Jump to content
swagondeck

authors PIC

Recommended Posts

hm... I have one, its not too long, but really has all you will need.  I will trade for Ks and silly things

For some reason, the website said that I couldn't PM you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument basically PICs out of the author citations used by the aff. The way that I have it, which is just two cards) is that we need to stop looking to other people for inspiration and instead use our own creativity. The problem, of course, is the performative contradiction if you choose to read citations for the rest of your arguments.

 

However, try running it against a Marxist aff. Watch them argue against private property while defending ownership of their speech act.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We affirm the entire 1AC minus author citations"

 

Intellectual property doesn't exist, plagiarism solves genocide, freedom, etc...

 

For all the cards you read, you just insert your name and your partners name and say that you wrote them.

 

 

 

Really really stupid, very few judges will even consider voting for it. It's one of "Those" arguments 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument basically PICs out of the author citations used by the aff. The way that I have it, which is just two cards) is that we need to stop looking to other people for inspiration and instead use our own creativity. The problem, of course, is the performative contradiction if you choose to read citations for the rest of your arguments.

 

However, try running it against a Marxist aff. Watch them argue against private property while defending ownership of their speech act.

 

you really don't have to defend private property, just academic citation. which is probably good even if IP isn't.  also, debate evidence isn't IP (and if it is, reading it in a round is probably already violating copyrights).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really don't have to defend private property, just academic citation. which is probably good even if IP isn't.  also, debate evidence isn't IP (and if it is, reading it in a round is probably already violating copyrights).

I just want to make clear that I don't actually think this argument is strategic in most instances. Even in the case with a Marxism aff, I think that it's a definite uphill battle. I specifically pointed out the perf con scenario.

 

With that said, however, I would like to continue playing devil's advocate. First of all, against a Marxism aff, the perception may be quite good. There may seem to be an apparent contradiction even if there isn't actually one. Second, it could be argued successfully that there is tension. The aff is against private property. The aff uses author citations. Author citations attribute an argument as having originated from a particular person, as having "belonged" to someone. I'll concede that that's the weakest part. This attribution is an instatiation of the larger system of intellectual property rights, where a person can own an idea. At that point, the neg is merely calling out a contradiction that already existed in the 1AC. The 1NC PIC is also a contradiction with the aff because it reappropriates the authorship, but it has the net benefit of creativity. The aff's options are to go with the original citations, entrenching the original ownership, or to concede that the neg should be allowed to advocate it themselves. If the original authors can own ideas, why can't the neg?

 

I don't think that these are the best arguments possible, just ones that can be made. It's just interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to make clear that I don't actually think this argument is strategic in most instances. Even in the case with a Marxism aff, I think that it's a definite uphill battle. I specifically pointed out the perf con scenario.

 

With that said, however, I would like to continue playing devil's advocate. First of all, against a Marxism aff, the perception may be quite good. There may seem to be an apparent contradiction even if there isn't actually one. Second, it could be argued successfully that there is tension. The aff is against private property. The aff uses author citations. Author citations attribute an argument as having originated from a particular person, as having "belonged" to someone. I'll concede that that's the weakest part. This attribution is an instatiation of the larger system of intellectual property rights, where a person can own an idea. At that point, the neg is merely calling out a contradiction that already existed in the 1AC. The 1NC PIC is also a contradiction with the aff because it reappropriates the authorship, but it has the net benefit of creativity. The aff's options are to go with the original citations, entrenching the original ownership, or to concede that the neg should be allowed to advocate it themselves. If the original authors can own ideas, why can't the neg?

 

I don't think that these are the best arguments possible, just ones that can be made. It's just interesting to think about.

Virginia States was won on this PIC versus a critical Graffiti affirmative. I can imagine it would be a very powerful argument against an Affirmative that is defending coalition building through anonymous messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, im the guy that won VA states on it. Overall, i agree its a bad argument, but against certain affs it can be really effective. especially Deleuzian affs that talk about experimenting with politics. It can be really susceptible to arguments like "Perm Do the CP" and the aff can claim the neg speeches as their own, since that would be a form of plagiarism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to make clear that I don't actually think this argument is strategic in most instances. Even in the case with a Marxism aff, I think that it's a definite uphill battle. I specifically pointed out the perf con scenario.

