Jump to content
The-Troll

Things i don't want to hear anymore

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry, but this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of a how a Kritk (or is supposed to) operates.  

 

And Cuban Embargo does link, think of all the businesses that want to invest in Cuban oil (hmm that sounds like an aff i know).

 

And i agree that running Neolib against the security embargo can be pretty dumb (unless the link is to kritikality/securitization)

 

The Aff's job is to prove the Plan is desirable. So long as Plan is also desirable under the K, Perm: 'do the K and do Plan' is a reason to vote for Plan, and thus an Aff ballot.

 

The Alt has to involve *not doing the plan*, or it isn't an "alternative to plan".  That's what alternatives are.

Seriously, consider this in the policy context I described above.  Offering a different advantage of plan, even a mutually exclusive advantage to the other advantages, is not a negative position. Its another reason to vote for the plan.

 

The only reason to vote negative on a K that still leads to implementing Plan would be for a Roll of the Ballot that is solely about who has the best discourse and totally ignores the plan and policy-level outcomes.  So long as Aff gets to defend Plan as the core of their advocacy, any reason to prefer Plan over not-Plan is a reason to vote Aff.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Jonah on a lot of these counts. K's aren't "policy arguments" or reasons why the plan is a bad idea. K alts aren't counterplans with philosophical jargon. 
 
 

The Aff's job is to prove the Plan is desirable.

 

This is where I begin to believe you fundamentally misunderstand the K

 

1/

So they should be able to give me an alternative that tells me what that world looks like. 'Rejecting capitalism when given the option' is incoherent. Do people still trade under the alt? How? The alternative needs to describe what the world looks like under the alt, not what it doesn't look like. Telling me what the alt *doesn't* contain does not allow me to imagine it. Voter against for shifting goalposts, they'll just spike attacks on the alt by adding more stuff that's *not* in the alt, and never nail down what it is.

 

Alts need to be specific positive descriptions for the same reason C/Ps and Perms need (and should get) specific texts, to maintain coherency of advocacy.

 

Actually, rejecting capitalism when given the option is a method. When given the knowledge that an action could better oneself in the capitalist market, one rejects it. The K says that the affirmative's method of, basically, taking the knowledge that an action could further themselves in the capitalist system, a fundamentally capitalist mindset, and using this as a justification for an action, is bad and a methodology that causes the continuation of neoliberalism. The K alt (There are obvi other versions of the marxism K--many many other versions--but this is the common one read w a reject alt). 

 

No seriously, how can I vote *for* something when I don't know what it is?

 

 

resisting temptation to make bad joke

 

 

2/

The logic the Aff uses to justify the plan isn't part of the plan. If that advocacy would have effects in the policy world, okay, articulate how Aff's rhetoric is bad as part of the K and impact it as a net benefit of the Alt. But in the case of neoliberalism, rejecting their capitalist motivations doesn't actually cause me to reject the plan. Which is what makes the alt incoherent, because it has to be an alternative to *PLAN*, and its not. Communists should also want to end the Cuban Embargo. Negative has an obligation to reject the plan text, because if Aff can just say 'perm, we become communists and still do plan', the K is not competitive.

 

Think of it like a DA to the method (or, in aristotle's terms, the ethics of the aff--i.e. once we know stuff what we do with that knowledge) of the aff. It's not all about the plan being good or bad. Just because the plan works in the direction of communism or whatever you're trying to say doesn't mean that the justifications used for the plan aren't capitalist. K's begin by criticizing this method of justification. 

 

 

Edit: Imagine this at the policy level for a moment.  "Aff's advantage stories are bad, but here's a good advantage story that should want to make you end the Cuban Embargo."  That's not a negative advocacy, that's still a reason to vote for plan.

 

wait so you're saying that reps first framing doesn't make sense in plan v squo debates? who wouldda thunk!

 

3/

Aff: End Cuban Embargo with a big Securitization K advantage, and a second advantage describing how reconsidering securitization creates open spaces for new models of IR thought (going from memory, this was at Glenbrooks and my flows are in my car's trunk atm).

 

Neg: went for a neolib K

 

I mean, that's almost totally incoherent on the negative's part. 

 

there are a lot of reasons why security-type K's link to the cap K. If you want some ev saying this, you can PM me. I would read cap v a security type aff, mainly because the root cause cards are pretty good. K aff links to marxism K's are pretty good--possibly better than most policy-aff links. Does that mean that the team you judged ran it strategically? no. But it probably means you shouldn't dismiss the  "neolib v security" debate as "incoherent on the negative's part." 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jonah on a lot of these counts. K's aren't "policy arguments" or reasons why the plan is a bad idea. K alts aren't counterplans with philosophical jargon.

 

This is where I begin to believe you fundamentally misunderstand the K

 

I agree Ks aren't policy arguments. Policy arguments advance claims under a Utilitarian framework. K's advocate using other metrics to determine preference.

 

A K is an advocacy that asks the judge to adopt an alternative value framework to judge the debate round. In the case of a pro-communist K, that value is probably 'minimize/eliminate oppression based on class'.

 

The Alt doesn't need to be as specific as a CP, but unless they can show a serious implication solvency deficit for the affirmative relative to the SQ, they need to endorse some sort of positive action that creates an implication solvency deficit. For example, a pro-capitalist K could well argue that a pro-communist plan would be significantly worse than the SQ, because the SQ isn't predominantly communist. They should still tell me to embrace capitalism, not just reject communism, and even then their alt could be somewhat vague because we know what a capitalist world looks like. But a pro-capitalist plan doesn't make the world significantly worse under a pro-communist K - its just situation normal. Relative to the K, plan *is* the SQ. At which point the Alt absolutely needs to create an implication deficit.

 

Overall, you're overlimiting what a K is. Many Ks operate at the policy level, and pro-communist Ks are one of them. (Easy check: what level do the implications occur at? If the implications occur at the policy level, the alt must be at the policy level or it can't avoid the implications). Any time you hear a moral obligation argument, that's also a K. Epistemic and Ontological Ks are a small fraction of the available K space.

