Jump to content
zetazetadelta

Tell Me What Blocks You Need And I'll Make Them.

Recommended Posts

This is really nice of you if you're serious about it. I'd like a block to answer the [Christian] God K.

just cut some Nietzsche cards from "The Anti-Christ"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Poetry Good block is nice, thanks for the ev. For anyone intent on running this type of argument though, I would make your ev more specific to your argument (DMP, Heidegger, Land, etc.)

 

If anyone legitimately needs answers to the god K, I can post some basic stuff.

 

If you want my suggestions for block writing, minorly influenced by what I'd like to see but also ranging from levels of skill meant to train your abilities, here's a list in descending level of difficulty:

 

Neolib Aff 2AC to Courts/States CP

Policy 2AC to Cap with only offense/turns

Policy 2AC to a 1NC that was six off Ks, you decide how best to answer them, but no specific answers to the Ks.

2AC to a K that claims "root cause of war"

Ableism Block Against Race

2AC to Deleuze K (if you want a specific K to model, try something like the UTNIF 1NC)

Afro-Optimism to answer Afro-Pessimism

Ableism to answer aesthetic arguments

Chomsky to answer Foucault

2AC answers to Politics, Tradeoff DA, and an advantage CP and a perm must be on each flow

Countradictions Perm Good Block

Theoretical defense for a counter-perm (no limits or definition to your interp of what that would be)

Doubling against this aff http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2013+TOC+-+River+Hill+SS#Round%201---Act%20I:%20PLATO%20BUILT%20THIS%20CITY

Zupancic's Nietzsche vs. a racism/feminism aff

Malthus vs. a soft racism/patriarchy aff (as in it's topical and defends implementation, this is testing your ethics)

Answers to Rape bad (doesn't matter how it's done, it just needs to be responsive in some way)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone. I want to get better at making efficient blocks and doing research, so tell me what arguments you want blocked out and I'll do it. I'll make a long, exhaustive block, and you can pick the parts you like best. 

 

I figure this is a good deal for everyone, because you get blocks and I get experience. Comment!

 

Edit: Here are the ones I've made so far:

 

Poetry Good https://www.dropbox....oetry Good.docx

 

Deontology good https://www.dropbox....ology Good.docx

Could you make a block to Consult NATO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A2: Allegory of The Squirrel

 

(Stephen Murray's Evazon Irony File)

 

This isn't really something you answer with a single block. The Allegory is comprised of 5-9 off case positions, thus you should have a block to each one of the positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second the A2 OOO block

That's what I'm working on. It's taking a long time because I'm trying to find good perm cards, impact turns, N/L cards, all of it.

 

Sorry! Expect the block later today or tomorrow.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of the Berry cards have been cut by Needs More Consult Japan, but this is cool. 

Oh sorry I didn't know that. These are recut with specifically O3 in mind though so maybe they'll work a bit better.

 

Also how do these cards work with consult Japan...?

 

Edit: No. I'm dumb. No one listen to me

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would use poetry good when your reading poetry.

 

I have yet to understand cross x's sudden and random obsession over OOO and why people are asking for blocks and answers against it when I doubt you would hit it in a coherent form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would use poetry good when your reading poetry.

 

I have yet to understand cross x's sudden and random obsession over OOO and why people are asking for blocks and answers against it when I doubt you would hit it in a coherent form.

 

And then there's the fact that I have no idea what OOO is kritiking... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to understand cross x's sudden and random obsession over OOO and why people are asking for blocks and answers against it when I doubt you would hit it in a coherent form.

That's why I requested it actually, because everyone seems to be interested in it. I dunno what its argument is but I definitely want something with which to answer it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I requested it actually, because everyone seems to be interested in it. I dunno what its argument is but I definitely want something with which to answer it.

Well from what I've read on the wikis and in the lit, there's really several different competing lines of thought that are all characterized as Object Oriented Philosophy, so there's no one describing answer that will sufficiently cover every O3 kritik.

The baseline thesis is roughly that we shouldn't function under the understanding that humans are somehow ontologically designated as separate from everything else, and instead we should embrace a flat ontology.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think it's that we shouldn't view humans as separate, it's that we shouldn't reduce objects to vehicles for human usage and representation. 

 

Bryant actually writes "My onticology does not deny that humans introduce differences through their significations.  What it tries to draw attention to is non-signifying differences made by other things.  What difference does a toilet make?  Is it possible that the absence or presence of a toilet plays a role in the forms power takes?  The point is that if we really want to understand how assemblages function we must avoid reducing the actors in assemblages to something else and must instead be attentive to the play of differences among different types of objects."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you can skip that if you don't want to do it. It's obvious from thee number of comments in this thread that you have a lot in queue, and some people need theirs more than mine.

 

For those wondering, some of the Liberty college teams read it, saying that questions of politics divorces us from God, and that's bad because He is the ultimate source of value.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alright sure, I already cut two cards though, maybe one of these will be useful to you.

 

https://www.dropbox....tian God K.docx

 

 

 

 

This card seems like a sampling error (ie right wing & not reporting it) OR misreporting data (not expressing the differential--ie micro-trends in the data).  I can't imagine left leaning Christian individuals reading the Bible and becoming more violent.  Plus the level of violence isn't really quantified.  Plus, there are LOTS of legit interps of scripture which suggest thats a misreading.

 

Not to mention...there is a New Testament and a Sermon on the mount which trumps those claims.

Also the overall admonition to "thou shall not kill" is a big deterrent that hedges this back.

 

 

Sorry, I kind of disagree with its premise.

 

And the very last paragraph of the conclusion actually deals with this selective reading thesis--and subsumes:

 

Does this ultimately mean that one should avoid reading re- ligious canon for fear that the violent episodes contained therein will cause one to become more aggressive, or that individuals who read the scriptures will become aggressive? Not necessar- ily. Violent stories that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse can teach important lessons and have legitimate artistic merit (e.g., Stossel, 1997). Moreover, Nepstad (2004) argued that ‘‘religion has historically played a significant role in curbing violence, constraining aggression, and promoting reconciliation and understanding between groups’’ (p. 297), presumably be- cause the overriding message of the scriptures is one of peace and love. Taking a single violent episode out of its overall con- text (as we did here) can produce a significant increase in aggression. To the extent that religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on vio- lent retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall mes- sage of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see increased brutality. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with our results: People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves. 

 

So its not the religion does this.  Its selective reading of a text.  You can selectively read ANY TEXT.

 

 

This card is actually comparative.  

1) Suggesting that ONLY a selective reading would result in such acts.

2) On balance that Bible advocates peace and love

3) Even violent stories = peace & more ethical action--and presumably more loving.

4) Exposure results in reconciliation & conflict resolution.

 

And you can set up a try or die based on violent media (which is the real internal link in the evidence) and violence in the status quo.  The Bible and religion are actually a solution to ongoing violence.  Only warping the text and the religion itself is the ONLY thing that results in harm.

 

This evidence is on fire good--especially when compared with the other evidence in the frontline.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I cut it selectively, but I don't think it's fair to read the last paragraph as an undermining of the whole study - it really seems to me more that the authors leave the interpretation of their study in the infinitive; I cut in the negative spin.

 

At the end of the day, though, the guy asked for answers to the Christian God K, and the empirics that I highlighted still function adequately in that regard IMO. Irrespective of how the authors conclude, the data stands, no?

 

"...aggressive responses were greater when a violent depiction was attributed to a scriptural source than when it was attributed to an ancient scroll"

 

seems to be a pretty solid turn to me. 

  • Upvote 1
  • 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...