Jump to content
banjodude

banjodude (Aff) v.s. Schopenhauer (Neg)

Recommended Posts

 

How does your aff address globalization?

 

Learner says “The power equation needs to be balanced before democratic institutions are destroyed†Which democratic institutions should be destroyed and how does that aff achieve that destruction?

 

Should the judge vote aff for any reason other than the fiated effect of the plan?

 

ASU in 9 says we have to curve our consumption to avoid “irreversible decline.†How do you achieve that with your aff?

 

So given the state of neolib chaos and whatnot, how many workers in Mexico have the opportunity to unionize within their industry? Out of those workers how many will unionize post plan? Out of those how many will remain in said union after corporate pressure is inevitably applied against the workers?

 

Evans in 8 says “contemporary movements for social protection would have to effectively transcend not only national boundaries, but also the North-South divide.†How does your plan transcend the north south divide?

 

On Gordon 7 (first one)- whose assumptions do you have to challenge?

 

When exactly do you engage in the negotiations with mexico that your second piece of Gordon evidence talks about?

Edited by Schopenhauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if answers are blippy, i'm bloody exhausted today

 

How does your aff address globalization?

The aff uses the conduits of globalization to create transnational labor unions which would keep corporate blackmail in check, as per our Evans and Lerner evidence.

 

Learner says “The power equation needs to be balanced before democratic institutions are destroyed†Which democratic institutions should be destroyed and how does that aff achieve that destruction?

We're not achieving the destruction of democratic institutions, Lerner is saying that democratic institutions will be destroyed if we DONT balance the power equation.

 

Should the judge vote aff for any reason other than the fiated effect of the plan?

Vote aff because of our demand on the state for the passage of the plan, so basically nah.

 

ASU in 9 says we have to curve our consumption to avoid “irreversible decline.†How do you achieve that with your aff?

We "balance the power equation" and check corporations and neoliberal powers so that they stop destroying the biosphere.

 

So given the state of neolib chaos and whatnot, how many workers in Mexico have the opportunity to unionize within their industry? Out of those workers how many will unionize post plan? Out of those how many will remain in said union after corporate pressure is inevitably applied against the workers?

A lot.  I'm not going to give you an exact number, but the treatise allows for protection of these workers from their respective industries if/when they lash out.

 

Evans in 8 says “contemporary movements for social protection would have to effectively transcend not only national boundaries, but also the North-South divide.†How does your plan transcend the north south divide?

By initiating TNC with Mexico, which is part of the global south, and using this as a jumping off point for the world.

 

On Gordon 7 (first one)- whose assumptions do you have to challenge?

Gordon is just talking about how TNC is a new immigration category, so it's part of an immigration change.  Not any grander societal assumptions being challenged with that piece of ev.

 

When exactly do you engage in the negotiations with mexico that your second piece of Gordon evidence talks about?

As part of the fiated plan passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you access any spillover?

 

is capitalism bad?

 

given that Walmart workers can't even get a union, how do you expect an end to corporate domination over workers post plan?

 

why would deleuze vote aff?

 

you said the gordon evidence is talking about the plan as part of an immigration change. what guarantees immigration change post plan? how does this change occur?

 

How do unions prevent the destruction of the biosphere?

 

how does the plan effect workers in mexico that don't come to the US?

Edited by Schopenhauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this round is already going and there isn't a judge, I guess I'll judge. 

For a paradigm, do whatever. I rather have to adapt to your debate style than the other way around. I have no bias about anything. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you access any spillover?

By using the communication methods that neoliberal globalization established to establish global worker solidarity, again as per our Evans and Lerner evidence.

 

is capitalism bad?

In the current neoliberal form yes.

 

given that Walmart workers can't even get a union, how do you expect an end to corporate domination over workers post plan?

Our last piece of Lerner evidence is pretty good on this.  We're not saying that unions alone will be the sole solution but that creating transnational unions can function as a starting point for a greater resistance against neoliberal capital.  Once we gain global solidarity through the transnational approach of the plan we can truly "disrupt the engine rooms"

 

why would deleuze vote aff?