 

 

Actually, rejecting capitalism when given the option is a method. When given the knowledge that an action could better oneself in the capitalist market, one rejects it. The K says that the affirmative's method of, basically, taking the knowledge that an action could further themselves in the capitalist system, a fundamentally capitalist mindset, and using this as a justification for an action, is bad and a methodology that causes the continuation of neoliberalism. The K alt (There are obvi other versions of the marxism K--many many other versions--but this is the common one read w a reject alt).

 

Rejecting something is not a method. A method may lead you to reject something, but it also gives you reasons to accept courses of action too. A real alternative method would lay down a decision-making paradigm, not just tell me to reject another one.

 

If the Aff proved the SQ is bad, I shouldn't want to accept the SQ. Not only that, the neolib K told me the SQ is bad, and never even makes a real argument that doing plan makes the world noticeably worse. So if the Aff proved plan makes things better than the SQ, and the K gives me nothing to do but choose the SQ by rejecting the Aff, that's no real alternative.

 

Providing no basis for accepting anything is terrible methodology that encourages perpetuation of the SQ.

 

 

 

Seriously 'Capitalist policy is bad, but the SQ is also capitalist. Reject capitalism!' ... and? I still haven't seen an alt. I've seen impact analysis and nothing to vote *for*. I reject the plan, and I reject the SQ, and... uh... vote against both teams?

 

Think of it like a DA to the method (or, in aristotle's terms, the ethics of the aff--i.e. once we know stuff what we do with that knowledge) of the aff. It's not all about the plan being good or bad. Just because the plan works in the direction of communism or whatever you're trying to say doesn't mean that the justifications used for the plan aren't capitalist. K's begin by criticizing this method of justification.

 

DAs only work because the SQ doesn't link to the DA. DAs are non-unique if the SQ does link. So if SQ methods link to the K, then the K fails as a methods DA. We have Alts because most Ks link to the SQ, and those Alts must be better than the SQ, not perpetuate it.

 

And the implications of every pro-communism K i've heard are things like 'Capitalism -> war, genocide, extinction'. Those are clearly policy world concerns. In the face of extinction-level impacts on plan, simply rejecting capitalism personally doesn't solve. It creates a choice between extinction or extinction in the policy world, and leaves me unclear how to make decisions in the real world. (You can't live just by always choosing to reject certain actions. It's epistemologically bankrupt without a decision making process that accepts some actions.)

 

there are a lot of reasons why security-type K's link to the cap K. If you want some ev saying this, you can PM me. I would read cap v a security type aff, mainly because the root cause cards are pretty good. K aff links to marxism K's are pretty good--possibly better than most policy-aff links. Does that mean that the team you judged ran it strategically? no. But it probably means you shouldn't dismiss the "neolib v security" debate as "incoherent on the negative's part."

 

Well, they literally said the Aff was pro-capitalist, without anything specific to case about how critiquing securitization is pro-capitalist, so yeah, the round was incoherent.

 

And the plan was anti-security. It critiqued Securitization as bad. Its not a security Aff, its a K of Security Aff, totally different. So, I'm really not seeing the link, unless you're going to argue that they have to reconsider even deeper, but considering half their authors were going out of their way to show their marxist cred (like using Bourgeois as an adjective in contexts it didn't make much sense or add any meaning), they had a really strong case they were Kritiking Sec from a communist perspective.

 

---------

 

The structure of a Neolib K should look like:

 

Thesis:

Capitalist values are bad

Reject the Capitalist value system, you should instead use our value (minimize class-based oppression?)

Our value is good

 

Link:

Plan accepts the Capitalist value system and should be rejected

 

Implication:

Using Capitalism/Capitalist Values causes bad stuff

 

Alternative:

The way you minimize class-based oppression is...(positive advocacy of some sort, avoids Implication)

 

This is not a mindset K, its a K based on a philosophy about how we as a society should make decisions in the real world and what we should value. And I know literature on this exists - Marxism is based on people making real change. A revolution without goals is a failure of a revolution - Marx would be ashamed.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Policy arguments advance claims under a Utilitarian framework. K's advocate using other metrics to determine preference.

 

No.  Probably at least 50% of Ks can be won under a utilitarian framework (especially since util DOES NOT necessarily say high magnitude low probability first--structural violence can easily o/w under a util framework).  The "consequences" of security discourse can be extremely negative---an ethical obligation isn't necessarily needed to reject it.

 

 

 

(Easy check: what level do the implications occur at? If the implications occur at the policy level, the alt must be at the policy level or it can't avoid the implications)

 

Ever heard of Deleuze?  Or kappeler?

 

 

  Any time you hear a moral obligation argument, that's also a K.

Not so sure I agree with this.  If a policy increases inequity, than its worse than the squo, and under a deontological framework (which can occur in a plan-plan round) you've got to reject the policy in favor of the squo

 

 

 If the Aff proved the SQ is bad, I shouldn't want to accept the SQ. Not only that, the neolib K told me the SQ is bad, and never even makes a real argument that doing plan makes the world noticeably worse. So if the Aff proved plan makes things better than the SQ, and the K gives me nothing to do but choose the SQ by rejecting the Aff, that's no real alternative.

Damnit man its not about the plan.  Its about the (insert ology or ism of your choice) that went into justifying or creating the plan.  Also said justifications are usually sold as detracting from action towards remaking the system (link story).  To continue the Neolib example, As individuals we can either keep viewing everything in terms of profit maximization or we can reject that mindset, which opens up space for more.

 

 

 DAs only work because the SQ doesn't link to the DA. DAs are non-unique if the SQ does link. So if SQ methods link to the K, then the K fails as a methods DA. We have Alts because most Ks link to the SQ, and those Alts must be better than the SQ, not perpetuate it.

 

To steal a metaphor used by Dancon25 in a different thread, a properly framed K is not about kritking the aff as a drop in the bucket of capitalism.  The aff IS the bucket.  This is about THEIR 1AC

 

Well, they literally said the Aff was pro-capitalist, without anything specific to case about how critiquing securitization is pro-capitalist, so yeah, the round was incoherent.

 

Then Neg probably sucked and deserved to lose the round.

