've read his stuff. he doesnt say it in this card specifically but that's what he's talking about... basically he's saying that squo bike culture shaped the body into that of the European road racer, fit, perfect... but we're winning a 49% increase of people on bikes so that's more bodies and different bodies, your ev only talks about culture now, doesnt assume our aff.  

Does your Springer card ever say the word “biopower†(yes/no)?

wow, i never knew thats how we evaluate evidence! no, but he's saying that public space allows for lots of things like challenging elite control, and the ability to activate and change things... it allows for democratization and that solves back risk of biopower offense because people have the power to fight back. 

Who is going to be building the bike lanes?

the federal government, they're the only ones with the funding and the experts/equipment who can build durable bike infrastructure 

DnG

Define micropolitics.

use of power by individuals and activist groups to affect change, like RTC. 

If I win that someone has used “free thought†do I win the Counter-advocacy?

nay?

Can someone resist automobility without thinking?

nobody can do anything "without thinking", not sure what you're asking

In your Purcell card, you say that people will “challenge†capitalism and the state. What does this mean? Will capitalism be destroyed? Will the state be destroyed? Will automobility be destroyed?  

we'll solve back automobility... we don't claim to collapse capitalism or the state, but what we're saying is that Right to the City allows for the ability to solve the bad parts of state power, the ones that your cards talk about

Where do we say that our strategy is based solely on thought? (apply this on all 3 flows)

DnG: well you "affirm the schizoanalytic process" but you don't take pragmatic action, at least that i've heard so far in this round

Taoism: the alt is a mindset shift, embracing suffering through opening up some mental doorway? 

OOO: you're focusing on an ontological mindset shift again

O₃ K

Do your Kateb cards ever say the words “public space†(yes/no)?

straight from the card, yes. "The organization or frame or form for freedom, for the action which expresses or manifests or embodies freedom, is the polis or city or public space or public realm: it is the world, in the sense of a worldly place."

What does “sucks life†mean?

the link is not good. it sucks. 

Taoism

What happens if we don’t do your plan?

millions of people unnecessarily die, global market domination over how space is produced, not good stuff

What do you think “opening yourself to loss†means?

i know it links to kateb... haha it means that i'm accepting suffering and allowing a loss? it also doesn't make sense under Taoism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On case #1: So you would argue that the state is inherently racist? Do you believe that?

On #1 under Taoism: Is that suffering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, have political movements in the past succeeded? Why/why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On case #1: So you would argue that the state is inherently racist? Do you believe that?

no way man, not that the state is inherently racist but that the idea of public space traditionally leaves out the black body. That's not true for RTC, obviously. But that's what i'd run. I would not use a state link. And i shouldn't have to say what i'd run against my aff... 

On #1 under Taoism: Is that suffering?

sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, have political movements in the past succeeded? Why/why not?

yes? for example, the Civil Rights Movement. People and activists took action, and demanded that the state reform its education systems and policies in the public sphere. It succeeded because only the state can be the one to make those changes. This is also an example of why a goal-oriented approach solves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably going to be the end of Cross-X, can't give an exact time for the block, depends on how much HW I get tomorrow. (if I have any clarifying questions, I'll ask.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, one last. How many times have you run this aff (approx.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the 2AC is done, I'm comfortable pointing out there's a certain irony in the 1NC's choice to defend Deleuze and Guattari in one breath and "predictability" as a debate-standard in the next. Pretty sure that's a double turn, and it's one I see often enough that it warrants pointing out for educational purposes. 

Before anyone complains I commented before the round was done: 1) it would be entirely new in the 1AR, thus disregard-able 2) the educational value outweighs, because these things almost never finish anyway and its a v-debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anyone complains I commented before the round was done: 1) it would be entirely new in the 1AR, thus disregard-able 2) the educational value outweighs, because these things almost never finish anyway and its a v-debate.

I would appreciate if this was commented after the round (as it could sway judge decisions). That is interesting though, I'll keep it in mind.

 

Also (for Bannister), was the Civil Rights movement a change in perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the 2AC is done, I'm comfortable pointing out there's a certain irony in the 1NC's choice to defend Deleuze and Guattari in one breath and "predictability" as a debate-standard in the next. Pretty sure that's a double turn, and it's one I see often enough that it warrants pointing out for educational purposes. 

Actually, Snarf, I'm a bit confused. Do D&G have a clear view on "predictability"? From what I've read of Difference and Repetition, the negative view on this does not seem to be clear. Just because something is rhizomatic doesn't mean it can't be predictable, repetitive? DR says: "repetition is a

transgression. It puts law into question, it denounces its nominal or general character in favour of a more profound and more artistic reality." I'm sure you're right, but can you clear that up for me?
 
Edit: I guess one could say that we are "territorializing what they can do, restricting them"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does our rhizomatic public space not solve the anthro articulated in Mikulak?

2. How does rhizomatic thinking internally create free public space?

3. Do you defend any other methods of creating public space?

4. Does Conley say that the state is always immobilizing?

5. Again, you say that "bikes arent the only way to solve, what other methods do you defend? What other methods are there?