 

With that said, however, I would like to continue playing devil's advocate. First of all, against a Marxism aff, the perception may be quite good. There may seem to be an apparent contradiction even if there isn't actually one. Second, it could be argued successfully that there is tension. The aff is against private property. The aff uses author citations. Author citations attribute an argument as having originated from a particular person, as having "belonged" to someone. I'll concede that that's the weakest part. This attribution is an instatiation of the larger system of intellectual property rights, where a person can own an idea. At that point, the neg is merely calling out a contradiction that already existed in the 1AC. The 1NC PIC is also a contradiction with the aff because it reappropriates the authorship, but it has the net benefit of creativity. The aff's options are to go with the original citations, entrenching the original ownership, or to concede that the neg should be allowed to advocate it themselves. If the original authors can own ideas, why can't the neg?

 

I don't think that these are the best arguments possible, just ones that can be made. It's just interesting to think about.

 

devils advocacy is good and fine, but damn, i had to judge this arg 2 or 3 times on the space topic and it hurt

 

marx doesn't say ban labor, he says when it comes to labor, do you. he isn't a k of writing a book and attributing it to yourself, he's a k of putting a price on that and selling it. not sure how reading cards is commodifying the labor of authorship unless you, like, refuse to flash your speeches to the other team w/o getting paid for it

 

independently, authorship as key to sustainable academic creativity is not a hard arg to win. plagarism is unethical because you're claiming responsibility for someone else's work, but even outside of this, in the context of debate, citations are good because they let us research our opponents' claims further, see where they're coming from and all that.

 

and i don't know why functionally copying and pasting someone else's work and putting your name on it would resolve any of these claims or cause creativity. seems like a bigger IL to laziness

 

addendum: on the question of deleuze - this also doesn't make sense. d+g still publish under their names and include bibliographies at the end of their texts. nomadism doesn't mean shedding your name, it means understanding your name as a multiplicity or groupuscle.

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's bad

 

please don't run it

 

Yes this is entirely true and I think that this is a silly argument, not to mention how much of a hell this makes the flow into.  Nonetheless, it can be useful against certain affs that a) you have literally no other links to or B) function on the idea of illusion or nomadism (someone mentioned Deleuze earlier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, im the guy that won VA states on it. Overall, i agree its a bad argument, but against certain affs it can be really effective. especially Deleuzian affs that talk about experimenting with politics. It can be really susceptible to arguments like "Perm Do the CP" and the aff can claim the neg speeches as their own, since that would be a form of plagiarism.  

your argument is not plagiarism good....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, im the guy that lost VA states on it. Overall, I agree its a bad argument, but do not underestimate this PIK. I did and now I have to say I lost my third state final round on the author cites pik.

 

With that said, this argument was very responsive to my aff because the main advantage of my aff was some shit like graffiti combats the capitalist privitization of space because it allows the masses to reclaim things as their own. I wouldn't necessarily say Deleuze, but any of the Hakim Bey stuff or Invisible Committee stuff is in line with this. Since this was also my answer to FW (vandalize the resolution, make it ours, some other shit), it put my aff in a tricky spot when it came to saying anything along the lines of intellectual property good or even identifying yourself or your authors good.

 

This is not a strategic argument in most instances, and in fact my round/aff may have been one of the few instances where I would say this PIC works, my round happened to be one where I'd say this nearly directly answered my aff, not to say it couldn't have been beaten, but because I wrote it off as a joke argument I didn't take it seriously and my partner made some poor 2AC args.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, this should go without saying, but when someone asks for a file it's not an invitation for what the community thinks about it. I wasn't even planning on running it, it's a team joke, but i wanted a file. i've been successful enough this year and i'm not a fucking idiot, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, this should go without saying, but when someone asks for a file it's not an invitation for what the community thinks about it. I wasn't even planning on running it, it's a team joke, but i wanted a file. i've been successful enough this year and i'm not a fucking idiot, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

Thats true enough and thats why i upvoted you, but it is the job of the community to point out the flaws because 1) make sure that you know the opposition so you can prep for it in a real round 2) to prevent someone unaware of the file to run it without knowing what it is 3) to make sure you know what you are trading for 4) if it is a goodfile talking about it let other people know about it so they can aquire it too

 

Now obviously you are smart and know what you are doing, but i think its important for you to know this because everyone is not as smart or succesful as you

 

 

Edited by TamaleTosser
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, this should go without saying, but when someone asks for a file it's not an invitation for what the community thinks about it. I wasn't even planning on running it, it's a team joke, but i wanted a file. i've been successful enough this year and i'm not a fucking idiot, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, this should go without saying, but when someone asks for a file it's not an invitation for what the community thinks about it. I wasn't even planning on running it, it's a team joke, but i wanted a file. i've been successful enough this year and i'm not a fucking idiot, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

 

No one here is bashing you so there's no need to be defensive, it was just a discussion on an argument, which is a totally appropriate usage of this thread. I do understand your frustration, however. Bow2Baudrillard has a fine file that he offered to trade, get in contact with him.

  • Upvote 2

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...