Jump to content
Pokemon

How do I answer...

Recommended Posts

Answer the argument? Read an aff that kills the terrorists. No terrorist, no reason why you have to read a K whining that you called them terrorists. #problemsolved 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain why your aff's discourse is distinct from what they're criticizing; all their ev will be really generic.  Discourse focus bad, reps don't come first, and framework are always good.  Terror reps good and your impacts are true.  No reason it means the plan is bad.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism is real and political action is necessary to stop it

Allison, 10 professor of government and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard (1/25/10, Graham, “A Failure to Imagine the Worst: The first step toward preventing a nuclear 9/11 is believing it could happen,”

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/25/a_failure_to_imagine_the_worst?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full)

In his first speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. President Barack Obama challenged members to think about the impact of a single nuclear bomb.He said: "Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people." The consequences, he noted, would "destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life." Before the Sept. 11, 2001, assault on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, who could have imagined that terrorists would mount an attack on the American homeland that would kill more citizens than Japan did at Pearl Harbor? As then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified to the 9/11 Commission: "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon ... into the World Trade Center, using planes as missiles." For most Americans, the idea of international terrorists conducting a successful attack on their homeland, killing thousands of citizens, was not just unlikely. It was inconceivable. As is now evident, assertions about what is "imaginable" or "conceivable," however, are propositions about our minds, not about what is objectively possible. Prior to 9/11, how unlikely was a megaterrorist attack on the American homeland? In the previous decade, al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000 had together killed almost 250 and injured nearly 6,000. Moreover, the organization was actively training thousands of recruits in camps in Afghanistan for future terrorist operations. Thinking about risks we face today, we should reflect on the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission established to investigate that catastrophe. The U.S. national security establishment's principal failure prior to Sept. 11, 2001, was, the commission found, a "failure of imagination." Summarized in a single sentence, the question now is: Are we at risk of an equivalent failure to imagine a nuclear 9/11? After the recent attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, this question is more urgent than ever. The thought that terrorists could successfully explode a nuclear bomb in an American city killing hundreds of thousands of people seems incomprehensible. This essential incredulity is rooted in three deeply ingrained presumptions. First, no one could seriously intend to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack. Second, only states are capable of mass destruction; nonstate actors would be unable to build or use nuclear weapons. Third, terrorists would not be able to deliver a nuclear bomb to an American city. In a nutshell, these presumptions lead to the conclusion: inconceivable. Why then does Obama call nuclear terrorism "the single most important national security threat that we face" and "a threat that rises above all others in urgency?" Why the unanimity among those who have shouldered responsibility for U.S. national security in recent years that this is a grave and present danger? In former CIA Director George Tenet's assessment, "the main threat is the nuclear one. I am convinced that this is where [Osama bin Laden] and his operatives desperately want to go." When asked recently what keeps him awake at night, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates answered: "It's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear." Leaders who have reached this conclusion about the genuine urgency of the nuclear terrorist threat are not unaware of their skeptics' presumptions. Rather, they have examined the evidence, much of which has been painstakingly compiled here by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former head of the CIA's terrorism and weapons-of-mass-destruction efforts, and much of which remains classified. Specifically, who is seriously motivated to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans? Osama bin Laden, who has declared his intention to kill "4 million Americans -- including 2 million children." The deeply held belief that even if they wanted to, "men in caves can't do this" was then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's view when Tenet flew to Islamabad to see him after 9/11. As Tenet (assisted by Mowatt-Larssen) took him step by step through the evidence, he discovered that indeed they could. Terrorists' opportunities to bring a bomb into the United States follow the same trails along which 275 tons of drugs and 3 million people crossed U.S. borders illegally last year. In 2007, Congress established a successor to the 9/11 Commission to focus on terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. This bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism issued its report to Congress and the Obama administration in December 2008. In the commission's unanimous judgment: "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." Faced with the possibility of an American Hiroshima, many Americans are paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism. Either it hasn't happened, so it's not going to happen; or, if it is going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it. Both propositions are wrong. The countdown to a nuclear 9/11 can be stopped, but only by realistic recognition of the threat, a clear agenda for action, and relentless determination to pursue it.