Because we don't view the libidic power of capital as more valuable than life, and because we use the assemblages of the state to use the state in an anti state way, instead of viewing it monolithically.

 

you said the gordon evidence is talking about the plan as part of an immigration change. what guarantees immigration change post plan? how does this change occur?

The plan is the change.

 

How do unions prevent the destruction of the biosphere?

By helping to break down neoliberal fascism and, again, checking the power of the corporate hegemons the degrade the environment.

 

how does the plan effect workers in mexico that don't come to the US

The plan is a cross border labor agreement, so it goes into effect on both sides of the border.  Also our spillover arguments apply here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last few questions

 

on spill over- i get that you say you access spillover, but your lerner and evans evidence both talk about global projects, not the aff. how do you access the global projects via the plan?

 

your solvency seems dependent on a continued anti neoliberal movement post plan. Who says that in a world of the plan politicians in the US would push more anti corporation legislation?

 

what about capitalism is bad now and how does the plan resolve those bad parts? what parts still remain? 

 

you think deleuze would be cool with using the state? you know who deleuze is right? lol

 

what ev indicates that mexico says yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the worlds longest plantext. Congrats you made it into the world record.

 

 

Neg better run some bomb diggity t here because somehow somewhere something in this isn't even close to topical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this round is already going and there isn't a judge, I guess I'll judge. 

 

For a paradigm, do whatever. I rather have to adapt to your debate style than the other way around. I have no bias about anything. 

That's the actual best paradigm. It might not always be 100% effective or foolproof (insofar as at least a little bias might be inevitable), but that's honestly the best pedagogical method for judges imo

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm just going to assume we're using the regular word count and upload my 1NC

you don't have to answer those last questions if you don't want to.

Order is 2 off then case. i guess the citizenship contention… whichever one has more solvency stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the K:

1) Status?

2) Is european thought bad? Why?

3) What does "dewesternizaton" look like?

4) On  Grosfoguel: So coalitions of every form are eurocentric? Why is ours specifically?

5) Why is the american "man" key?
6) What is "semiotic struggle"?

7) What is "modernity"?

8) What is "coloniality"

 

On T:

1) Why arent we long term and structural...

2) Don't neoliberal corporations control the behavior of states?

3) Isn't trying to directly influence the way Mexico does its thing pretty colonialist?

4)What speecific ground do you lose? You just listed 3 different types of off case positions.

5) Why is changign the behavior of a state specifically key to limits, not strucutral long term engagement.

 

Solvency:

1) Is state engagement always bad?

2) Is talking about what we think the state should do the same as "egocentric identificaiton with the state?" Pourquoi?

3) Should we never talk about policy?

4) What's the warrant on jackson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry- had tennis practice 

On the K:

1) Status?

only 1 advocacy. condo

2) Is european thought bad? Why?

depends on what "european thought" you're talking about. europeans thinking isn't inherently bad, but is influence by epistemic location. what the K says is bad is eurocentric knowledge production. the knowledge that is produced isn't 100% bad 100% of the time, but the method used is highly influential on the conclusions drawn and how that particular understanding of the world is applied. 

3) What does "dewesternizaton" look like?

mignolo talks about de-westernization in the context of the chinese cultural revolution, but indicts it as a flawed approach to problems as it questions only who has power within institutions, not the institutions themselves. de-westernization is not advocated by the negative, but the process of using de-westernization would result is a shifting of who holds power, but would, as mignolo says, "only question who controls capitalism"

4) On  Grosfoguel: So coalitions of every form are eurocentric? Why is ours specifically?

​the ideas that any one singular aspect of resistance can be evenly applied to all is eurocentric and only benefits a limited number of people within the movement. the reason your coalition is bad is because it universalizes particular struggles, excluding non western peoples from participating and accessing the benefits of your movement. 

5) Why is the american "man" key?