6. Watson- how is the state going to shape space if all they're doing is building bike lanes? How do bike lanes become "striated"

7. So at this point, any collective institution is inherently fascist? 

8. Explain your double bind and exactly what I said in the 2ac? 

9. So what you're saying is that public space is rhizomatic, but the state makes that not so?

10. How do individual people build bike lanes and locking mechanisms? Do all people have the money to do this? 

11. explain how internal deterritorialization can create public space in the external, which is dominated by the automobile...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does our rhizomatic public space not solve the anthro articulated in Mikulak?

Firstly, you're not rhizomatic -- also, that card is not talking about the space aspect of rhizomatic politics, but the rhizome in general.

2. How does rhizomatic thinking internally create free public space?

We're not just some thinking movement. We are more activist than you are. We are taking actual action, not just "thinking in our minds" -- we're not purely internal. It creates public space through every possible way, through a multiplicity of ways. Our nomadic politics allow us to take back the right to the city by "becoming" -- deteritorializing space. 

3. Do you defend any other methods of creating public space?

We'll defend that we deterritorialize through the rhizome, that we create a multiplicity of strategies to gain back the rhizome, not just restricting ourselves to bikes, but also not restricting ourselves away from bikes.

4. Does Conley say that the state is always immobilizing?

Yes.

5. Again, you say that "bikes arent the only way to solve, what other methods do you defend? What other methods are there?

See #3

6. Watson- how is the state going to shape space if all they're doing is building bike lanes? How do bike lanes become "striated"?

Well, this is also the Conely evidence. It's a bit difficult to explain if you haven't read the lit, but basically the State creates striated space because they have control of the space (the Bike lanes), it has assigned intervals, is planned -- also, our net benefits discuss this.

7. So at this point, any collective institution is inherently fascist? 

No. But institution that subsumes our agency, our desire (specifically things like the government) is.

8. Explain your double bind and exactly what I said in the 2ac? 

You've made a consistent argument that thought based strategy can't solve because the external shapes the subject -- our double bind is saying that since all strategy is based in thought (that's CX), either nothing can ever solve, or we solve.

9. So what you're saying is that public space is rhizomatic, but the state makes that not so?

Not exactly. The State is only one of our links firstly. Also, it depends how you define "public space". Also, the space is smooth or striated, the space itself isn't "rhizomatic". 

10. How do individual people build bike lanes and locking mechanisms? Do all people have the money to do this? 

Hah, money.... We don't have to win that they will build it, WE can just go out and start riding, start deterritorializing, not waiting on any state to accommodate to us, we can spur our own revolution!

11. explain how internal deterritorialization can create public space in the external, which is dominated by the automobile...?

See #2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. "A multiplicity of ways, every possible way" Can you name these methods?

 

10. So this is how you solve the aff? Also, how do you "just ride" when the infrastructure doesn't exist? 

 

 

I guess how, specifically, do you solve the aff through the rhizome? Does just saying "we don't affirm state-based plan of action" deterritorialize? If not, then how specifically do we do this? 

 

Just so we're on the same page, what's your definition of the rhizome? 

 

If we win that public space created by our aff solves agency, do we win? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. "A multiplicity of ways, every possible way" Can you name these methods?

No, that wouldn't be truly rhizomatic... We won't constrict our advocacy to any specific method, we open the space for multiple becomings.

 

10. So this is how you solve the aff? Also, how do you "just ride" when the infrastructure doesn't exist? 

What is "this"? We solve the aff through an infinite different of ways, de-territorializing, nomadic thought, smoothing out space, refusing to become-state, just riding, building our own infrastructure, to just name a few. If you own a bike, you can just go out and start riding it. The state is inherently a collection of people,  why not just build this infrastructure, minus the state.

 

I guess how, specifically, do you solve the aff through the rhizome? Does just saying "we don't affirm state-based plan of action" deterritorialize? If not, then how specifically do we do this? 

See #2 and #3. Of course just saying "we affirm the rhizomatic politics" doesn't solve... We have to embrace the free, nomadic thought and action, and the judges ballot represents a critical way to do that.

 

Just so we're on the same page, what's your definition of the rhizome? 

 

A philosophical concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their Capitalism and Schizophrenia project. ;) 

 

If we win that public space created by our aff solves agency, do we win? 

No. Agency is just a small part of it, we specifically critique the method you go about solving, not the end result. Agency is not the major impact, and you still have to win that your aff creates public space.

I'm really mad because CX ate my first answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah that sucks. 

lol, can you be more specific here? 

 

"A philosophical concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their Capitalism and Schizophrenia project.  ;)"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah that sucks. 

lol, can you be more specific here? 

 

"A philosophical concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their Capitalism and Schizophrenia project.  ;)"

We don't want to restrict the definition of a rhizome. It prevents the multiplicity of definitions.

 

Edit: lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha okay, that's fine... 

also: you're a monster for that Wikipedia use

 

two more: how does the judge voting neg "deterritorialize"? How does deterritorialization take power over space away from multinational corporations?

 

finally do you claim to solve structural violence through the C/A?

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...