Util is especially important in context of terrorism

Nye 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 18-19)

The significance and the limits of the two broad traditions can be captured by contemplating a hypothetical case.34 Imagine that you are visiting a Central American country and you happen upon a village square where an army captain is about to order his men to shoot two peasants lined up against a wall. When you ask the reason, you are told someone in this village shot at the captain's men last night. When you object to the killing of possibly innocent people, you are told that civil wars do not permit moral niceties. Just to prove the point that we all have dirty hands in such situations, the captain hands you a rifle and tells you that if you will shoot one peasant, he will free the other. Otherwise both die. He warns you not to try any tricks because his men have their guns trained on you. Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving one, or will you allow both to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game? The point of the story is to show the value and limits of both traditions. Integrity is clearly an important value, and many of us would refuse to shoot. But at what point does the principle of not taking an innocent life collapse before the consequentialist burden? Would it matter if there were twenty or 1,000 peasants to be saved? What if killing or torturing one innocent person could save a city of 10 million persons from a terrorists' nuclear device? At some point does not integrity become the ultimate egoism of fastidious self-righteousness in which the purity of the self is more important than the lives of countless others? Is it not better to follow a consequentialist approach, admit remorse or regret over the immoral means, but justify the action by the consequences? Do absolutist approaches to integrity become self-contradictory in a world of nuclear weapons? "Do what is right though the world should perish" was a difficult principle even when Kant expounded it in the eighteenth century, and there is some evidence that he did not mean it to be taken literally even then. Now that it may be literally possible in the nuclear age, it seems more than ever to be self-contradictory.35 Absolutist ethics bear a heavier burden of proof in the nuclear age than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not read shitty Graham Allison cards written by his graduate assistants. Do kritik their assumption that gendered power is men abusing women. Ekeno 13 is itself gender subordinating because it('s tag) assumes that men are always in power and women are always abused. That erase's women's agency ("women can't do violence!") while entrenching women's subordination ("women are always the helpless victim!") which suggests faulty action ("if women are helpless, they need other men to fight the bad men and rescue them!") while marginalizing queer and male on male violence ("men are never raped or the victim!").

 

ugh that was gross even to type.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BobbyTables, they probably don't have a link. Their link card appears to say, essentially, "some people talk about terrorists in a feminizing way". They'll try to spin that as saying all discussion of terrorism is feminizing, but 100:1 they won't actually have warrants for that claim. Additionally, while terrorists might be thought of as feminine, that doesn't mean that changing the way we think about terrorism or refusing to think about terrorism will change the way we think about gender. They're confusing the root cause and its consequence. This would be fine if their alternative could use thought about terrorism to change thought about gender, but that's not what their alternative is about. They seem to have stitched together arguments from various bodies of thought without paying much attention to the argument's overall form, like amateurish Frankensteins.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone! I think I understand the argument a lot more now and especially how to counter it! 

 

Explain why your aff's discourse is distinct from what they're criticizing; all their ev will be really generic.  Discourse focus bad, reps don't come first, and framework are always good.  Terror reps good and your impacts are true.  No reason it means the plan is bad.

 

Can anyone please post some discourse focus bad cards/PM me so I may trade you for them? I would really appreciate it :)

Edited by Aquethys
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, who makes the distinction between male/female terrorists, I don't like bombs from any gender. But that's not the point, what makes YOUR constructs of terrorism inherently masculine? Also, I've got to agree w/ Snarf here what gives them the right to assume women are always the victim and in what ways do you portray terrorists as barbaric, bombs just suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BobbyTables, they probably don't have a link. Their link card appears to say, essentially, "some people talk about terrorists in a feminizing way". They'll try to spin that as saying all discussion of terrorism is feminizing, but 100:1 they won't actually have warrants for that claim. Additionally, while terrorists might be thought of as feminine, that doesn't mean that changing the way we think about terrorism or refusing to think about terrorism will change the way we think about gender. They're confusing the root cause and its consequence. This would be fine if their alternative could use thought about terrorism to change thought about gender, but that's not what their alternative is about. They seem to have stitched together arguments from various bodies of thought without paying much attention to the argument's overall form, like amateurish Frankensteins.

