Jump to content
Smitty

Smitty (AFF) vs.Theparanoiacmachine (NEG) Surveillance Topic

Recommended Posts

C-X

 

1. What is a "sacrifice to the violent sovereignty of the status quo"? Are we sacrificing domestic surveillance to the violent sovereignty of the squo?

 

2. What's a terrorist?

 

3. So you make all these arguments about how discursive framing is key because securitization of certain threats leads to self-fulfilling prophecies; so I guess my question is, What's the purpose of the pre-empts of the 1AC if you champion a rejection of that?

 

4. I'm assuming the Aff defends discourse first? 

 

5. What's the internal link between voting affirmative and changing the status quo's Islamophobia mindset?

 

6. Is it a criticism of the biopolitical war on terror or Islamophobia?

 

7. Does the war on terror presuppose Islamophobia or is it the other way around?

 

8. What is the "Other" and what quantifies the Other?

 

9. At what point does one become the Other?

 

10. Alright so your narrative seems to be utilizing the exact same threat construction your criticizing, so I guess my question is: What's the purpose of the narrative at the top of the 1AC? 

 

11. Is sovereign power always already bad?

 

12. Are queer bodies considered part of this "Other"? 

 

13. The Tagma '09 evidence seems to be fatalist in saying that we all inevitably are complacent with the continuation of the War on Terror, so I guess my question is: If we all inevitably fuel the War on Terror, how does voting affirmative change that?

 

14. So your Gulli '13 evidence mentions that the way in which the sovereign continues the global biopolitical War on Terror is by utilizing its war-machine - How does the affirmative   change the nature of this war-machine?

 

15. What is identity?

 

16. Why is terrorist an identity and not a structural position?

 

17. Is being a terrorist bad as per the 1AC?

 

18. If win identity isn't real does that mean the judge can presume negative? 

 

Might be some follow-ups

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C-X

 

1. What is a "sacrifice to the violent sovereignty of the status quo"? Are we sacrificing domestic surveillance to the violent sovereignty of the squo?

 

So I guess grammatically I worded that wrong lol, it should be a sacrifice of the violent sovereignty mindset

 

2. What's a terrorist?

 

Anyone seen by the American government as a threat to 'security'

 

3. So you make all these arguments about how discursive framing is key because securitization of certain threats leads to self-fulfilling prophecies; so I guess my question is, What's the purpose of the pre-empts of the 1AC if you champion a rejection of that?

 

Discourse does not only pertain to the mode of thought that terrorism exists, but that the level of threat that it is propped up to be is also non-existent

 

4. I'm assuming the Aff defends discourse first? 

 

Yes

 

5. What's the internal link between voting affirmative and changing the status quo's Islamophobia mindset?

 

The Tagma evidence indicates that as citizens subjects we are all instrumental to the continuation of the War on Terror. We believe that debate as an academic site allows us to challenge the modes of thought that we ourselves are evidently endorsing with our complicity. We also contend that discourse is an active mode of thought that can be presented as a solution to the SQ mindset

 

 

6. Is it a criticism of the biopolitical war on terror or Islamophobia?

 

Well, it's more of a criticism on islamaphobia, but it contains parts that link into biopolitics

 

7. Does the war on terror presuppose Islamophobia or is it the other way around?

 

9/11, creation of the patriot act, endless war, all of it stemmed from the inherent fear of the terrrorist. It is not necessary islamaphobia, but terrorism in general.

 

8. What is the "Other" and what quantifies the Other?

 

Those who are not natural in the eyes of America. The Terrorist is an example of the other

 

9. At what point does one become the Other?

 

See above

 

10. Alright so your narrative seems to be utilizing the exact same threat construction your criticizing, so I guess my question is: What's the purpose of the narrative at the top of the 1AC? 

 

Not true whatsoever.  The narrative is the basis for how the NSA operates - a peaceful american citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist is identified and targeted as a threat. This is the power that the sovereign asserts over the bodies of the terrorist to control society.

 

11. Is sovereign power always already bad?

 

In the context of the NSA, more or less yes

 

12. Are queer bodies considered part of this "Other"? 

 

We do not defend queer bodies as per the 1AC, but yes they could be included into those. The other in terms of the 1AC are people targeted out of fear, not marginalized populations

 

13. The Tagma '09 evidence seems to be fatalist in saying that we all inevitably are complacent with the continuation of the War on Terror, so I guess my question is: If we all inevitably fuel the War on Terror, how does voting affirmative change that?

