Jump to content
KritikallySound

JulianBHS {AFF} vs. KritikallySound {NEG}

Recommended Posts

  1. How can neg win the ballot?
  2. what does ballot do for you?
  3. What role does PM have?
  4. What makes debate the right form for your argument?
  5. This is pretty much arguing that we need to kill ecomanagerialism
  6. What does the world of the alt look like?
  7. Do you defend the resolution?
  8. Do you defend a plan?
  9. How does the world of the K solve for a better environment/debate space?
  10. What's te automatic role of the ballot?
  11. Net Benefits?

I may have one more question-

Edited by KritikallySound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edit was to fix formatting because there were number lists everywhere)

 

How can neg win the ballot?

Multitude of ways. To name a few: if the judge(s) believe the neg outweighs, aff doesn't solve or solving doesn't matter, that the neg disproves our tech claims, etc etc. I'm not the neg, can't tell you what strat to use to win. 

 

what does ballot do for you?

The ballot is an endorsement of my advocacy. 

 

What role does PM have?

PM? clarify

 

What makes debate the right form for your argument?

Are you asking why policy debate is the correct forum for this advocacy..?

 

This is pretty much arguing that we need to kill ecomanagerialism

It's advocating that we reject the “will to will’s” ordering of our Oceans inherent in the resolution and engage in a causal evaluation of our relationship to technological destining.

 

What does the world of the alt look like?

A world where we evaluate and question our relationship to technology. 

 

Do you defend the resolution?

I defend the literature of the resolution.

 

Do you defend a plan?

I defend an advocacy. 

 

How does the world of the K solve for a better environment/debate space?

It creates a more educational debate space. 

 

What's the automatic role of the ballot?

To decide who the judge endorses and who won the debate round. 

 

Net Benefits?Nocella '06 initially.

the advocacy actually adresses issues presented in zimmerman '94, weinberger '92, mules '12, and deluca '05 wheras the sqou is stagnant. 

Edited by JulianBHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. How can neg win the ballot?

Multitude of ways. To name a few: if the judge(s) believe the neg outweighs, aff doesn't solve or solving doesn't matter, that the neg disproves our tech claims, etc etc. I'm not the neg, can't tell you what strat to use to win. 

  1. what does ballot do for you?

The ballot is an endorsement of my advocacy. 

  1. What role does PM have?

PM? clarify

 

Policymakers

  1. What makes debate the right form for your argument?

Are you asking why policy debate is the correct forum for this advocacy..?

  1. This is pretty much arguing that we need to kill ecomanagerialism

It's advocating that we reject the “will to will’s” ordering of our Oceans inherent in the resolution and engage in a causal evaluation of our relationship to technological destining.

  1. What does the world of the alt look like?

A world where we evaluate and question our relationship to technology. 

  1. Do you defend the resolution?

I defend the literature of the resolution.

  1. Do you defend a plan?

I defend an advocacy. 

  1. How does the world of the K solve for a better environment/debate space?
  2.  
  3. It creates a more educational debate space. 
  4.  
  5. What's the automatic role of the ballot?

To decide who the judge endorses and who won the debate round. 

  1. Net Benefits?
  2. Nocella '06 initially.

the advocacy actually adresses issues presented in zimmerman '94, weinberger '92, mules '12, and deluca '05 wheras the sqou is stagnant. 

  1.  

Last questions- the machines we're using, is that technologically acceptable thru the eyes of the aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onto your policymakers question

 

I don't see the relevance of policymakers roles. We aren't actually policymakers, discourse is our only action as debaters.

 

I mean, even if you want to say "real world PM is good", the advocacy is still best because as Pezze '06 shows, It’s the only interpretation which uses the actual grammatical function of the resolution, which meets any link to real world policy making.  

 

the machines we're using, is that technologically acceptable thru the eyes of the aff?

The aff doesn't say technology is good or bad, we're saying the mindset that is entrenched by humans and the way we use it is bad. 

 

(edit: formatting)

Edited by JulianBHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX. 

 

Wrong format

1. How does choosing a winner and loser re-entrench oppression exactly? 

2. Is debate not fundamentally discourse?

3. Couldn't you just double the aff?

4. Wouldn't the prevelance of the K add to the legitimacy of the advocacy and what evaluating things does?

 

 

Epistemology is key

1. Does author circumstance outweigh the argument?

2. Is the author the argument or is the argument the argument?

3. Let's say Heidegger was a nazi...who cares?

4. If Heidegger leaned toward nazism, can't we attribute other factors towards this, not just his philosphies?

5. Didn't the nazi party inherently reject Heideggers philosophies?

 

Anthro

 

1. In your own words, what is anthro?

2. Are humans not the center of the Earth?

3. Can you name any other species that has had even half the effect on the earth as the human race?

4. Can animals evaluate things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX. 

 

Wrong format

1. How does choosing a winner and loser re-entrench oppression exactly? 

the aff mindset causes a reentrenchment of who isn't good enough which is the root cause of oppression- mental superiority.

2. Is debate not fundamentally discourse?

No, policy debate is non discoursive.

3. Couldn't you just double the aff?

If I had a wild hair on my ass.

4. Wouldn't the prevelance of the K add to the legitimacy of the advocacy and what evaluating things does?

No.

 

Epistemology is key

1. Does author circumstance outweigh the argument?

Absolutely.

2. Is the author the argument or is the argument the argument?

The author created the argument, so author = argument.