Chaos is right that you should try to fight the kritik on multiple levels, including the link level. Its hard to say without seeing the cards, but this particular link answer is unlikely to work strategically or substantively.

 

Strategically, "no link" usually doesn't work without link turns, because judges tend to accept "risk of a link" as sufficient for analysis.

 

Substantively, the above analysis misapprehends the apparent nature of the link and the alt. The argument is not that "the aff thinks of terrorists as girly", but rather that the aff posits the state as a masculine intervenor against feminized (not "feminine") terrorists. The aff depictions are masculine because they portray the state as strong and powerful and aggressive, while the terrorists are feminized as the object of the violent excess of the State. The particular ways in which terrorists are apprehended as a feminized object are likely best explained in the card in context of the aff.

 

The alternative would likely also critique the dichotomy between gendered significations and the way we think about terrorists, which means the "alt doesnt solve" argument is really another link.

 

To be certain, Chaos is right that alt and link level responses are correct to make - and his response set is a good starting point to think about the kritik. Could you post the full text of the cards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain why your aff's discourse is distinct from what they're criticizing; all their ev will be really generic.  Discourse focus bad, reps don't come first, and framework are always good.  Terror reps good and your impacts are true.  No reason it means the plan is bad.

I'll see if I can find the card, but the argument works pretty well as an analyt.

 

Something along the lines of "Intentions matter - we didn't intend to be (insert)-ist, we formally apologize for our mistaken discourse."

 

I wouldn't call it a perm, because it isn't a test of competition. But it actually solves for the K, making it a turn of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can find the card, but the argument works pretty well as an analyt.

 

Something along the lines of "Intentions matter - we didn't intend to be (insert)-ist, we formally apologize for our mistaken discourse."

 

I wouldn't call it a perm, because it isn't a test of competition. But it actually solves for the K, making it a turn of sorts.

Is it a card by Butler? If so, I MIGHT have it, and if I find it I'll post it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a card by Butler? If so, I MIGHT have it, and if I find it I'll post it

No, but now that I think about it Butler would be a perfect author for it. It was some ancient philosopher. It always threw me off because it was a B.C date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can find the card, but the argument works pretty well as an analyt.

 

Something along the lines of "Intentions matter - we didn't intend to be (insert)-ist, we formally apologize for our mistaken discourse."

 

I wouldn't call it a perm, because it isn't a test of competition. But it actually solves for the K, making it a turn of sorts.

This argument will not win you rounds because it is simply bad. If I hit you in the face and say "I did not intend to hurt you; I formally apologize for hitting you in the face" that doesn't solve for the fact that I still hurt you.

 

I understand that intentions CAN matter, but in reference to a K, you would basically making the argument I just made. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument will not win you rounds because it is simply bad. If I hit you in the face and say "I did not intend to hurt you; I formally apologize for hitting you in the face" that doesn't solve for the fact that I still hurt you.

 

I understand that intentions CAN matter, but in reference to a K, you would basically making the argument I just made. 

In reference to language that's a completely legitimate mistake to make. It's quite different then intending to harm someone by punching them.

 

EDIT: Which was the point the author was trying to make in the card. Language can have unknown meanings to some people due its nature as a fluid construct -> Leading to offensive mistakes -> Intention matters

Edited by Xil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can find the card, but the argument works pretty well as an analyt.

 

Something along the lines of "Intentions matter - we didn't intend to be (insert)-ist, we formally apologize for our mistaken discourse."

 

I wouldn't call it a perm, because it isn't a test of competition. But it actually solves for the K, making it a turn of sorts.