 

Resisting sovereign violence. It is not inevitable if we do not give in to the power of the sovereign.

 

14. So your Gulli '13 evidence mentions that the way in which the sovereign continues the global biopolitical War on Terror is by utilizing its war-machine - How does the affirmative   change the nature of this war-machine?

 

The power to control lives will be obsolete. You could claim that power structures still exist, but the aff destroys power in a large extent

 

15. What is identity?

 

Identity is the who or what in being

 

16. Why is terrorist an identity and not a structural position?

 

Terrorists do not exist metaphysically - it is only in the eyes of the sovereign as their threat construction sees them as a threat when they are merely looking to categorically eliminate populations of people who they seem to fear as an imminent threat of out racism and things like islamaphobia

 

17. Is being a terrorist bad as per the 1AC?

 

We do not say that being a terrorist is bad.

 

18. If win identity isn't real does that mean the judge can presume negative? 

 

I don't see how that is 1. true, or 2. game ending. Even in the case that identity is false, construction of the sovereign still exists and that power structure will continue to oppress and marginalize the other

 

Might be some follow-ups

Edited by Smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

C-X

 

1. What is a "sacrifice to the violent sovereignty of the status quo"? Are we sacrificing domestic surveillance to the violent sovereignty of the squo?

 

So I guess grammatically I worded that wrong lol, it should be a sacrifice of the violent sovereignty mindset

 

2. What's a terrorist?

 

Anyone seen by the American government as a threat to 'security'

 

So it's an unspecified enemy? 

 

3. So you make all these arguments about how discursive framing is key because securitization of certain threats leads to self-fulfilling prophecies; so I guess my question is, What's the purpose of the pre-empts of the 1AC if you champion a rejection of that?

 

Discourse does not only pertain to the mode of thought that terrorism exists, but that the level of threat that it is propped up to be is also non-existent

 

That's fine but I'm asking why you're saying securitization is bad, while engaging in that very securitization against possible DA's or arguments that the negative can make?

 

4. I'm assuming the Aff defends discourse first? 

 

Yes

 

5. What's the internal link between voting affirmative and changing the status quo's Islamophobia mindset?

 

The Tagma evidence indicates that as citizens subjects we are all instrumental to the continuation of the War on Terror. We believe that debate as an academic site allows us to challenge the modes of thought that we ourselves are evidently endorsing with our complicity. We also contend that discourse is an active mode of thought that can be presented as a solution to the SQ mindset

 

Why does talking about issues change them? 

 

 

6. Is it a criticism of the biopolitical war on terror or Islamophobia?

 

Well, it's more of a criticism on islamaphobia, but it contains parts that link into biopolitics

 

7. Does the war on terror presuppose Islamophobia or is it the other way around?

 

9/11, creation of the patriot act, endless war, all of it stemmed from the inherent fear of the terrrorist. It is not necessary islamaphobia, but terrorism in general.

 

So I guess, when did the identity, as conceived by the 1AC, of the "terrorist" arise? Is there a point in history paradigmatic of the production of Islamophobia? 

 

8. What is the "Other" and what quantifies the Other?

 

Those who are not natural in the eyes of America. The Terrorist is an example of the other

 

Only America? Is the Other of a Terrorist, therefore, America?

 

9. At what point does one become the Other?

 

See above

 

i understand that, but this is more of a general question: What does the process of Otherization look like and does it require a prior building stone for the production of Otherness?

 

10. Alright so your narrative seems to be utilizing the exact same threat construction your criticizing, so I guess my question is: What's the purpose of the narrative at the top of the 1AC? 

 

Not true whatsoever.  The narrative is the basis for how the NSA operates - a peaceful american citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist is identified and targeted as a threat. This is the power that the sovereign asserts over the bodies of the terrorist to control society.

 

Alright, fair enough.

 

11. Is sovereign power always already bad?

 

In the context of the NSA, more or less yes

 

So is it the NSA, as a legal entity, that's exerting sovereign power or is it a person? 

 

12. Are queer bodies considered part of this "Other"? 

 

We do not defend queer bodies as per the 1AC, but yes they could be included into those. The other in terms of the 1AC are people targeted out of fear, not marginalized populations

 

Alright, fair enough.

