Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whenever you want to start, I'm ready to go

 

Judges?

 

Word count can be 2500/1500 or 3000/2000

This seems a bit unfair considering the 1ac is only 420 words long

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until contention three I was like, oh, a preliminary debate on the college topic, cool, and then I facepalmed (at myself).

Haha, I would do this on the college topic but I'm not debating :/. (The aff I was originally thinking of running if I were debating, would be irony about decriming' murder against minorities)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uraguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uraguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realized there are no judges. I'll judge, just pm me when the debate is finished and I'll give an rfd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

Where does your evidence mention modelling Uruguay?

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

Why won't you defend the evidence?

 

Are you continuing the drug war?

 

Is death a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

Where does your evidence mention modelling Uruguay?

It doesn't but the plan mandates a creating a legal framework, we argue that we will follow Uruguay's model

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

Why won't you defend the evidence?

We do defend the evidence, we just wont defend any offensive language in it as being good.

 

Are you continuing the drug war?

I don't know what you mean here.

 

Is death a bad thing?

The 1AC doesn't defend death as a good or bad thing, we do think the genocidal violence by state forces due to prohibition is unethical

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

Where does your evidence mention modelling Uruguay?

It doesn't but the plan mandates a creating a legal framework, we argue that we will follow Uruguay's model

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

Why won't you defend the evidence?

We do defend the evidence, we just wont defend any offensive language in it as being good.

What is offensive language?

 

Are you continuing the drug war?

I don't know what you mean here.

After the plan does the war on drugs end?

 

Is death a bad thing?

The 1AC doesn't defend death as a good or bad thing, we do think the genocidal violence by state forces due to prohibition is unethical

Are the deaths caused by the war on drugs good or bad?

 

Is racism a human rights issue?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

Where does your evidence mention modelling Uruguay?

It doesn't but the plan mandates a creating a legal framework, we argue that we will follow Uruguay's model

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

Why won't you defend the evidence?

We do defend the evidence, we just wont defend any offensive language in it as being good.

What is offensive language?

 

Are you continuing the drug war?

I don't know what you mean here.

After the plan does the war on drugs end?

 

Is death a bad thing?

The 1AC doesn't defend death as a good or bad thing, we do think the genocidal violence by state forces due to prohibition is unethical

Are the deaths caused by the war on drugs good or bad?

 

Is racism a human rights issue?

 

Can I have an anthro link?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is the 1ac an effective method in combating racism?

We use law to stop the discriminatory system of marijuana incarceration in which blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges.

 

How does the 1ac prevent police brutality which is still implicit regardless of the legal status of drugs.

Well It probably doesn't do this directly but it will give police less reasons to target communities of color, that's ACLU 13 the first card on incarceration.

 

What is the legal framework your plan mandates?

The model that Uruguay has set. "legal framework regulating the cultivation, trade and consumption of cannabis for medical, industrial as well as recreational purposes"

How will it be regulated?

Licences for taxation, legalizing for adults, exactly how Uruguay does it but for the US and Mexico.

Where does your evidence mention modelling Uruguay?

It doesn't but the plan mandates a creating a legal framework, we argue that we will follow Uruguay's model

 

If we win you make racism worse, do we win?

What? we argue that racism is already bad in the status quo. What do you mean by make racism worse?

 

Will you defend the discourse of the 1ac?

I'll defend the tags. Like if there's something in the evidence that is offensive, I won't say that, that language is good.

Why won't you defend the evidence?

We do defend the evidence, we just wont defend any offensive language in it as being good.

What is offensive language?

That's up to you to decide.

 

Are you continuing the drug war?

I don't know what you mean here.

After the plan does the war on drugs end?

It's very likely, we argue tha marijuana is the cash crop for cartels if we take that away, there is no money in it for them and it reduces state forces ability to commit violent acts against citizens

 

Is death a bad thing?

The 1AC doesn't defend death as a good or bad thing, we do think the genocidal violence by state forces due to prohibition is unethical

Are the deaths caused by the war on drugs good or bad?

The good, bad dichotomy is very subjective. you're going to have to be more specific here.

 

Is racism a human rights issue?

I'm not going to make connections for you that aren't in the 1AC. racism is definitely something that shouldn't be tolerated, but I don't know what you consider to be a "human right"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Question (ideally): If you don't define offensive language, how can I differentiate between what you will and won't defend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo can i judge?  There's a few comments I'd like to make about this debate after its done (none negative don't worry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Question (ideally): If you don't define offensive language, how can I differentiate between what you will and won't defend?