American man=particular way of being in the world. you have man in quotes, so i feel like you are asking why "man" is key. it's because sexism. man refers in part to the false idea of humanity promoted by the west. when someone took a step on the moon it was a leap for mankind, and it is the logic of humanity and human success and being success of "men" that is the false idea i mentioned. 

6) What is "semiotic struggle"?

maldonado torres says this takes the form of critical analysis and the invention and sharing of ideas that that allow for humans to preserve their humanity. the interpretation of how symbols are used (such as man representing all of humanity) should also be examined. 

7) What is "modernity"?

post enlightenment europe and the epistemologies that came with it.

8) What is "coloniality"

if colonization is geopolitical and economic expansion, then coloniality is the pattern of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations.

On T:

1) Why arent we long term and structural...

you probably are. that's not the violation i make. 

2) Don't neoliberal corporations control the behavior of states?

states can act independently of corporations. and no they don't control countries. influence yes, control no.

3) Isn't trying to directly influence the way Mexico does its thing pretty colonialist?

sure but perf con's probably okay. key to test the aff and whatnot… especially when you traditionally affirm the rez.

4)What speecific ground do you lose? You just listed 3 different types of off case positions.

literally any DA based on any significant change occurring within the target state. 

5) Why is changign the behavior of a state specifically key to limits, not strucutral long term engagement.

because the US could sign a deal with mexico to sell them 20 pens a year for the next 20 years and that's a long term engagement and there are hundreds of affs like that. Creating a change in behavior of a state sets a limit that excludes things that aren't influential in the target state. 

Solvency:

1) Is state engagement always bad?

engagement is very broad. i don't think it's bad that i , for instance, go to the DMV, but to use the state as the cure all for things like worker inequality, racism, sexism, etc. is bad because it assumes the state to be a completely rational entity that always serves the interest of just those who are "good" (good varying depending on who perceives their cause as "good" of course). 

2) Is talking about what we think the state should do the same as "egocentric identificaiton with the state?" Pourquoi?

used french word, that's a link. jk. identifying personal advocacy within the state blurs the line between individual and institutional responsibility, making us complicit with State violence because we role-play as and identify with the State.

3) Should we never talk about policy?

no. we just shouldn't use debate as a way to advocate changes that will never occur. there is nothing wrong with writing your representative or discussing how we should form policies, but the debate formate of do plan or X bad shit happens is unrealistic and oversimplified..

4) What's the warrant on jackson?

enviro damage doesn't happen because corporations and oil companies hate Bambi, it happens because consumers refuse to demand safer methods/products. if you create the best unions the world has ever seen, the biosphere will continue to be ravished because consumer behavior determines what is produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

banjodude, on 31 Mar 2014 - 5:20 PM, said:snapback.png

On the K:

1) Status?

only 1 advocacy. condo

2) Is european thought bad? Why?

depends on what "european thought" you're talking about. europeans thinking isn't inherently bad, but is influence by epistemic location. what the K says is bad is eurocentric knowledge production. the knowledge that is produced isn't 100% bad 100% of the time, but the method used is highly influential on the conclusions drawn and how that particular understanding of the world is applied.

Why is this instance specifically bad?

3) What does "dewesternizaton" look like?

mignolo talks about de-westernization in the context of the chinese cultural revolution, but indicts it as a flawed approach to problems as it questions only who has power within institutions, not the institutions themselves. de-westernization is not advocated by the negative, but the process of using de-westernization would result is a shifting of who holds power, but would, as mignolo says, "only question who controls capitalism"

Alright I gotcha.  So what does the alt look like then?

4) On  Grosfoguel: So coalitions of every form are eurocentric? Why is ours specifically?

​the ideas that any one singular aspect of resistance can be evenly applied to all is eurocentric and only benefits a limited number of people within the movement. the reason your coalition is bad is because it universalizes particular struggles, excluding non western peoples from participating and accessing the benefits of your movement. 

How do we do that again?

5) Why is the american "man" key?