 

 

Alternative:

The way you minimize class-based oppression is...(positive advocacy of some sort, avoids Implication)

I think you ignore that a lot of alts aren't necessarily rejection based (like cap has a common histo-mat alt, or alts for neolib sometimes have Zapatista alts or "we should imagine post-neolib methods")  Rejection is more often used in K's like Nietzsche, Security or Heidgger.  A big part of the thesis of these K's is that attempting to fix a problem just makes it worse.

 

Also even if reject alts are used in Cap Ks, have you ever read the warrant of a rejection alt card?  IT makes good points about how when we oppose a hegemonic system like cap we need to begin the process of opposition by first stopping perpetuating the capitalist system by refusing to take part it in.  Yes these arguments are probably bastardized and manipulated by debaters to a certain extent, but you can't ignore some good point they're making just cause you don't want to agree with them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Probably at least 50% of Ks can be won under a utilitarian framework (especially since util DOES NOT necessarily say high magnitude low probability first--structural violence can easily o/w under a util framework).  The "consequences" of security discourse can be extremely negative---an ethical obligation isn't necessarily needed to reject it.

Except the structural violence isn't actually removed by adopting the Security K, so it doesn't actually generate a utilitarian advantage. It needs to propose some sort of framework that will remove or eliminate the structural violence going forward, not just prevent the Aff instantiation of it. This is one case where pure mindset might be sufficient, but its also a case where I'd really want to see argumentation that adapting the mindset causes us to reject the plan, not just Aff advocacy.

 

Ever heard of Deleuze?  Or kappeler?

Deleuze? Yes. He's a weird example to bring up as a counterpoint to Alts needing to be at the same level as the implication, given his epistemology is about asking 'what does it do?' Surely a Deleuzean K should focus on doing, not just knowing. 

 

Not so sure I agree with this.  If a policy increases inequity, than its worse than the squo, and under a deontological framework (which can occur in a plan-plan round) you've got to reject the policy in favor of the squo

Suggest you dig into the Utilitarian literature. If P increases inequity but reduces deaths, some Utilitarians would advocate it. The rest would depend on how they converted inequity and deaths into a common currency, and how large the magnitude of each was. Demanding Equity be the primary value would be rejecting a Utilitarian mode of thinking in any case, because the Utilitarians would still demand the bodies be counted.

 

Damnit man its not about the plan.  Its about the (insert ology or ism of your choice) that went into justifying or creating the plan.  Also said justifications are usually sold as detracting from action towards remaking the system (link story).  To continue the Neolib example, As individuals we can either keep viewing everything in terms of profit maximization or we can reject that mindset, which opens up space for more.

It is entirely about the plan. The plan frames the entire debate round. It is the presentation of the plan which reserves affirmative ground, and thus creates negative ground, not the resolution. Anything which defends plan is affirmative ground, everything else is negative ground.

 

(Affirmation / Negation theory is dumb, logically incoherent, and destroys clash).

 

This is why we allow permutations to test competition of CPs and Ks. If you can legitimately permute the K, then there is no competition. The permutation is specifically a combination of *plan* and all or part of CP or K, not *case*.

 

Bar some crazy FW that removes Plan from the role of the ballot (which Aff should never consent to, and winning 'Aff gets to weigh Plan' on framework should be trivial), Aff's job is to convince the judge to vote for Plan.

 

To steal a metaphor used by Dancon25 in a different thread, a properly framed K is not about kritking the aff as a drop in the bucket of capitalism.  The aff IS the bucket.  This is about THEIR 1AC

How do you react to an affirmative that uses multiple exclusive (mostly critical) lines of thinking, all of which separately justify Plan, and concludes that it doesn't matter what your philosophical beliefs are, you should still do plan? Why does Aff have to commit to their specific advantage advocacy as being the sole route to justifying Plan? Real-world argumentation doesn't look like that. People present (effectively) conditional justifications all the time in an attempt to gain support from disparate groups or individuals.

 

So when you say 'their argument is bad, you should think like this', why isn't it legitimate for the Aff to go 'if you do think like that, you should still want to do Plan'.

 

Then Neg probably sucked and deserved to lose the round.

Not disagreeing, but I think it doesn't just involve the Neg sucking. It involves the way policy debaters seem to be approaching Ks that doesn't actually have argumentative structural legitimacy.

 

I think you ignore that a lot of alts aren't necessarily rejection based (like cap has a common histo-mat alt, or alts for neolib sometimes have Zapatista alts or "we should imagine post-neolib methods")  Rejection is more often used in K's like Nietzsche, Security or Heidgger.  A big part of the thesis of these K's is that attempting to fix a problem just makes it worse.

I haven't heard an alt other than 'reject' on a Cap K since I did policy debate over a decade ago. I'm sure they exist somewhere... And now I've checked an additional 3 Cap K files off openev and still haven't seen anything but 'reject' alts. (Admittedly there's a lot of camp files to go through - I can't say they don't exist, but I haven't heard one argued and my sampling of the files hasn't found one).

 

Nietzche K actually does create an implication deficit between plan and SQ, so a reject alt is legit there. Nietzche Ks, at least the ones i've heard recently, tell me to maximize suffering, so I vote for the side which has the most suffering (generally the SQ). But if passing Plan causes the most suffering, and I accept the K, I still vote for plan because it best serves the values of the K. (The alt is worse than P according to its own implications).

 

Anyway, that's an example of how a K can work with purely a reject alt, assuming weird stuff doesn't happen at the policy-level.

 

Also even if reject alts are used in Cap Ks, have you ever read the warrant of a rejection alt card?  IT makes good points about how when we oppose a hegemonic system like cap we need to begin the process of opposition by first stopping perpetuating the capitalist system by refusing to take part it in.  Yes these arguments are probably bastardized and manipulated by debaters to a certain extent, but you can't ignore some good point they're making just cause you don't want to agree with them.

Reject alts on Cap Ks aren't structurally legitimate. They don't perform the required function of the Alt.

 

Seriously, think about general K structure for a moment. What does the Alt need to do? Why is it a reason to vote for the K? Why do we have implications? The Alt is not just a reason to put a self-serving Role of the Ballot on the flow.