3. Let's say Heidegger was a nazi...who cares?

Judge, jews, pretty much anyone offended by the Nazi attacks in WWII.

4. If Heidegger leaned toward nazism, can't we attribute other factors towards this, not just his philosphies?

Leaned toward is an understatement. Heidegger championed nazism. His philo was nazism.

5. Didn't the nazi party inherently reject Heideggers philosophies?

Regardless of that, he still championed their ideals. Petro '74 tells us what to do.

 

Anthro

 

1. In your own words, what is anthro?

Anthro= human.

2. Are humans not the center of the Earth?

no, that would be the core of the earth. Ya know, under the mantle, crust etc.,.

3. Can you name any other species that has had even half the effect on the earth as the human race?

Bumblebees

4. Can animals evaluate things?

Do I look like Dr. Doolittle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which you got from me because Im the one who originally ran this version in college back in 2009 and 2010 and posted this aff for download on this site.

 

PS Im his coach.

PSS you probably didnt like it bc you probably didnt have all the back files to run it successfully. 

I'll admit you owned me... lol

 

This guy that coached us for a while said he cut it for us, but I guess not. I would not intentionally "steal" your files and claim them as my own had I not believed I played a part in creating this aside from the 1AC. 

Edited by aram
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice and copied from my shitty old heidegger aff from the LA topic... 10/10

not yours, and the purpose of this v-debate isn't to even address what you said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why would the author endorse/write something he doesn't agree with?

2. What is the threshold to your case?

3. Heidegger often refers to an ideal environment with limited technology- what the hell is the pressing matter about tech that we couldn't pass this next week?

4. Did Heidegger reject the nazis, or did the nazis reject Heidegger? 

5. Why would Heidegger reject the nazi's, but join them?

6. In one word- What's Heidegger's Epistemology?

7. In what frame of thought are you in while using this laptop?

8. How does the world of the alt look, recognizing a nazi policy/mindset?

9. Would you fuck a bear?

10. Would that bear let you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why would the author endorse/write something he doesn't agree with?

Heidegger rejected the nazi party's grounding within metaphysical understandings of dasein. I think I know where you're going to continue going here. I'm not arguing that he wasn't a card carrying member. What's key here is that your evidence doesn't really say why reading Heidegger leads to Nazism. It only says that Heidegger himself was a Nazi so that must mean voting for aff endorses nazism, which is completely untrue when it comes to the 1ac and what I just presented in the 2ac. My evidence as to why I can use the aff as a kritik of national socialism or tech is much better than your leap of logic on this question. you have to PROVE an endorsement of the aff leads to nazi thought. if the judge(s) thinks I win this argument, I solve tech thought therefore I then solve all your nazism turns.

2. What is the threshold to your case?

Evaluation is endorsed by the judges ballot.

3. Heidegger often refers to an ideal environment with limited technology- what the hell is the pressing matter about tech that we couldn't pass this next week?

That would be another week with no discussion or evaluation about the problems Zimmerman '94 highlights.

4. Did Heidegger reject the nazis, or did the nazis reject Heidegger? 

Heidegger rejected their metaphysical understandings of dasein. 

5. Why would Heidegger reject the nazi's, but join them?

He thought they had a good idea, turns out they didn't.

6. In one word- What's Heidegger's Epistemology?

This is impossible to answer in one word. Heidegger believed that knowledge is something that does not inherently belong to man but is revealed to man.

7. In what frame of thought are you in while using this laptop?

That this laptop could be used for terrible things. 

8. How does the world of the alt look, recognizing a nazi policy/mindset?

Looks Nazi free to me. 

9. Would you fuck a bear?

Define bear.

10. Would that bear let you?

who knows

Edited by JulianBHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Why would the author endorse/write something he doesn't agree with?

Heidegger rejected the nazi party's grounding within metaphysical understandings of dasein. I think I know where you're going to continue going here. I'm not arguing that he wasn't a card carrying member. What's key here is that your evidence doesn't really say why reading Heidegger leads to Nazism. It only says that Heidegger himself was a Nazi so that must mean voting for aff endorses nazism, which is completely untrue when it comes to the 1ac and what I just presented in the 2ac. My evidence as to why I can use the aff as a kritik of national socialism or tech is much better than your leap of logic on this question. you have to PROVE an endorsement of the aff leads to nazi thought. if the judge(s) thinks I win this argument, I solve tech thought therefore I then solve all your nazism turns.

2. What is the threshold to your case?

Evaluation is endorsed by the judges ballot.

3. Heidegger often refers to an ideal environment with limited technology- what the hell is the pressing matter about tech that we couldn't pass this next week?

That would be another week with no discussion or evaluation about the problems Zimmerman '94 highlights.

4. Did Heidegger reject the nazis, or did the nazis reject Heidegger? 

Heidegger rejected their metaphysical understandings of dasein. 

5. Why would Heidegger reject the nazi's, but join them?

He thought they had a good idea, turns out they didn't.

6. In one word- What's Heidegger's Epistemology?

This is impossible to answer in one word. Heidegger believed that knowledge is something that does not inherently belong to man but is revealed to man.

7. In what frame of thought are you in while using this laptop?

That this laptop could be used for terrible things. 

8. How does the world of the alt look, recognizing a nazi policy/mindset?

Looks Nazi free to me. 

9. Would you fuck a bear?

Define bear.

A big furry animal.

10. Would that bear let you?

who knows

 

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...