Because I specifically said I will defend the tags not the discourse of the evidence. Offensive language is any words or phrases that could offend someone.

 

Also could judges post paradigms so when I get around to the 2AC I can write it accordingly.

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General: 

 

Any of the Criticism have alts?

 

If so status?

 

Anthro:

 

Do you truly believe the 1AC's intent was to harm animals?

 

Any links to plan action, if so explain it form me?

 

Bailey talks about comparing human suffering to animals, where does the 1AC do this?

 

What separates an animal from a human?

 

What rights do animals have in the Squo?

 

Impact to anthro?

 

What is collard talking about?

 

T:

Where does your definition imply that we have to be unilateral?

 

When has the US ever started trading without a framework for trade?

 

Why is derrick 98 read?

 

Explain how we're effects, and how our instance of effects is abusive?

 

What is the violation on T?

 

What ground do you lose like name 5 args?

 

Discourse: 

When have you ever had to defend offensive language that someone else has said?

 

couldn't anything be tailored as "offensive language"?

 

Why should we have to defend the word choice of someone else?

 

What would you have ran if I did defend the evidence's discourse?

 

Commodification:

Impact to baudrillard?

 

What does debate look like if everyone conformed to your criticism?

 

How don't you commodify suffering of animals for the ballot?

 

Case:

How are we "fighting the system"?

 

How do you suggest we stop the racist system of marijuana incarceration and the violence associated with marijuana prohibition?

 

Where does wilderson make the claim that's in the tag?

 

How does any of the state bad specifically apply to us?

 

How do we specifically cause the impacts to your state bad argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General: 

 

Any of the Criticism have alts?

Not really - The only 'advocacy' sort of is our method of a true political space

 

If so status?

 

Anthro:

 

Do you truly believe the 1AC's intent was to harm animals?

Regardless of intent, your discourse still is still demeaning to animals which makes it impossible to create a true political space

 

Any links to plan action, if so explain it form me?

Human focused ethics ignore that humanism is the root cause

 

Bailey talks about comparing human suffering to animals, where does the 1AC do this?

Memmi = The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity

 

What separates an animal from a human?

The animal doesn't put the human in a cage

 

What rights do animals have in the Squo?

Where?

 

 

Impact to anthro?

The original hierarchy - It makes every oppression inevitable

 

What is collard talking about?

A true political space which is where every human and non-human is on similar terms. The way I like to see it is bringing in those who don't have a voice to talk about their oppression

 

T:

Where does your definition imply that we have to be unilateral?

Towards implies that it's unilateral action. The US is the actor doing something towards a country, ie. giving money

 

When has the US ever started trading without a framework for trade?

Colonies sent out ships with supplies

 

Why is derrick 98 read?

Sorry, that was a bit unclear, the 1ac is an example of diplomatic engagement since it involves negotiations  and diplomatic engagement rather than economic 

 

Explain how we're effects, and how our instance of effects is abusive?

The 1ac does not mandate trade. All it does is create a framework for trade. You don't link to spending disads :(

 

What is the violation on T?

You engage in diplomatic engagement with another country

 

What ground do you lose like name 5 args?

Spending

Economic Ks

Process counterplans

Legalize weed CP

Cap

 

Discourse: 

When have you ever had to defend offensive language that someone else has said?

You don't get to pick and choose what you like from what someone says. For example, having a mayor create a booming, lovely city doesn't make him saying the n-word a better person

 

couldn't anything be tailored as "offensive language"?

If it's not offensive, there shouldn't be a problem - That's a link question

 

Why should we have to defend the word choice of someone else?

Because you chose to endorse the card as part of the 1ac

 

What would you have ran if I did defend the evidence's discourse?

That was just to be sure I had a link for anthro

 

Commodification:

Impact to baudrillard?

Academic Imperialism

Loss of self

 

What does debate look like if everyone conformed to your criticism?

Probably like the 60s. "The economy will get worse. That's bad"

                                               ^Boom. Impact

 

How don't you commodify suffering of animals for the ballot?

Our evidence is pretty specific to people.

Animals can not be commodified because they are already dead - their valuation among society is literally 0

A true political space is writing in where the animal died - If we accomplish that, the judge votes neg 

 

 

Case:

How are we "fighting the system"?