 

-----

 

So, let's consider some of these Alt cards to look for legitimate warrants:

From SCDI's Cap K shell:

 

Alternative: The only response to the dominance of capital is a totalizing refusal – otherwise, it reproduces itself in the social metabolic process which always restores capitalism to its aggressive totality – the alt is the only way to create a radical change in the neoliberal economic structure

Mészáros, 12

 

I'm not sure I even need to talk about the card text to show how dumb this is. How can *doing something* not neoliberal be worse than refusing to do things? What about totalizing refusal + radical action? Surely at some point you have to stop just saying 'no' and actually implement change, because just saying no isn't change. The tag is a lie, the alt does not create any change at all, it requires unspecified radical action at some future point after we've said 'no' enough. Saying 'no' just keeps us in stasis where we are now.

 

But the logic of the tag immediately indicts its own conclusions from a systems stability standpoint. If capitalism will inevitably resurface if there is any capitalist inclination in the system, then after the socialist utopia is somehow achieved, it will exist in this incredibly fragile state where any perturbation that introduces the slightest capitalist inclination will snowball into a reversion to full-fledged capitalism. The socialist utopia is an unstable equilibrium and impossible to maintain by the Alt's own logic.

 

The logical failure is of course obscured by ridiculous turns of phrase that exist only to obfuscate meaning. "Social metabolic process"? Ug. I hate obscurantist writing. I suppose re-tagging as 'Any vestige of Capitalism in the political system will re-emerge and re-establish dominance - the only way to achieve radical change is complete elimination of Capitalist ideas from society' would show the futility of pursuing the Alt's program in the first place.

 

And yes, the same problems exist in the text of the card. Example:

"...whatever can be overthrown can be also restored. The real—and much more difficult—issue is the necessity of radical structural change. The tangible meaning of such structural change is the complete eradication of capital itself from the social metabolic process. Capital itself is an all-embracing mode of control; which means that it either controls everything or it implodes as a system of societal reproductive control."

 

Clear english: "If people can even think Capitalist thoughts, they can restore Capitalist systems." Hi Orwellian state, I think I found you under this word salad.

 

Good warrants? More like frightening warrants.

 

But wait, it gets worse:

"and its ever more devastating weapons of mass destruction in the last sixty years; the intensification through capital’s obvious destructive impact on ecology directly affecting and endangering by now the elementary natural foundation of human existence itself"

 

For a philosophy that espouses historical materialism, this writer's ability to remember actual history is really poor. Only capitalist countries created and enabled an ecology movement. Only capitalist countries created and enabled an anti-WMD movement. Former Socialist regimes like the Soviet Union considered Nuclear Weapons an item of state prestige, and were at least as bad for the environment as any capitalist nation. I'm not excusing the failures of Capitalist regimes, the US did build nuclear weapons and did participate in destruction of the environment. But that makes both states equally bad in transgression, and it was only Western states which permitted activist movements that fought and continue to fight against these problems, and have introduced some remedies into law.

 

And the author's own inclination to prohibit pro-capitalist thoughtcrime suggests his ideal marxist utopia wouldn't be big on permitting activist movements which challenged state policies either, so the historical failure of Soviet governments in these or other areas would probably be replicated.

 

------------------

 

But surely we can trust Gonzaga to have a good Cap K Alt story in their shell...

 

The alternative is to reject the aff

Rejection of the aff is key to a historical materialist criticism – voting negative endorses an anti-capitalist methodology that denaturalizes the functions of capital

San Juan 6

 

Oh boy, we're starting with just rejecting the Aff. "...denaturalizes the functions of capital", uh... you know, lets just read the card.

 

"What is the point of eulogizing hybrid, cyborg-esque, nomadic global citizens—even fluid, ambivalent "subject positions" if you like—when the majority of these postmodernized creatures are dying of hunger, curable epidemics, diseases and psychosomatic illnesses brought about precisely by the predatory encroachment of globalizing transnational corporations"

 

You know, I'm not actually sure what the subject of the sentence is referring to. Also, transnational corporations cause hunger and epidemics? Cites? Or are those not supposed to be facts. So when San Juan said "we need to apply the principle of historical totalizing: connecting spheres of culture, ideology, and politics to the overarching structure of production and reproduction." earlier in the card, they didn't actually mean assessing the connection of facts between these spheres, but just ideologically motivated slanders.

 

"But it is not just academic postmodernists suffering from the virus of pragmatist metaphysics..." (not highlighted)

 

Oh, you meant those epidemics metaphorically... too bad the card is cut so that the clarification that these diseases are actually ideas isn't actually read, letting you pretend the card claims corporations cause real epidemics. And now I'm even more confused as to who the "hybrid, cyborg-esque, nomadic global citizens" are...

 

"Articulating these historical contradictions without theorizing the concept of crisis in capital accumulation will only lead to the short-circuiting transculturalism of Ashcroft and other ideologies waging battle for supremacy/hegemony over "popular common sense" imposing meaning/order/significance on the whole globalization process."

 

Hold on, by the time I got to the verb I forgot what the subject was. But what are 'these historical contradictions'? Oh, another key sentence not highlighted:

 

"Is it a question of mere human rights in representation and life-style, or actual dignity and justice in the everyday lives of whole populations with singular life-forms?"

 

Clarity issues. This sentence needs substantial improvement by defining terms (ie, what is 'actual dignity' and where is the tension between 'human rights' and 'justice' exactly). But even that wouldn't save 'whole populations with singular life-forms' - words without meaning. Sentence could have ended with "...in everyday lives?" and lost nothing. As it is, I'm not sure what the question is even meant to ask, because the essential tension of the question is hidden inside words loaded with unexpressed meaning.

 

At which point, I have no idea what historical contradictions we need to articulate only in the context of some sort of theorizing. (I'm not totally sure what, there's 3 levels of hedging: 'theorizing', 'concept', 'crisis'; before we finally get to a thing we might be talking about, namely capital accumulation. And its a crisis *in*, not *of* capital accumulation, which is also confusing.)

 

If I had to guess from the remainder of the sentence, I'd say he's obfuscating a claim to the effect of 'only Marxism should be allowed to have a legitimate dialogue here, and if we don't quickly create a Marxist theory about it we'll be drowned out by other voices'. But I'm trying to interpolate across uninterpretable word salad.