That's more for a criticism of a specific word or phrase being kritiked. If you ever say you guys to a pair of girls then they might call you out and you apologize for saying "you guys." Fem IR is a K of assumptions made by academia peeps in IR, not specific words (for the most part) 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here are generic reps cards; also levi bryant's article about the underpants gnomes talks about generic criticism and discourse focus stoof so maybe check out his blog

 

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/rsi-discursivity-critique-and-politics/

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/

both of those he talks about criticism, maybe check em out

 

Representations don’t shape reality

Valbjørn, 4-PhD in the Department of Political Science at Aarhus

 (Morten, “The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflict,” pg. 67-68)

As mentioned before, the relational perspective is a critique of both the neglect of the issue of Otherness by the IR mainstream and the way in which proponents of an essentialist approach relate to the Other. For this reason, it would be natural to assume that proponents of this second attempt to "culturalize" the study of international relations would be particularly keen to address the question of how to acknowledge cultural diversity without committing the sins of orientalism. Indeed, this is also what Said is stressing in the introduction to Orientalism: The most important task of all would be to undertake studies in contemporary alternatives to Orientalism, to ask how one can study other cultures and peoples from a libertarian, or nonrepressive and non-manipulative perspective. (1995: 24) However, he then goes on to add that "these are all tasks left embarrassingly incomplete in this study" (Said, 1995: 24). Looking at other analyse sbased on a relational conception of culture, it becomes apparent that the latter remark is verytelling for this kind of understanding of culture as a whole (e.g. Doty, 1993: 315). Despite ablank rejection of the universalism of IR mainstream and, at least in principle, a recognition of the existence of different Others who are not only projections of own fantasies and desires, in practice, proponents of this alternative approach nonetheless usually leave the question of how to address and approach the actual cultural Other unanswered. This might very well be an unintended outcome of the previously mentioned radical constructivism associated with this approach. Thus, by stressing how the representation of the Other is intimately related to the construction of identities or a subtle way of performing power, one risks being caught in a kind of epistemological and moral crisis, characterized by a nagging doubt about whether it really is possible to gain any knowledge of Others or if we are just projecting our own fantasies, and by apronounced fear that our representations are silencing voices so that we unwittingly are taking part in a subtle performance of power (Hastrup, 1992: 54). In merely dealing with the relationship between the representcr and his representations, these dilemmas can be "avoided." However, at the same time one writes off the opportunity to relate to cultural diversity as anything but discursive products of one's own fantasies and projections. This is precisely the critique that supporters of the relational understanding of culture have been facing. From this perspective, it appears less surprising that Said has had so much more to offer onthe dynamics of Western representations of the Middle East than on real alternatives to the orientalist depiction of the region. Unfortunately, this second bid for a culturalistic approach to the study of international relations is not only aligned with a number of very welcome critical qualities that may enrich the study of international relations. It is also related to a problematic tendency to overreact when it comes to addressing the prevalent Blindness to the Self within IR mainstream and among subscribers to the essentialist conception of culture. Thus, aspirations of promoting a larger self consciousness in the study of international relation end up becoming self-centeredness, just as the attempt to promote a larger sensitivity toward the Other in reality becomes oversensitivity to saying anything substantial when it comes to actual Other. This is problematic, partly because we are left without any real idea as to how to approach actual Middle Eastern international relations rather than Western representations of these; and partly because there is the risk of losing sight of the material and very concrete consequences that specific representations may engender (Krishna, 1993). Also, the proponents of this second "culturalistic" alternative seem to be better at asking important and critical questions than at offering attractive answers.

Policy analysis should precede discourse – most effective way to challenge power

Taft-Kaufman ’95

Jill Taft-Kaufman, Speech prof @ CMU, 1995, Southern Comm. Journal, Spring, v. 60, Iss. 3, “Other Ways”, p pq