 

13. The Tagma '09 evidence seems to be fatalist in saying that we all inevitably are complacent with the continuation of the War on Terror, so I guess my question is: If we all inevitably fuel the War on Terror, how does voting affirmative change that?

 

Resisting sovereign violence. It is not inevitable if we do not give in to the power of the sovereign.

 

From what I've got through my readings of Schmitt, Foucault, and Agamben is there is an impossibility of resistance to sovereign violences sans things like a loving community, care of the self, or renunciation of citizenship; so I guess how does voting aff necessarily combat sovereign power if your Tagma '09 evidence utilizes that same fatalism of the impossibility of resistance? 

 

14. So your Gulli '13 evidence mentions that the way in which the sovereign continues the global biopolitical War on Terror is by utilizing its war-machine - How does the affirmative   change the nature of this war-machine?

 

The power to control lives will be obsolete. You could claim that power structures still exist, but the aff destroys power in a large extent

 

lol I'm not gonna say that we should be submissive to the system; what I'm saying is that your evidence indicates that the Sovereigns war-machine is what allows them to exert the biopolitical war that you talk about, so I'm asking how you, or rather the ballot, change the nature of that war-machine? And can you provide any historical examples on how talking about issues within academic spaces led to the destruction of larger structures of power?

 

 

15. What is identity?

 

Identity is the who or what in being

 

So am I correct in saying identity is relational to subjectivity, and vice versa? 

 

16. Why is terrorist an identity and not a structural position?

 

Terrorists do not exist metaphysically - it is only in the eyes of the sovereign as their threat construction sees them as a threat when they are merely looking to categorically eliminate populations of people who they seem to fear as an imminent threat of out racism and things like islamaphobia

 

So the terrorist does not exist sans our construction of certain individuals, or groups, as such? Does that mean blacks are terrorists? 

 

17. Is being a terrorist bad as per the 1AC?

 

We do not say that being a terrorist is bad.

 

18. If win identity isn't real does that mean the judge can presume negative? 

 

I don't see how that is 1. true, or 2. game ending. Even in the case that identity is false, construction of the sovereign still exists and that power structure will continue to oppress and marginalize the other

 

Alright, fair enough. 

 

Might be some follow-ups

 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

C-X

 

1. What is a "sacrifice to the violent sovereignty of the status quo"? Are we sacrificing domestic surveillance to the violent sovereignty of the squo?

 

So I guess grammatically I worded that wrong lol, it should be a sacrifice of the violent sovereignty mindset

 

2. What's a terrorist?

 

Anyone seen by the American government as a threat to 'security'

 

So it's an unspecified enemy?

 

Not necessarily, it's just traditionally seen as Middle Eastern when it comes to violence via terrorism because of 9/11

 

 

 

3. So you make all these arguments about how discursive framing is key because securitization of certain threats leads to self-fulfilling prophecies; so I guess my question is, What's the purpose of the pre-empts of the 1AC if you champion a rejection of that?

 

Discourse does not only pertain to the mode of thought that terrorism exists, but that the level of threat that it is propped up to be is also non-existent

 

That's fine but I'm asking why you're saying securitization is bad, while engaging in that very securitization against possible DA's or arguments that the negative can make?

 

Reading impact defense and link turns isn't securitizing Disads lol....

 

4. I'm assuming the Aff defends discourse first? 

 

Yes

 

5. What's the internal link between voting affirmative and changing the status quo's Islamophobia mindset?

 

The Tagma evidence indicates that as citizens subjects we are all instrumental to the continuation of the War on Terror. We believe that debate as an academic site allows us to challenge the modes of thought that we ourselves are evidently endorsing with our complicity. We also contend that discourse is an active mode of thought that can be presented as a solution to the SQ mindset

 

Why does talking about issues change them? 

 

Discourse shapes reality

 

 

6. Is it a criticism of the biopolitical war on terror or Islamophobia?

 

Well, it's more of a criticism on islamaphobia, but it contains parts that link into biopolitics

 

7. Does the war on terror presuppose Islamophobia or is it the other way around?

 

9/11, creation of the patriot act, endless war, all of it stemmed from the inherent fear of the terrrorist. It is not necessary islamaphobia, but terrorism in general.

 

So I guess, when did the identity, as conceived by the 1AC, of the "terrorist" arise? Is there a point in history paradigmatic of the production of Islamophobia? 