You're fighting the police with the system that sustains them

 

How do you suggest we stop the racist system of marijuana incarceration and the violence associated with marijuana prohibition?

We don't need to prove an alternative. Only that the 1ac was a bad idea

 

Where does wilderson make the claim that's in the tag?

exploitation and alienation, the assumptive logic whereby subjective dispossession is arrived at in the calculations between those who sell labor power and those who acquire it

 

How does any of the state bad specifically apply to us?

Freire explained above

Wilderson - You're fighting the state by using the state. Trying to reform civil society fails.

Kulynych - You're using the legal system to fix a problem prevalent in everyday life. Relying on them sustains its power

Rodriguez/DSRB - The US continues a logic of violence and policing. Using the state endorses the racist power that people have been struggling against for years. It furthermore normalizes racist violence in the status quo making other offenses worse to make up for this one

 

How do we specifically cause the impacts to your state bad argument?

Sort of explained above. Sustaining its power is bad. Using the state for reform fails.

Edited by lbchuck1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

General: 

 

Any of the Criticism have alts?

Not really - The only 'advocacy' sort of is our method of a true political space

 

If so status?

 

Anthro:

 

Do you truly believe the 1AC's intent was to harm animals?

Regardless of intent, your discourse still is still demeaning to animals which makes it impossible to create a true political space

So the link is soley discursive?  

 

Any links to plan action, if so explain it form me?

Human focused ethics ignore that humanism is the root cause

How so?

 

Bailey talks about comparing human suffering to animals, where does the 1AC do this?

Memmi = The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity

If blacks are inherently seen as animals as memmi has pointed out, why isn't addressing black suffering comparable to animal suffering.

 

What separates an animal from a human?

The animal doesn't put the human in a cage

The system of marijuana incarceration puts blacks in cages, how do we link?

 

What rights do animals have in the Squo?

Where?

In general?

 

Whats the inherent difference between blacks and animals?

 

Impact to anthro?

The original hierarchy - It makes every oppression inevitable

But how does our instance make every form of oppression inevitable?

 

What is collard talking about?

A true political space which is where every human and non-human is on similar terms. The way I like to see it is bringing in those who don't have a voice to talk about their oppression

What are collards quals and why can she talk about what contributes to a true political space? her warrants seem subjective.

 

T:

Where does your definition imply that we have to be unilateral?

Towards implies that it's unilateral action. The US is the actor doing something towards a country, ie. giving money

What warrant is there for toward implying unilateralism, it seems that it just means there has to be an instrumental actor?

 

When has the US ever started trading without a framework for trade?

Colonies sent out ships with supplies

What? could you be more specific here?

 

Why is derrick 98 read?

Sorry, that was a bit unclear, the 1ac is an example of diplomatic engagement since it involves negotiations  and diplomatic engagement rather than economic 

If we prove that the aff mandates normal means for trade how are we diplomatic?

 

Explain how we're effects, and how our instance of effects is abusive?

The 1ac does not mandate trade. All it does is create a framework for trade. You don't link to spending disads :(

 

What is the violation on T?

You engage in diplomatic engagement with another country

so is there a toward violation?

 

What ground do you lose like name 5 args?

Spending

Economic Ks

Process counterplans

Legalize weed CP

Cap

How do you loose these, they seem like pretty solid link stories to me?

 

Discourse: 

When have you ever had to defend offensive language that someone else has said?

You don't get to pick and choose what you like from what someone says. For example, having a mayor create a booming, lovely city doesn't make him saying the n-word a better person

What does this have to do with anything? If I turn in a paper with an interview in it an the person says something that could be tailored as offensive but makes a valid point should I be held accountable for their word choice?

 

couldn't anything be tailored as "offensive language"?

If it's not offensive, there shouldn't be a problem - That's a link question

 

Why should we have to defend the word choice of someone else?

Because you chose to endorse the card as part of the 1ac

 

What would you have ran if I did defend the evidence's discourse?

That was just to be sure I had a link for anthro

 

Commodification:

Impact to baudrillard?

Academic Imperialism

Loss of self

How so?

 

Do we not get to talk about oppression in debate?

 

What does debate look like if everyone conformed to your criticism?

Probably like the 60s. "The economy will get worse. That's bad"

                                               ^Boom. Impact

How is this educational?

 

How don't you commodify suffering of animals for the ballot?

Our evidence is pretty specific to people.