 

"Can globalized capital truly universalize the world and bring freedom and prosperity to everyone, as its celebrants claim? Globalization as the transnationalized domination of capital exposes its historical limit in the deepening class inequality in a polarized, segregated and policed world. While surplus-value extraction in the international labor market remains basic to the logic of accumulation, the ideology of neoliberal transnationalism has evolved into the discourse of war on terrorism ("extremism") rationalized as "the clash of civilizations". Contradictions and its temporary resolutions constitute the imperialist project of eliding the crisis of unilateral globalism. A historical-materialist critique should seek to highlight the political economy of this recolonizing strategy..."

 

Okay, finally some meat. I think. San Juan really needs a course on how to write clearly. There's a lot of elided logic here, and his method of presenting an answer to the question he asks makes it hard to understand it as the answer to the question, if it functions as one at all. I'm really not convinced capitalism has evolved into the 'discourse on the war on terrorism', and he doesn't provide any warrants for that claim. Marxist reductionist thinking that everything they don't like is capitalism at work? Failure to come to grips with the historical Soviet Union's or the current PRC's struggles against terrorism that proves it isn't just a phenomenon of capitalism? And that's only the most obvious failure to support his claims with evidence - the whole passage is value-laden assumptions without warrant.

 

The call-out to the labor theory of value was cute though. Actually, call-outs are a good description of much of this. Pre-agreement lets you accede to his claims, but there isn't an actual warrant in sight.

 

"... recolonizing strategy ... to impose hegemonic control in an increasingly boundary-destroying space and continue the neocolonial oppression of the rest of the world. What is needed is a radical critique of the ideology of technological determinism and its associated apologetics of the "civilizing mission", the evangelism of "pre-emptive" intervention in the name of Realpolitik "democracy" against resistance by workers, peasants, women, indigenous communities (in Latin America, Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere [see Houghton and Bell; San Juan, "U.S. Imperial Terror"]), and all the excluded and marginalized peoples of the planet. "

 

Did we need to theorize on the concept of the crisis in capital accumulation, or do we need a radical critique of the ideology of technological determinism? Those would seem to be very different things. What does technological determinism have to do with *anything* talked about up until now? As far as I can tell... nothing.

 

This whole card is rampant with bald-faced claims entirely lacking in warrants, and non-sequiturs masquerading as logical chains of reasoning. No two sentences share a subject. Worse, nothing in the card justifies the claim of the tag that there's an anti-capitalist methodology here which denaturalizes the function of capital. The card doesn't even *talk about* the function of capital.

 

Actually, even more damning, he never says that just rejecting capitalism is enough. Tag has absolutely no relation to the contents of the card.

 

Please, if you're going to run a Cap K, find some writers who are effective communicators and actually say what you want your tag to say. Word salad is not persuasive, and call-outs do not qualify as warrants for anything. Whether I agree with the writer's position or not, I am going to agree with a debater which picks apart terrible card warrants like this and then asks me to disregard the card as being evidence of anything.

 

------------

 

(Also: some of these Neolib link stories are mindnumbingly dumb. Specifically the 'talking about anything other than Communism is bad, and thus makes them capitalist'. What? Heidegger would be shocked and appalled to learn his philosophy is pro-capitalist because it doesn't focus on Marxism.)

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just can't even this thread

- K's are not necessarily not util. Policy arguments are definitely not all util. Impact framing arguments are not the same as critical arguments.

- K's are, by definition, things that address more than just what the plan was. You cannot criticize the epistemology, ethics, ontology, of the plan alone, mainly because the plan doesn't, by itself, create any one of those things. 

- if you don't think that taking knowledge that an action would further oneself in the capitalist system and then rejecting this capitalist choice is a method i don't think you know what the word method means

- while i don't really want to argue about whether the reject alt is good or not since it doesn't seem like we have similar interpretations of what alternatives are (one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical band amirite) I don't think you're giving enough credit to the reject alt. I won't go through your rants but i'll explain why you're reading of meszaros is pretty far out there: Mesz says that capital "controls everything," and that it is a pretty large system that is fundamentally started with a relationship between power and capital, or, in another way, the relationship between persons and objects of capital that allow persons to utilize power in order to have oppressive control over masses of people. In order to shut down systems of capital, we shouldn't take political reforms that change the ability for these people to utilize capital, instead we should change the personal method/ethical decision of having the ability to utilize capital in one's favor of power, and instead refuse to continue this relationship with "the object." There's the warrant. 

>>> what does the judge do? they vote for a method. It's not a plan. It's not a communism CP. It's a methodology that arguably, if utilized in the same way Mesz discusses, will slowly take down the structure that is capitalism. 

>>> what does the world look like in the world of the alt? it looks pretty round. It looks like people making different decisions because their decisions have a different agend/method in them. This is inclusive of people taking different actions around capital. 

- one more time: K's are not "not util"

- an article i read a few years to help me learn this shit: http://web.archive.org/web/20130416010202/http://puttingthekindebate.com/2010/08/08/securitization-and-framework-a-lecture/ (don't have to look at lecture, just read article)

Edited by liampirate
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K's are, by definition, things that address more than just what the plan was. You cannot criticize the epistemology, ethics, ontology, of the plan alone, mainly because the plan doesn't, by itself, create any one of those things.

 

Your own link later in your post says that Ks link to "plan action". Not Aff advocacy, plan action. And I totally agree, as he seems to argue Plan is 'Plan Text', and I've never argued that Ks link solely to textual violations. Hence why I talk about 'doing' Plan.

 

You can criticize epistemology, ethics, ontology of the plan iff the plan can only be supported by 'bad' epistemology, ethics, or ontology. Eg, your 'good' advocacy contra-indicates doing plan, so you don't do plan.

 

 

 

- if you don't think that taking knowledge that an action would further oneself in the capitalist system and then rejecting this capitalist choice is a method i don't think you know what the word method means.

 

 

Its not a method that avoids the implications because it doesn't undo existing Capitalism. Remember the Cap K is extremely n/u, and has very little implication solvency deficit without positive action.

 

In order to avoid the implications, it must provide at least a method for making positive choices. 'Reject capitalism' tells me when to say no, but not when to say yes, and not even how to know if what I'm looking at is capitalism. It is a methodological failure at anything except reinforcing the SQ, which means it actually fails at rejecting capitalism (since that is the SQ). Rejecting new capitalism does not solve the implications.