American man=particular way of being in the world. you have man in quotes, so i feel like you are asking why "man" is key. it's because sexism. man refers in part to the false idea of humanity promoted by the west. when someone took a step on the moon it was a leap for mankind, and it is the logic of humanity and human success and being success of "men" that is the false idea i mentioned. 

Okay, so if this discourse is grounded in sexism, why continue it as your alterantive?

6) What is "semiotic struggle"?

maldonado torres says this takes the form of critical analysis and the invention and sharing of ideas that that allow for humans to preserve their humanity. the interpretation of how symbols are used (such as man representing all of humanity) should also be examined. 

7) What is "modernity"?

post enlightenment europe and the epistemologies that came with it.

8) What is "coloniality"

if colonization is geopolitical and economic expansion, then coloniality is the pattern of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations.

On T:

1) Why arent we long term and structural...

you probably are. that's not the violation i make. 

2) Don't neoliberal corporations control the behavior of states?

states can act independently of corporations. and no they don't control countries. influence yes, control no.

3) Isn't trying to directly influence the way Mexico does its thing pretty colonialist?

sure but perf con's probably okay. key to test the aff and whatnot… especially when you traditionally affirm the rez.

4)What speecific ground do you lose? You just listed 3 different types of off case positions.

literally any DA based on any significant change occurring within the target state. 

5) Why is changign the behavior of a state specifically key to limits, not strucutral long term engagement.

because the US could sign a deal with mexico to sell them 20 pens a year for the next 20 years and that's a long term engagement and there are hundreds of affs like that. Creating a change in behavior of a state sets a limit that excludes things that aren't influential in the target state. 

Solvency:

1) Is state engagement always bad?

engagement is very broad. i don't think it's bad that i , for instance, go to the DMV, but to use the state as the cure all for things like worker inequality, racism, sexism, etc. is bad because it assumes the state to be a completely rational entity that always serves the interest of just those who are "good" (good varying depending on who perceives their cause as "good" of course). 

So you should be able to go to the DMV and that's okay, but if we try to use the state to help the oppressed that's bad?

2) Is talking about what we think the state should do the same as "egocentric identificaiton with the state?" Pourquoi?

used french word, that's a link. jk. identifying personal advocacy within the state blurs the line between individual and institutional responsibility, making us complicit with State violence because we role-play as and identify with the State.

3) Should we never talk about policy?

no. we just shouldn't use debate as a way to advocate changes that will never occur. there is nothing wrong with writing your representative or discussing how we should form policies, but the debate formate of do plan or X bad shit happens is unrealistic and oversimplified..

4) What's the warrant on jackson?

enviro damage doesn't happen because corporations and oil companies hate Bambi, it happens because consumers refuse to demand safer methods/products. if you create the best unions the world has ever seen, the biosphere will continue to be ravished because consumer behavior determines what is produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. because the affs movement occurs within, ignores,  and uses mechanisms of Eurocentric control.

3. the visual metaphor makes the question a bit confusing to me. are you asking me to describe for you what the alt advocates or to describe instances of it in action?

4. because you assume that once we put some people in unions in mexico, the movement will suddenly spread to all corners of the globe eliminating all neoliberal institutions.

5. the alt says that this discourse is bad and criticizes the idea that everything revolves around the American Man is bad.

solvency

1. the way you do it is bad. appealer says that the stance of what would i do if i were the government is bad, claude criticizes the idea that we can say a policy should happen and expect everything to A. end perfectly because the state is always successful and benevolent in everything it does and B. assume that these justifications will continue. i think i already explained the shaffer ev so i won't do that again. the criticism that i make is of macro level discussion in instances where microlevel action is the only thing possible. you don't have access to any levers of power in the macro political sense, but what you can do you ignore. there's nothing wrong with participating within the government to help people, but you asa high school kid pretending that whatever sentence long government policy you can imagine can happen is bad.

 

i'm watching NDT sims on youtube, so if i missed anything just tell me.

