Jump to content
foucault0ff

Strats you never broke?

Recommended Posts

K of Occupy Wall Street affs. 

What was the K? I wrote and read the first Occupy Debate aff in policy debate, and I'm curious what this argues. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? On what topic?

Democracy Assistance. We read some cards from Tunsian academics and activists Tahir Square who declared solidarity with the Occupy movement (that was how we were passive voice "topical"). Then we read some Butler cards about the importance of material presence in terms of fighting neoliberal power structures.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western Democracy K versus Zapatistas. 

Western Democracy Good or Bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy Assistance. We read some cards from Tunsian academics and activists Tahir Square who declared solidarity with the Occupy movement (that was how we were passive voice "topical"). Then we read some Butler cards about the importance of material presence in terms of fighting neoliberal power structures.

This is the only card I have from it with me. What I Imagined to do was read it on framework in the 1NC and give it another impact, maybe like turns case, in the block.

 

Occupy Wall Street systematically avoids taking positions in order to stifle debate. It’s a calculated strategy to stop reasonable disagreements and insulate the movement from any critical evaluations. The aff is using Occupy Wall Street to prevent debate.

The Economist 11 (Nov 28th 2011, 22:47 by W.W. | IOWA CITY, “Occupy Wall Street Conspiracy theories†http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-2)

LATE last week Naomi Wolf argued in The Guardian that the crackdowns on Occupy encampments across the country are part of a conspiracy to crush the movement, a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top! "This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers", Ms Wolf argues. "As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against [the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS)] at the highest national levels." As Ms Wolf's piece made the rounds on social-networking sites, it was clear that many on the left really believed she was hot on the trail of something big.   Ms Wolf says she was initially puzzled about the motivation for the concerted campaign against OWS, but then she asked around and "found out what it was that OWS actually wanted". Miraculously, she found out what OWS actually wants. Finally! Here it is, closely paraphrased: 1. Get the money out of politics (blunt the effects of the Citizens United decision). 2. Reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation (restore Glass-Steagall). 3. Close loopholes that allow members of Congress to vote on legislation affecting corporations in which they are investors.    Ms Wolf's first problem is that OWS has been pretty disciplined, and pretty smart, in refusing to enumerate demands this clearly. The strategic danger of putting proposals like these on the table is that it invites debate, and these are debates OWS and its sympathisers might not win. Campaign-finance is a tricky issue. The Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate spending on political speech not because a handful of eminent jurists are in the pockets of the oligarchs, but because the plausible jurisprudential argument that such limits are inconsistent with the first amendment convinced a majority of the court. A constitutional amendment has been proposed to restore the legislative discretion to regulate political spending/speech taken away by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment, but this won't go anywhere, because maybe half the 99% are for it. Financial regulation is tricky, too. I agree with Matthew Yglesias (among many others) that the role of Glass-Steagall in the recession and financial-sector meltdown is overblown, and likely a distraction from the sorts of issues on which OWS ought to be focused. And how about congressional market manipulation and insider trading? Megan McArdle recently examined the evidence: [T]he academic evidence on congressional insider trading is mixed: an older study found a huge effect (Senators outperform the market by 12%, while house members outperform by a still impressive 6%); but a newer study, as yet unpublished, showed that as a group, congressmen slightly under-perform index funds. As far as we know, and Ms McArdle emphasises that it isn't very far, members of Congress generally do worse than the market.  If OWS did lay out explicit demands like those Ms Wolf mentions, the movement's populist energy would quickly dissipate as it began to become mired in argument with smart, reasonable people with different opinions. If the inchoate anger of young people harmed by the recession is reduced to highly-debatable bullet points, OWS will die on its own, no conspiracy needed. That is, I take it, among the main reasons OWS refuses to say what it really wants.  Anyway, Ms Wolf believes that OWS's notional demands pose such a threat to "personal congressional profits streams" that officials at the "highest national levels" have colluded with local authorities to put an end to the camping which, if left unchecked, might fail to amend the constitution, or implement some not very meaningful financial regulation, or stop members of congress from making dubiously productive trades. Despite the facially ridiculous character of Ms Wolf's conspiracy theorising, Joshua Holland of Alternet digs in and find no factual basis for the claim that the various police actions (and outrageous overreactions) against local Occupy protesters across the country have been coordinated from Washington. Following up on Mr Holland's debunking, Corey Robin, a professor of political science at Brooklyn College, makes the excellent point that the decentralised application of coercive authority has a storied history: From the battles over abolition to the labor wars at the turn of the last century to the Red Squads of the twentieth-century police departments to the struggles over Jim Crow, state repression in America has often been decentralized, displaying that very same can-do spirit of local initiative that has been celebrated by everyone from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam. Though Tocqueville and Putnam were talking of course about things like creating churches and buildings roads, the fact is: if the locals can build a church or a road on their own, they can also get rid of dissenters on their own, too, no? Sometimes little platoons wear jackboots. Mr Robin goes on to say: It's not surprising that faced with the crackdown of OWS protests, Wolf would immediately turn to a theory of national, centralized repression. It's part of our national DNA, on the left and the right, to assume that tyranny works that way.  I actually find it more than a little surprising that folks on the left would so easily forget that tyranny is often local. The liberal antipathy to the sort of decentralisation of power confusingly known as federalism runs very deep, and is rooted in the very things Mr Robin mentions, such as the struggle to abolish Jim Crow. I would argue that Ms Wolf's it-goes-all-the-way-to-the-top conspiracy theorising seemed so plausible to so many OWS sympathisers because the Occupy movement is itself fueled by a conspiracy theory: that the richest 1% have conspired to capture the political system and use it to bend the economic system to their exclusive advantage. So it's not surprising that Ms Wolf's conspiracy theory, which fits so neatly with OWS's larger conspiratorial narrative, would find such a receptive, credulous audience.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These weren't my strategies, but (horrible) attacks the opposing team made against me...  They didn't work, especially with lay judges:

  • Debt Good
  • Economic Growth Bad
  • Instability Good
  • Human Rights Bad
  • Anti-americanism good
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We hit stuff like that a lot - "no specific demands = no solvency" and the link. Stuff that relied implicitly on cap good materials too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These weren't my strategies, but (horrible) attacks the opposing team made against me...  They didn't work, especially with lay judges:

  • Debt Good
  • Economic Growth Bad
  • Instability Good
  • Human Rights Bad
  • Anti-americanism good

 

Literally all of those are decent strategies. Which one do you think is horrible?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LionDebater:

 

Human Rights Bad is probably the hardest sell of those, but there's definitely literature for it.

 

Economic growth bad has several substantial literature sets which only moderately interact with each other.

 

Debt good is actually pretty mainstream economic thought, both at a finance level, and at a government spending level.  The rejection of the position is actually a minority position.  The main economic debate today is 'how much debt is too much for a government'?  (That's pretty much a solved problem for personal finance).

 

Instability good has literature support on both the 'left' and the 'right', or at least what some of the left characterizes as the right.  It's certainly not the mainstream position, but it has decent evidence.

 

Anti-Americanism good has a plethora of support.  The strong claim (ie, as you've stated it) is defensible, and the weaker claim (Americanism / American exceptionalism bad) is pretty strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy Assistance. We read some cards from Tunsian academics and activists Tahir Square who declared solidarity with the Occupy movement (that was how we were passive voice "topical"). Then we read some Butler cards about the importance of material presence in terms of fighting neoliberal power structures.

What college did you go to Snarf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human Rights Bad is probably the hardest sell of those, but there's definitely literature for it.

 

Agreed that "human rights bad" is a hard sell, but the nuanced version of it is relatively intuitive. The attack on 'human rights' usually argues that the "rights" being described actually reflect elements of Western culture, rather than neutral reflections of universal principles. The other half of the claim - and the one that's fairly uncontestable - is the claim that even if "human rights" were ok in principle, in practice they are inconsistently supported and enforced, and when they are enforced, it usually coincides with ulterior motives, nonhumanitarian motives (Libya/oil, Iraq/oil, Iraq2/oil, etc).  

 

What college did you go to Snarf?

 

I did my undergraduate at Florida

Edited by Snarf
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Desire Externalization against Zapatistas

Does anyone have an explanation of this argument, it seems interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And was it the 2nr?

We actually won that round, and yes it was. We ran it with a CP, and when they claimed that they were on the 3rd side, we ran it as a solvency deficit because their authors weren't specific to the 3rd side. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually won that round, and yes it was. We ran it with a CP, and when they claimed that they were on the 3rd side, we ran it as a solvency deficit because their authors weren't specific to the 3rd side. 

Oh god...what the heck was the CP?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... We went CP and case because CP had a net benefit of specifying the 1st side of the time cube, but the legit net benefit was colonialism. 

Well ya but that 1st side had to be the RFD.  

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...