 

Identifying a core value of communism and telling me to maximize that in all my decision making answers all those questions. It identifies when I should say yes, it identifies when i should say no, and it provides a criterion for determining when something is not capitalist. That's an alt I could vote for.

 

 

 

- while i don't really want to argue about whether the reject alt is good or not since it doesn't seem like we have similar interpretations of what alternatives are (one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical band amirite) I don't think you're giving enough credit to the reject alt. I won't go through your rants but i'll explain why you're reading of meszaros is pretty far out there: Mesz says that capital "controls everything," and that it is a pretty large system that is fundamentally started with a relationship between power and capital, or, in another way, the relationship between persons and objects of capital that allow persons to utilize power in order to have oppressive control over masses of people. In order to shut down systems of capital, we shouldn't take political reforms that change the ability for these people to utilize capital, instead we should change the personal method/ethical decision of having the ability to utilize capital in one's favor of power, and instead refuse to continue this relationship with "the object." There's the warrant.

 

 

That's not what the Tag says. The tag does say Capitalism will inevitably re-assert itself if any remnant survives. "...always restores Capitalism to its aggressive totality"

 

The tag actually fairly represents the warrants on that point. "capital must be completely eradicated." That's not 'say no to capital personally', that's 'eliminate capital everywhere, even conceptually'.

 

It's not actually clear to me that mesz actually supports just personal rejection to all capitalism. He's arguing for comprehensive structural change, which necessarily involves *doing stuff* that affects the system, not just personally refusing. And that really kills the alt advocacy, because the alt never advocates any structural change at all.

 

You can claim I don't understand all you want, but your argument has no basis in the card text.

 

Finally, how does your interpretation of the alt solve for "persons to utilize power in order to have oppressive control over masses of people."? What's the communist alternative that doesn't involve oppressive control? This is entirely the problem of the reject alt - without a viable, articulated *alternative*, there's no reason to believe rejecting Capitalism causes a change for the better. Historical communist governments *prove the point*.

 

Where CPs offer an alternative policy which is superior to P or SQ, Ks have to offer an alternative philosophy that is superior to any philosophy which justifies P. And they must demonstrate this superiority. Capitalism being bad is only half of the argument. It could still be the best choice if the alternatives are worse. And presumption (usually) lies with the Aff against Ks when Ks indict the SQ. (There's crazy edge cases with K vs. K Affs when no one deserves presumption).

 

 

 

>>> what does the judge do? they vote for a method. It's not a plan. It's not a communism CP. It's a methodology that arguably, if utilized in the same way Mesz discusses, will slowly take down the structure that is capitalism.

 

 

How and why does a K perm work?

 

What do you think the generic structure of a K looks like, and how do you think it operates as an argument? How does it negate the affirmative?

 

 

 

>>> what does the world look like in the world of the alt? it looks pretty round. It looks like people making different decisions because their decisions have a different agend/method in them. This is inclusive of people taking different actions around capital.

 

 

You never gave them a different agend/method, you just forbid the (presumed) dominant one. That just creates a void which is never filled. I don't see people making decisions at all under the alt, because the alt provides for no method for taking action.

 

Forbiding one mode of decision making necessarily reduces the possible paradigms for making decisions, so if anything the world is 'less round'. The only way the world possibly gets rounder is if people only know how to make 'capitalist' decisions now, and that prevents them from adopting new modes of thought. But then the alt completely falls apart, because you've removed the only decision-making apparatus they have and given them nothing that replaces it.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never gave them a different agend/method, you just forbid the (presumed) dominant one. That just creates a void which is never filled. I don't see people making decisions at all under the alt, because the alt provides for no method for taking action.

 

Forbiding one mode of decision making necessarily reduces the possible paradigms for making decisions, so if anything the world is 'less round'. The only way the world possibly gets rounder is if people only know how to make 'capitalist' decisions now, and that prevents them from adopting new modes of thought. But then the alt completely falls apart, because you've removed the only decision-making apparatus they have and given them nothing that replaces it.

 

I think that people are failing to address the nature of fiat.  No one in the room is a policymaker (and probably will never be) and no one in a round will be able to affect the aff's impacts at all.  This means that the only value generated by a debate round comes from the skills that we are able to take out of the debate sphere (e.g. decisionmaking, education, etc.).  Thus, if the neg can prove that the aff's methodology leads to poor decisionmaking later in life (examples: alarmism in news reporting that led to the Iraq war or EVERYONE at JP Morgan) then that is a reason to discourage such thinking in the round.  

Yes, I understand that selecting against certain methods of thought is, in a theoretical vacuum, bad.  However I ask you to consider models of thought such as Nazism, Stalinism, etc.  There is no competent educator anywhere in America (I hope) who willingly encourages those types of pedagogy and learning; if the neg wins that the aff's method is harmful (although it probably won't lead to a Holocaust, no matter what Dillon 99 says) then the aff should lose.

As a fervent hater of generic Cap Ks I would like to point out that most smart alternatives 1) aren't as generic as reject the system and 2) is able to solve by affecting the only others a debate round can reach - the debaters and the judge.  Based on my definition of fiat earlier, this would seem (ironically) the most pragmatic alternative (thus all Ks are util, most people just don't exploit this).

Edited by Bow2Baudrillard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How and why does a K perm work?

I think that it depends on 3 things:

-the perm

-the aff

-the alt

A perm is a way to combine the aff, in some manner or other, with the alternative.

Some alts are literally phrased as 'run away from the aff' but many of them simply advocate a change in individual mentality.  I think that the smartest perm a typical aff can make against method/discourse Ks is 'perm do the aff through the lens of the alt.' For example, even in the neg wins that the aff is complicit in threat construction the perm allows the aff to be enacted through a lens of multilateralism away from threat con.  This is made much easier for the aff if you win that the impacts of the K are to some degree inevitable (so there is a risk of solvency + pragmatism at once) or if you win that 1) severance is good because the alt is fluid too or 2) you win that reps don't matter.