The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsupported by substantial analysis of the concrete contexts of subjects, creates a solipsistic quagmire. The political sympathies of the new cultural critics, with their ostensible concern for the lack of power experienced by marginalized people, aligns them with the political left. Yet, despite their adversarial posture and talk of opposition, their discourses on intertextuality and inter-referentiality isolate them from and ignore the conditions that have produced leftist politics--conflict, racism, poverty, and injustice. In short, as Clarke (1991) asserts, postmodern emphasis on new subjects conceals the old subjects, those who have limited access to good jobs, food, housing, health care, and transportation, as well as to the media that depict them. Merod (1987) decries this situation as one which leaves no vision, will, or commitment to activism. He notes that academic lip service to the oppositional is underscored by the absence of focused collective or politically active intellectual communities. Provoked by the academic manifestations of this problem Di Leonardo (1990) echoes Merod and laments:  Has there ever been a historical era characterized by as little radical analysis or activism and as much radical-chic writing as ours? Maundering on about Otherness: phallocentrism or Eurocentric tropes has become a lazy academic substitute for actual engagement with the detailed histories and contemporary realities of Western racial minorities, white women, or any Third World population. (p. 530) Clarke's assessment of the postmodern elevation of language to the "sine qua non" of critical discussion is an even stronger indictment against the trend. Clarke examines Lyotard's (1984) The Postmodern Condition in which Lyotard maintains that virtually all social relations are linguistic, and, therefore, it is through the coercion that threatens speech that we enter the "realm of terror" and society falls apart. To this assertion, Clarke replies:  I can think of few more striking indicators of the political and intellectual impoverishment of a view of society that can only recognize the discursive. If the worst terror we can envisage is the threat not to be allowed to speak, we are appallingly ignorant of terror in its elaborate contemporary forms. It may be the intellectual's conception of terror (what else do we do but speak?), but its projection onto the rest of the world would be calamitous....(pp. 2-27) The realm of the discursive is derived from the requisites for human life, which are in the physical world, rather than in a world of ideas or symbols.(4) Nutrition, shelter, and protection are basic human needs that require collective activity for their fulfillment. Postmodern emphasis on the discursive without an accompanying analysis of how the discursive emerges from material circumstances hides the complex task of envisioning and working towards concrete social goals (Merod, 1987). Although the material conditions that create the situation of marginality escape the purview of the postmodernist, the situation and its consequences are not overlooked by scholars from marginalized groups. Robinson (1990) for example, argues that "the justice that working people deserve is economic, not just textual" (p. 571). Lopez (1992) states that "the starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present existential, concrete situation" (p. 299). West (1988) asserts that borrowing French post-structuralist discourses about "Otherness" blinds us to realities of American difference going on in front of us (p. 170). Unlike postmodern "textual radicals" who Rabinow (1986) acknowledges are "fuzzy about power and the realities of socioeconomic constraints" (p. 255), most writers from marginalized groups are clear about how discourse interweaves with the concrete circumstances that create lived experience. People whose lives form the material for postmodern counter-hegemonic discourse do not share the optimism over the new recognition of their discursive subjectivities, because such an acknowledgment does not address sufficiently their collective historical and current struggles against racism, sexism, homophobia, and economic injustice. They do not appreciate being told they are living in a world in which there are no more real subjects. Ideas have consequences. Emphasizing the discursive self when a person is hungry and homeless represents both a cultural and humane failure. The need to look beyond texts to the perception and attainment of concrete social goals keeps writers from marginalized groups ever-mindful of the specifics of how power works through political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the budgets that fuel them. 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "reps don't shape reality" cards are not going to strategically get you far against this 1NC because it has a contextual explanation of how they do shape reality (i.e. discourse of helpless women being violated by evil brown men justifies Western savior interventions).

 

I'd contextualize your impact cards to the link. That link's argument is that Western countries justify action against terrorism by using a particular rhetorical frame. That frame identifies terrorists as people who hurt women, and "The West" (usually the US) as defenders of women's rights generally and those women's rights specifically. Bush argued for nation building in Iraq in part by arguing that leaving would let the Taliban do horrible things to school girls. Malala Yousafzai's talk show tour renewed calls for intervention among policy wonks. The link's argument is only applicable to a very particular type of representation of terrorism (Terrorists as "abusers of women").

 

If your impact cards are about nuclear extinction (instead of HR abuses) then they don't engage that representational frame. You can spin that as offense by arguing that they reproduce the representational frame by pidgeonholing all discussions of terrorism into one particular type of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt also strongly concludes perm - it argues that neither the "terrorists" nor the "West" are politically guiltless, and that proportionate action against terrorism is acceptable. If you have a good terrorism advantage, it likely outlines a specific scenario for escalation (bioterror, retaliation, loose nuke, etc). Do specific comparative analysis explaining why your scenario is a reasonable reaction rather than a grand narrative of "Western Good" versus "Eastern Evil".

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...