Animals can not be commodified because they are already dead - their valuation among society is literally 0

A true political space is writing in where the animal died - If we accomplish that, the judge votes neg 

Is your evidence specific to blacks, because they aren't inherently considered human by the legal system?

 

Case:

How are we "fighting the system"?

You're fighting the police with the system that sustains them

How?

 

and what do you mean by "fighting"?

 

How do you suggest we stop the racist system of marijuana incarceration and the violence associated with marijuana prohibition?

We don't need to prove an alternative. Only that the 1ac was a bad idea

but aside from that how can we solve the harms without the state?

 

Where does wilderson make the claim that's in the tag?

exploitation and alienation, the assumptive logic whereby subjective dispossession is arrived at in the calculations between those who sell labor power and those who acquire it

Where does this mention the state, this just seems to be talking about hierarchies of power?

 

How does any of the state bad specifically apply to us?

Freire explained above

Wilderson - You're fighting the state by using the state. Trying to reform civil society fails.

Kulynych - You're using the legal system to fix a problem prevalent in everyday life. Relying on them sustains its power

Rodriguez/DSRB - The US continues a logic of violence and policing. Using the state endorses the racist power that people have been struggling against for years. It furthermore normalizes racist violence in the status quo making other offenses worse to make up for this one

Is there any specific link to the plans action? How does our specific use of the state cause your impacts?

 

How do we specifically cause the impacts to your state bad argument?

Sort of explained above. Sustaining its power is bad. Using the state for reform fails.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

General: 

 

Any of the Criticism have alts?

Not really - The only 'advocacy' sort of is our method of a true political space

 

If so status?

 

Anthro:

 

Do you truly believe the 1AC's intent was to harm animals?

Regardless of intent, your discourse still is still demeaning to animals which makes it impossible to create a true political space

So the link is soley discursive?  

It's also a question of priorities. But yes. 

 

Any links to plan action, if so explain it form me?

Human focused ethics ignore that humanism is the root cause

How so?

By saying that addressing racism is a moral obligation and first step, you ignore the fact that the original hierarchy and the foundations of racism was established by first enslaving the animal

 

Bailey talks about comparing human suffering to animals, where does the 1AC do this?

Memmi = The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity

If blacks are inherently seen as animals as memmi has pointed out, why isn't addressing black suffering comparable to animal suffering.

I'm not linking back to myself because the key distinction is that the genocide of the animal is completely invisible. Baudrillard indicates that we feed off of suffering such as disaster, war, and human suffering. The non human doesn't get acknowledgement of the human

 

What separates an animal from a human?

The animal doesn't put the human in a cage

The system of marijuana incarceration puts blacks in cages, how do we link?

Other humans do that. The animal does not. The hierarchy of the human to the non-human means that there's no hope of redemption for the animal in the world of the plan

 

What rights do animals have in the Squo?

Where?

In general?

Minimal protections that aren't enforced. Best indicates that even today, the constant violence against animals still exist and are perpetuated

 

Whats the inherent difference between blacks and animals?

The black body has not been eaten

 

 

Impact to anthro?

The original hierarchy - It makes every oppression inevitable

But how does our instance make every form of oppression inevitable?

The idea of moving beyond the place of the animal recreates a distinction of what we should and shouldn't be. I'll read more links but this distinction in particular puts the animal far below the human

 

What is collard talking about?

A true political space which is where every human and non-human is on similar terms. The way I like to see it is bringing in those who don't have a voice to talk about their oppression

What are collards quals and why can she talk about what contributes to a true political space? her warrants seem subjective.

Collard's quals aren't incredibly important in this case because this paper is entirely based upon the writings of Swyndegouw, Deleuze, Zizek, and Derrida. Do you want their quals too?

 

T:

Where does your definition imply that we have to be unilateral?

Towards implies that it's unilateral action. The US is the actor doing something towards a country, ie. giving money

What warrant is there for toward implying unilateralism, it seems that it just means there has to be an instrumental actor?

I'll read another card in the block about this more specifically, but you have to be in the direction of a country, sending stuff instead of trading with

 

When has the US ever started trading without a framework for trade?

Colonies sent out ships with supplies

What? could you be more specific here?

Imports and exports aren't set by frameworks. They're independent merchants. 

 

Why is derrick 98 read?

Sorry, that was a bit unclear, the 1ac is an example of diplomatic engagement since it involves negotiations  and diplomatic engagement rather than economic 

If we prove that the aff mandates normal means for trade how are we diplomatic?