In other cases I think that 'perm do the aff and non-exclusive parts of the alt.  Double Bind: either the alt can overcome 1 instance of ____ or it is too weak to change the system' for obvious reasons.  Perm do both is generally pretty dumb unless you are winning the link so hard that the K doesn't matter anyways.

'Perm juxtapose our advocacies' is a decent option, since they aren't being combined it isn't severance but it still creates the mindset shift that most Ks need to solve

Naturally, some Ks just can't be permed (Wilderson, Death Good, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think the generic structure of a K looks like, and how do you think it operates as an argument? How does it negate the affirmative?

 

This is a really, really big question.  The simplest way to describe a K is a non-unique disad and a counter-advocacy on the same flow.  It goes down something like this:

-Link: The reason why the aff's plan, method, or discourse is bad.  This almost always describes the status quo (although it does make it somewhat worse) and even if the alt is kicked it can still be used as a reason to prove the aff undesirable --> neg on presumption.  An example of a link would be: the aff's fear of nuclear weapons locks us into a love/hate cycle where we constantly have to increase our stockpiles just to feel safe (when in reality we are just increasing tension).

-Impact: In all honesty most K links have their impacts packed up nicely inside.  I think everyone knows what an impact is; K impacts vary too much to be adequately described (in all honesty).  Each author and each type of argument (again) has their own brand of bad stuff.  An example of an impact would be: reliance on the state leads to a eugenic cleansing of the population as the government inherently removes 'sickly' parts from the body politic.

-Alt: The counter-advocacy.  As I explained above, all Ks are ultimately utilitarian.  However, many are not run that way.  The most important part is that they resolve the link. K alts manage to vary even more than the other parts of a K.  An example of an alt might be to act as a specific intellectual and interrogate the underlying assumptions behind the aff's grand narratives.

 

If you are trying to figure out what K you should start with I highly recommend the development/Foucault file that UTNIF put out this year.  Security is also a great choice.  They should mostly run side by side to your DA (if you are careful they won't link).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that people are failing to address the nature of fiat.  No one in the room is a policymaker (and probably will never be) and no one in a round will be able to affect the aff's impacts at all.  This means that the only value generated by a debate round comes from the skills that we are able to take out of the debate sphere (e.g. decisionmaking, education, etc.).  Thus, if the neg can prove that the aff's methodology leads to poor decisionmaking later in life (examples: alarmism in news reporting that led to the Iraq war or EVERYONE at JP Morgan) then that is a reason to discourage such thinking in the round.

There's of course plenty of counterpoint:

-that the value in debate is playing the game, and a mindset-level K refuses to play the game.

-that the ballot is part of the game, and asking to win the game because you refused to play is abusive.

-that the valuable skills come from the policy level argumentation, so fiat is good for skill development.

-voting for the Cap K doesn't solve for Capitalism. 20 years of K debate prove.

-In Cap/Neolib's case, that Marxist theorists are alarmist and frequently hysterical themselves. Also, they clearly don't win any actual decision making in policy, so there's empirical proof marxism fails at influencing decision making. (The decision to run 'reject capitalism' alts and write jargonated monstrosities instead of positive advocacies might be part of that - real decision makers want real solutions to real problems, not nihilistic fervor.)

 

Most if not all of that has actual evidence. I'd be totally open to a debate about the role of debate as a judge. But vague claims about how the fiat world isn't real world aren't going to cut it against an Aff with pedagogical studies describing the real world benefits of fiat world debate.

 

Yes, I understand that selecting against certain methods of thought is, in a theoretical vacuum, bad.  However I ask you to consider models of thought such as Nazism, Stalinism, etc.  There is no competent educator anywhere in America (I hope) who willingly encourages those types of pedagogy and learning; if the neg wins that the aff's method is harmful (although it probably won't lead to a Holocaust, no matter what Dillon 99 says) then the aff should lose.

As a fervent hater of generic Cap Ks I would like to point out that most smart alternatives 1) aren't as generic as reject the system and 2) is able to solve by affecting the only others a debate round can reach - the debaters and the judge.  Based on my definition of fiat earlier, this would seem (ironically) the most pragmatic alternative (thus all Ks are util, most people just don't exploit this).

If the neg wins that the Aff's method is harmful, but there isn't an alternative method proposed which is demonstrated to be less harmful, that's not an offensive argument. I won't vote on it. All methods might be bad. The Aff's method might be the best method there is.

 

This is the fundamental problem with 'reject' alts, its just like running solvency mitigation - yeah, okay, the Aff isn't as good as they claimed, but it still has some solvency and its not worse than the SQ. Without an offensive position (ie, Communism Good alt) as offense, it doesn't affect the ballot.

 

I would love to hear a better alt in a round. I'm totally willing to vote for one. I'm not willing to vote for reject. Not even at the in-round level, because it still doesn't tell me there's a better method I could personally use.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really, really big question.  The simplest way to describe a K is a non-unique disad and a counter-advocacy on the same flow.  It goes down something like this:

-Link: The reason why the aff's plan, method, or discourse is bad.  This almost always describes the status quo (although it does make it somewhat worse) and even if the alt is kicked it can still be used as a reason to prove the aff undesirable --> neg on presumption.  An example of a link would be: the aff's fear of nuclear weapons locks us into a love/hate cycle where we constantly have to increase our stockpiles just to feel safe (when in reality we are just increasing tension).

-Impact: In all honesty most K links have their impacts packed up nicely inside.  I think everyone knows what an impact is; K impacts vary too much to be adequately described (in all honesty).  Each author and each type of argument (again) has their own brand of bad stuff.  An example of an impact would be: reliance on the state leads to a eugenic cleansing of the population as the government inherently removes 'sickly' parts from the body politic.

-Alt: The counter-advocacy.  As I explained above, all Ks are ultimately utilitarian.  However, many are not run that way.  The most important part is that they resolve the link. K alts manage to vary even more than the other parts of a K.  An example of an alt might be to act as a specific intellectual and interrogate the underlying assumptions behind the aff's grand narratives.

 

If you are trying to figure out what K you should start with I highly recommend the development/Foucault file that UTNIF put out this year.  Security is also a great choice.  They should mostly run side by side to your DA (if you are careful they won't link).

