Jump to content
Pacifist

Answering Revolutions K

Recommended Posts

I read a K aff and I hit a revolutions K where they advocate for violently overthrowing the state. Does anyone know how to answer it other than case outweighs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, maybe "killing people is probably bad and you're probably gonna kill some innocents."  Maybe through in an "empirics prove."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

violence bad seems like a good strat...i have a feeling that your k aff takes a stand against some form of structural violence, and i have a feeling that physical violence is not an alternative that your scholarship would endorse. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff is red Atlantic, a version of middle passage based upon the indigenous and coloniality.  But I'm cutting a new aff so any general knowledge on these topics is good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, 

1) Radical Revolution = coopted

2) Radical Revolution via violence is... well... violent, and probably results in deaths of more of those who suffer under the state

3) Aff is a prerequisite- can't engage in mass revolts if our epistemology is flawed, that creates systems that are full of the flawed epistemologies you discuss in the 1AC probably. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) America has tanks and cops and militarized police that seems to be more than willing to kill minorities 

B) violent revs lead to military strongmen (Napoleon et.al proves)

c) if your aff is able to jive with Radical democracy, you could just read enmity is inevitable and liberal democratic deliberation is the only chance for reform (Laclau and Mouffe)

d) Usually these movements aren't intersectional so if you read stuff that talks about the intersections of whatever ism you have solvency deficits and if you read pomoy continental philosophy your aff is probably an impact turn 

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reactionary politics bad: a.     Stalin and east Europe with a desire to irradiate privilege led to anti Semitism in east Europe b.     Chavez in cuba with the desire to over throw the system – lead to identity militarization which lead to the superiority of the macho, white, male and the exclusion on difference c.     Mao with the desire to eliminate intellectual elitism murdered millions of people and forced into poverty doctors and scholars  

 

S/O to JBell

Edited by aram
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff is red Atlantic, a version of middle passage based upon the indigenous and coloniality.  But I'm cutting a new aff so any general knowledge on these topics is good.

A. BURN SHIT DOWN/GIVE BACK THE LAND AND CHOP OFF HEADS - AKA Perm do both/Perm do the aff - no reason why you can't be/tradeoff with violent revolution 

B. Peace + Violence = Key to change 

Edited by Payton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOW DO THE PERMUTATION NOT SOLVE? Seriously, you just gotta be like BURN DOWN THE COLONIALIST STATE to GIVE BACK THE LAND TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE which means that indigenous governance has full authority over all of the Americas which ends slavery for black people because they take the land back from white slave owners and white people. Also go cut that Wilderson card in Red, White, and Black in his Negrophobia chapter about why coalitions between indigenous people and black people are key to overthrowing the state which means the permutation solves best because we destroy the white supremacist structure that turned Africans into blacks, and Indigenous Native Americans into "Savages".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first off read "state good" then move onto "state inevitable", then you can read something about how violence only leads to future oppression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't read "state inevitable" - the warrants are bad and it creates a shitton of new links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't read "state inevitable" - the warrants are bad and it creates a shitton of new links.

i understand, but you could read demolishing state causes extinction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't read "state inevitable" - the warrants are bad and it creates a shitton of new links.

Meh, arguing the state is inevitable through, say, hierarchies is bad, but arguing that state inevitable vis a vis violent overthrow impossible / no collapse (ie state sustainable maybe) takes out uq to the K.

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...