Edited by Schopenhauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're good.  2ac should be up by wednesday/thursday.  I'm doing community service tomorrow and have too much hw tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if it's a bit redundant at any points, i just did a quick line by line of questions

Fiat args

  1. clarify- so you don’t role play you just
  2. Kappeler says that the thinking from the perspective of what should the government do is bad because it takes away our agency as individuals to bother to think about what we can do. How does kappeler not apply to your, “imagining the consequences of the government enacting the plan.â€
Reformism
  1. how does saying that we need to reject eurecentric power structures mean that I use the “logic of capitalist hegemonyâ€? if the alt is a rejection of these dominant forms of knowledge and I say that minor reforms are bad because they don’t change the institutions, how do I promote those institutions?   
  2. Okay seriously, how do you draw the conclusion that Wilderson is indicting Mignolo?
  3. You say wilderson is cool with reforms, but he says “This would fine if the work led us back to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not.†Your criticism only says that the neoliberal actors are bad, you even say that capitalism isn’t all bad and that we can reform it. how is your K of just one aspect of the global economy a critique of the paradigm of economic understanding?
Claude
  1. how does this link to coloniality?
  2. So we should leave predictions to the “experts†right? What about the “experts†who got us into multiple wars such as Iraq or Vietnam? Also when did I say predictions bad?
Solvency
  1. okay so I get what the evans ev says, but we can both agree that JUST increasing membership in unions doesn’t on its own solve, so what warrants do you have as to why post plan movements like the aff would continue to grow?
  2. You said fiat solves corporate pushback. So you get to just fiat that corporations don’t oppose and fight progressive changes? Why do you get to do this?
  3. You have made multiple claims on the issue of capitalism. just to be clear. Is cap bad? does capitalism exist in the world of the plan? which parts of capitalism do you eliminate?
  4. Do the unions that you advocate for exist in the Squo between any other countries?
  5. Why is the plan necessary if the Evans card says that the organization of neolib facilitates opposition already?
  6. So you shadow extend the learner ev on solvency, but if unions are JUST a starting point, which is what he says, then how do you solve?
  7. So that gordan card you read says that TLC provides for worker rights. How does that = end of neolib?
  8. Where is the warrant for GLOBAL solidarity? How does this effect anyone outside of mexico/the US?
  9. I get the whole plan strengthens unions thing, but why does that mean there won’t be ANY push back from the numerous politicians that actively oppose this kind of thing and corporations that lobby to those politicians?
T
  1. How do you change the behavior of mexico?
  2. So EE includes immigration, why does that my interp is false?
  3. How does my interp exclude immigration?
  4. What do you mean there’s not way to tell if there is a change in state behavior?
  5. What’s the point of your subpoint #3?
  6. What line in my (K) evidence says that a limited topic is bad?
  7. I would argue that I advocate for something that would result In a change of behavior in many states (the K). when did I say you had to advocate gov. action?
Coloniality
  1. What do you do to prevent being, “trapped in the narcissism of academics†by, “Imagining the consequences of the government enacting the plan�
  2. Why is theorizing bad?
  3. When did I say root cause?
  4. Your no link is based on you saying cap bad. you specifically said that neolib is bad and cap is not always bad though. Also [bowman] says “cooperativization can eliminate globalizing capitalism’s worst features.†So you have made claims to both reject and reform capitalism. At this point I just want to know, which one do you do?
  5. How does the Sandoval ev help you? The coalitions he sites aren’t global coalitions that universalize conditions of inequality like the aff, he sites multiple specific for resistance like post colonial theory.
  6. How do any of these indictments of mignolo apply? I don’t’ advocate any of the stuff you criticize about his theories.
  7. What about the K takes away any group of peoples identity?
  8. What is your arg with the Michaelson and Shershow, 2007 ev?
  9. How is embracing the plan in a different context a perm? What part of my alt advocated for a different context?
  10. How did my 1NC not take into account everyday instances of colonial violence. I think that’s pretty much all I talked about on the impact level.
  11. What are “Mignolo’s temporal miscategorizations�

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...