Lol, I'm a judge who already did policy in HS (late 90s, ran Ks) and NAPDA parli in college. I know how I think Ks work. I was asking liampirate how he thinks they work, since we had a fundamental disagreement about K functionality. But thanks for answering.

 

And my fundamental disagreement with liampirate was that I maintain the alt has to be a counter-advocacy that creates an implication (impact? they were implications when i was in HS) solvency-deficit for the affirmative. Otherwise the K has no offense. (For mindset Ks, the solvency-deficit is in the real world. The Aff debaters make worse decisions under their mindset then under the Neg mindset).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm a judge who already did policy in HS (late 90s, ran Ks) and NAPDA parli in college. I know how I think Ks work. I was asking liampirate how he thinks they work, since we had a fundamental disagreement about K functionality. But thanks for answering.

Lol sorry

 

There's of course plenty of counterpoint:

-that the value in debate is playing the game, and a mindset-level K refuses to play the game.

-that the ballot is part of the game, and asking to win the game because you refused to play is abusive.

-that the valuable skills come from the policy level argumentation, so fiat is good for skill development.

-voting for the Cap K doesn't solve for Capitalism. 20 years of K debate prove.

-In Cap/Neolib's case, that Marxist theorists are alarmist and frequently hysterical themselves. Also, they clearly don't win any actual decision making in policy, so there's empirical proof marxism fails at influencing decision making. (The decision to run 'reject capitalism' alts and write jargonated monstrosities instead of positive advocacies might be part of that - real decision makers want real solutions to real problems, not nihilistic fervor.)

 

Most if not all of that has actual evidence. I'd be totally open to a debate about the role of debate as a judge. But vague claims about how the fiat world isn't real world aren't going to cut it against an Aff with pedagogical studies describing the real world benefits of fiat world debate.

 

If the neg wins that the Aff's method is harmful, but there isn't an alternative method proposed which is demonstrated to be less harmful, that's not an offensive argument. I won't vote on it. All methods might be bad. The Aff's method might be the best method there is.

 

This is the fundamental problem with 'reject' alts, its just like running solvency mitigation - yeah, okay, the Aff isn't as good as they claimed, but it still has some solvency and its not worse than the SQ. Without an offensive position (ie, Communism Good alt) as offense, it doesn't affect the ballot.

 

I would love to hear a better alt in a round. I'm totally willing to vote for one. I'm not willing to vote for reject. Not even at the in-round level, because it still doesn't tell me there's a better method I could personally use.

 

In general I think that we agree on most things (although you might disagree with me) regarding what an optimal alt should be in debate.  Personally, I abhor the generic 'reject' alts because they fail to propose much of an alt; I tend to view it as a shady DA and judge if the amount of bad that the aff creates outweighs the benefit (which should be small if the neg is smart and debating case...funny that never happens).  I think that (using security as an example) stuff like 'step away from security logic' is clearly bullshit (as the successors of Rumsfeld and Cheny continue to wreck IR havoc) especially when compared to alts like radical empiricism/realism - something that either gives a methodology for the judge or at least provides a platform to find their own method.  

 

I think that mindset-level Ks are some of the most legit Ks, actually.  You correctly note that Capitalism hasn't started being more fair to workers since K debate started; this is clearly true (and also why I think Cap is an unintelligent argument).  More 'radical' and (certainly) more loopy Ks such as Deleuze and Guattari  (I think) have become much more persuasive as they solve for creativity and individual choice rather than the monolithic system under which the world operates.  In the same way that I think talking about the newest Congressional mudslinging doesn't really grant new education or agency after four years screaming 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or even reading Zizek and Daly 4 EVERY.  SINGLE.  ROUND.  really doesn't do anything to change the world as a whole.  

 

I may be mistaken in this, but I think that if one was to look at 3 different scenarios there is at least a certain amount of weight to my argument:

1: A typical, policy debate: people  debate Iran, or CIR, or god knows what for the ump-teenth time.  Perhaps for the first couple years this was relevant but after a while it seems a bit mechanical to me.

2: An uber generic K debate: where the other team runs generic neolib and maybe a bunch of Kappeler cards if they are feeling especially creative. No one cares (because ultimately this is now a stock type of debate too) and this similarly becomes mechanical.

3: A genuinely interesting clash of methods debate: I choose this over clash of civ because it is different every single time.  Instead of reading generic links again and again I think that teams that try to go beyond OpenEv and write their own interesting, new Ks/preformances end up having the most engaging debates.  I saw an amazing debate this topic where the aff was running a topical K-ish aff and the neg read a 1-off prefomative/historical decol K.  The aff responded by reading some evidence about how revolutions should bond themselves to their oppressor to deprive them of the pleasure of domination and thereby achieve liberation.  Then the debate essentially turned into a discussion about the merits of our opposing strategies in the context of feminist, anti-racist, and post-colonial struggles (e.g. Ghandi, MLK, Mandela, Seneca Falls, etc.) and how they related to the debaters' agencies in the round.  

 

I realize I've been rambling a bit, but I think that the debates which move beyond the spewing of cards into genuine and nuanced discussion about method and personal agency are the most valuable for the debaters themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@baw2baudrillard

 

Next thing you know, you're going to propose debaters stop reading cards after the 1AC/NC and just analyze warrants and make analyticals! Horrors!

 

I'd just remember that those 'generic policy arguments' are older to us than they are to most of the kids, and that the goal is they hopefully move beyond them to interesting and potentially new arguments - kritikal or policy. Research laziness ensures that hope is frequently frustrated, but every once in awhile I hear something cool.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just remember that those 'generic policy arguments' are older to us than they are to most of the kids, and that the goal is they hopefully move beyond them to interesting and potentially new arguments - kritikal or policy. Research laziness ensures that hope is frequently frustrated, but every once in awhile I hear something cool.

 

Yeah, I know.  I don't think that anyone should start off their debate career with anything but generics.  But, once you get a feel for the arguments and the activity I think that branching out can never hurt.  I have seen several truly interesting debates on both sides of the kritikal/policy line (1NC was Nietzsche, Heidegger and 4 min case, the 2AC made a mistake and undercovered case, the entire block was this awesome argument about paradigmatic shifts in the geopolitical arena) and bad ones as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...