Jump to content
BwO

Overextension K

Recommended Posts

I kind of have a personal vendetta against this argument and I'm writing answers to it for an off-case position. Does anyone have any carded or analytical answers to this? I'm talking about the atchison overextension K from the UM7wk framework file a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling us what your aff is (i'm assuming its Kritikal) would help a lot for answers to it.

 

Some quick lines of thought

a) is the aff neccesarily political?  If you're running an aff criticizing debate or the like than the aff is the opposite of political, its peronsal

B) Non-unique and their framework links harder: A policy-making framework seems to me that's its very political: even if you don't personally advocate a plan, discussing public policy is immersing yourself in the political process (plus all they're framework cards say that)

c) They're basically saying that people should not have their own politics---everyone from Boggs to Foucault has written about why the depoliticization of the individual is very, very bad.  Yes it can be harnessed for negative means (Hitler e.g.), but the alternative is alsmot certainly domination by  elites---like Reiter says-the main problem is not corporate power alone, but corporate power combined with the depoliticization of ordinary citizens

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone also post a brief explanation of what the overextension argument is?

It's in this file. www.debatecoaches.org/openev-archive/files/download/Framework_Good_7WK.doc

 

The way that I understand it, the aff "overextends" the political into the debate space. Using the ballot as a means to effect social change is a political act, and that causes fascism because you view everything as political. This isn't a full explanation, but the argument inside the file seems fairly straightforward.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time understanding why seeing everything as political results in fascism (I haven't really seen this argument in action, just speaking based on the explanation here).  Honestly, it seems to approach the credibility of "Nazis wore pants, thus all people who wear pants are Nazis."

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time understanding why seeing everything as political results in fascism (I haven't really seen this argument in action, just speaking based on the explanation here).  Honestly, it seems to approach the credibility of "Nazis wore pants, thus all people who wear pants are Nazis."

Are you saying they aren't?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying they aren't?

I knew there was a reason why my hatred of wearing pants is legitimate!

 

On topic it really does matter what argument the k is responding to.  Using it as a response to a discourse kritik is (dumb and...) different than a neoliberalism kritik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way that I understand it, the aff "overextends" the political into the debate space. Using the ballot as a means to effect social change is a political act, and that causes fascism because you view everything as political. This isn't a full explanation, but the argument inside the file seems fairly straightforward.

 

 

This seems to be empirically denied (terminal impact wise) and non-unique.  Thats like saying you suddenly think you can drive anywhere in your car....and I already think that way.

 

The personal is political is a seeming embedded assumption of the debate space.....one thats been around for the last 15 to 20 years of debate.

 

I frankly don't even know what it would look like to roll the clock back on that (aka to adopt the alternative) or how that could even be possible.  It would seem that all performance debate is a DA to this argument.

 

I do think the priviledge debate.....has heightened this uniquely.  No other debates get so personal to such a degree......but part of that is the nature of accusassions of privilledge and part of its the nature of the race debate.  And to be fair......its really the totalizing link stories.....without totalizing and link stories that argument would fall apart. 

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 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...