The aff mandates creating framework. Even if that leads to trade, it isn't direct trade

 

Explain how we're effects, and how our instance of effects is abusive?

The 1ac does not mandate trade. All it does is create a framework for trade. You don't link to spending disads :(

 

What is the violation on T?

You engage in diplomatic engagement with another country

so is there a toward violation?

Diplomatic is bilateral. Economic is unilateral

 

What ground do you lose like name 5 args?

Spending

Economic Ks

Process counterplans

Legalize weed CP

Cap

How do you loose these, they seem like pretty solid link stories to me?

Which? All of these are effective links. They don't link directly to plan action. Besides, even if there's no in round abuse, Topicality is going to be the search for the best topic.

 

Discourse: 

When have you ever had to defend offensive language that someone else has said?

You don't get to pick and choose what you like from what someone says. For example, having a mayor create a booming, lovely city doesn't make him saying the n-word a better person

What does this have to do with anything? If I turn in a paper with an interview in it an the person says something that could be tailored as offensive but makes a valid point should I be held accountable for their word choice?

Yes you should. You made the conscious choice to use said interview despite knowing it contained possibly offensive terms

 

couldn't anything be tailored as "offensive language"?

If it's not offensive, there shouldn't be a problem - That's a link question

 

Why should we have to defend the word choice of someone else?

Because you chose to endorse the card as part of the 1ac

 

What would you have ran if I did defend the evidence's discourse?

That was just to be sure I had a link for anthro

 

Commodification:

Impact to baudrillard?

Academic Imperialism

Loss of self

How so?

To which?

 

Do we not get to talk about oppression in debate?

Not at all. You're free to talk about the oppressed, however, connecting their suffering to the ballot is destructive

 

What does debate look like if everyone conformed to your criticism?

Probably like the 60s. "The economy will get worse. That's bad"

                                               ^Boom. Impact

How is this educational?

Is race to nuclear war educational?

 

How don't you commodify suffering of animals for the ballot?

Our evidence is pretty specific to people.

Animals can not be commodified because they are already dead - their valuation among society is literally 0

A true political space is writing in where the animal died - If we accomplish that, the judge votes neg 

Is your evidence specific to blacks, because they aren't inherently considered human by the legal system?

Even if you win social death, the Pugliese evidence establishes a distinction between these two types of violence. The black body has never been served on a plate and eaten. This is the ultimate hierarchy.

 

Case:

How are we "fighting the system"?

You're fighting the police with the system that sustains them

How?

Using legal reforms is 'letting the fox guard the hen house' rules are always circumvented when we give the power to restrain on those who have power

and what do you mean by "fighting"?

The racist practices of the state, you're trying to combat it's empirical inevitability 

 

How do you suggest we stop the racist system of marijuana incarceration and the violence associated with marijuana prohibition?

We don't need to prove an alternative. Only that the 1ac was a bad idea

but aside from that how can we solve the harms without the state?

1. If we prove you make it worse, we don't have to win that an alternate plan is better

2. A true political space probably solves because it allows for a place where those can not speak can be heard and is a prerequisite to solving hierarchies in the status quo

 

Where does wilderson make the claim that's in the tag?

exploitation and alienation, the assumptive logic whereby subjective dispossession is arrived at in the calculations between those who sell labor power and those who acquire it

Where does this mention the state, this just seems to be talking about hierarchies of power?

Which the 1ac reinforces

 

How does any of the state bad specifically apply to us?

Freire explained above

Wilderson - You're fighting the state by using the state. Trying to reform civil society fails.

Kulynych - You're using the legal system to fix a problem prevalent in everyday life. Relying on them sustains its power

Rodriguez/DSRB - The US continues a logic of violence and policing. Using the state endorses the racist power that people have been struggling against for years. It furthermore normalizes racist violence in the status quo making other offenses worse to make up for this one

Is there any specific link to the plans action? How does our specific use of the state cause your impacts?

Reforms. Using the state fight racism. Worshipping the state to solve problems that can be fixed on a person to person basis

 

How do we specifically cause the impacts to your state bad argument?

Sort of explained above. Sustaining its power is bad. Using the state for reform fails.

 

 

Edited by lbchuck1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems a bit unfair considering the 1ac is only 420 words long

highlight is 420

 

 

 

 

 

blaze it   :flower: 

Edited by adchavez4
  • 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...