 

I just explained this. Hysteria has always existed in the world, but the U.S. justification of the war on terror began with things like the patriot act and 9/11

 

8. What is the "Other" and what quantifies the Other?

 

Those who are not natural in the eyes of America. The Terrorist is an example of the other

 

Only America? Is the Other of a Terrorist, therefore, America?

 

Well we are talking about the USfg in this debate so I am using America and terrorism as an example. There are other modes of thought that apply things like heteronormativity to certain subjects as to how they relate to the perfect white image we craft for ourselves.

 

9. At what point does one become the Other?

 

See above

 

i understand that, but this is more of a general question: What does the process of Otherization look like and does it require a prior building stone for the production of Otherness?

 

Oppression, marginalization, racism, ect. Otherization occurs through time periods, and sometimes it can be just based off prejudice instead of past history

 

10. Alright so your narrative seems to be utilizing the exact same threat construction your criticizing, so I guess my question is: What's the purpose of the narrative at the top of the 1AC? 

 

Not true whatsoever.  The narrative is the basis for how the NSA operates - a peaceful american citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist is identified and targeted as a threat. This is the power that the sovereign asserts over the bodies of the terrorist to control society.

 

Alright, fair enough.

 

11. Is sovereign power always already bad?

 

In the context of the NSA, more or less yes

 

So is it the NSA, as a legal entity, that's exerting sovereign power or is it a person? 

 

It's the government power structure, not necessarily an individual citizen but a collective group of people

 

12. Are queer bodies considered part of this "Other"? 

 

We do not defend queer bodies as per the 1AC, but yes they could be included into those. The other in terms of the 1AC are people targeted out of fear, not marginalized populations

 

Alright, fair enough.

 

13. The Tagma '09 evidence seems to be fatalist in saying that we all inevitably are complacent with the continuation of the War on Terror, so I guess my question is: If we all inevitably fuel the War on Terror, how does voting affirmative change that?

 

Resisting sovereign violence. It is not inevitable if we do not give in to the power of the sovereign.

 

From what I've got through my readings of Schmitt, Foucault, and Agamben is there is an impossibility of resistance to sovereign violences sans things like a loving community, care of the self, or renunciation of citizenship; so I guess how does voting aff necessarily combat sovereign power if your Tagma '09 evidence utilizes that same fatalism of the impossibility of resistance? 

 

I would contend that resisting sovereign violence is still something that is desirable to keep unequal power relations in check. Voting aff combats sovereign violence by not playing the state's game, challenging traditional political decisions that have allowed the sovereign to use genocidal warfare against the other, and using in round discourse to resist these binaries of the status Quo

 

14. So your Gulli '13 evidence mentions that the way in which the sovereign continues the global biopolitical War on Terror is by utilizing its war-machine - How does the affirmative   change the nature of this war-machine?

 

The power to control lives will be obsolete. You could claim that power structures still exist, but the aff destroys power in a large extent 

 

lol I'm not gonna say that we should be submissive to the system; what I'm saying is that your evidence indicates that the Sovereigns war-machine is what allows them to exert the biopolitical war that you talk about, so I'm asking how you, or rather the ballot, change the nature of that war-machine? And can you provide any historical examples on how talking about issues within academic spaces led to the destruction of larger structures of power?

 

Every movement starts with one voice, we believe that debate is a good academic space to share this issue and prior empirics aren't necessary for the 1AC to be useful. The War on Terror is a tool of the Sovereign to exert it's war machine, but if we take away the fundamental necessity that allows them to commit endless war then we can break away from this sovereign violence. Even if the ballot itself does not change the state, that does not mean we shouldn't attempt to read the 1AC and challenge traditional modes of thought

 

 

15. What is identity?

 

Identity is the who or what in being

 

So am I correct in saying identity is relational to subjectivity, and vice versa? 

 

In a nutshell yes

 

16. Why is terrorist an identity and not a structural position?

 

Terrorists do not exist metaphysically - it is only in the eyes of the sovereign as their threat construction sees them as a threat when they are merely looking to categorically eliminate populations of people who they seem to fear as an imminent threat of out racism and things like islamaphobia

 

So the terrorist does not exist sans our construction of certain individuals, or groups, as such? Does that mean blacks are terrorists? 

 

I don't know what this is getting at or asking. Terrorism is a false dichotomy, whereas race exists. I am not defending black bodies as per the 1AC

 

17. Is being a terrorist bad as per the 1AC?

 

We do not say that being a terrorist is bad.

 

18. If win identity isn't real does that mean the judge can presume negative? 

 

I don't see how that is 1. true, or 2. game ending. Even in the case that identity is false, construction of the sovereign still exists and that power structure will continue to oppress and marginalize the other

 

Alright, fair enough. 

 

Might be some follow-ups

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last 4 questions then 1NC:

 

1. Why does discourse shape reality?

 

2. Role of the ballot?

 

3. Role of the judges?

 

4. Does the Sovereigns war-machine presuppose the War on Terror or is it the other way around?

 

Just a heads up to all the judges (if we have any lol); I'm gonna be reading my genetic Strat as I started off with a strategy centered on Puars book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times but scrapped it because that seems like too much work for a Vdebate tbh xD

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last 4 questions then 1NC:

 

1. Why does discourse shape reality?

How we ultimately shape the world is determined by how we perceive it. Inconsistencies will allow error replication and discourse is an effective tool to challenge it.

2. Role of the ballot?

Vote aff to Reject sovereign violence

 

3. Role of the judges?

Vote aff

4. Does the Sovereigns war-machine presuppose the War on Terror or is it the other way around?

A bit confused, but in general I would say that the Sovereign only supposes that violence exists in entities (i.e. terrorists) to replicate more violence

Just a heads up to all the judges (if we have any lol); I'm gonna be reading my genetic Strat as I started off with a strategy centered on Puars book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times but scrapped it because that seems like too much work for a Vdebate tbh xD

:/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm anxious for this debate to begin  :blush:

 

Also do we even have judges? Might be a bit of an issue lol

Edited by Smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm anxious for this debate to begin  :blush:

 

Also do we even have judges? Might be a bit of an issue lol

I have internet for like 3 hours so I'll upload the 1NC rn 

 

idk what word count is 

 

Edit: inb4 "You over-highlighted the Baudrillard 2K card..."

1NC vs Terror Talk Aff.docx

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have internet for like 3 hours so I'll upload the 1NC rn 

 

idk what word count is 

 

Edit: inb4 "You over-highlighted the Baudrillard 2K card..."

Standard convention when reading like 5 different K's is to hit F6 between each one.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i guess i'll cx...

 

 

1. What am I arguing against exactly? (More rhetorical, but could use clarity)

 

2. What's the alt, suicide?

 

3. What is a game?

 

4. Does the 1NC take a stance on sovereingty?

 

5. Is surveillance a game?

 

6. Is genocide a game?

 

7. What is neoliberal about the aff?

 

8. What is teleology?

 

9. What is power?

 

10. Why should the judge prefer your role of the ballot?

 

11. Why does the ballot matter? Pretty sure that I said role of the judge is to vote aff, not sign a piece of paper

 

12. What's with all these cards about oceans and econ? Do you even have a link to the rez/the aff?

Edited by Smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i guess i'll cx...

 

 

1. What am I arguing against exactly? (More rhetorical, but could use clarity)

 

Semiocapitalism

 

2. What's the alt, suicide?

 

"Suicide Bomb the 1AC"

 

3. What is a game?

 

In context of the 1NC, we'd argue that a game is a (virtual) fantasy governed by arbritarily imposed rules which are enforced by a game-master.

 

4. Does the 1NC take a stance on

sovereignty?

 

We'd argue that the planetary war-machine that is described in the Wiltgen '05 evidence is controlled by a sovereign power which we've conjured up; so in context of the 1NC, this sovereign power would be semiocapitalism, or the Code.

 

5. Is surveillance a game?

 

Yeah

 

6. Is genocide a game?

 

We'd argue, and this relates back to the previous question, that semiocapitalism turns everything into a game of production where the highest score is achieved by the highest amount of semantic production; so I guess genocide would be another type of game for the system, because all of the emotions and ideas developed in light of the said genocide, is directly feeding the system; Genosko and Thoburn '11 says the only way for us to express ourselves is through the virtual market, which is why we sustain it

 

7. What is neoliberal about the aff?

 

We'd argue that the reading of the 1AC is neoliberal, we'll read some evidence in the block that says debate operates like a capitalist microcosm. We'd also argue that your adulation for discourse is another link because the system feeds off of these "minor subversions."

 

8. What is teleology?

 

We'd define it as the process of inscribing an "end goal" to a political project; on that requires interpretation.

 

 

9. What is power?

 

lol well we define it as sort of an affective substance that structures all our relations and exchanges

 

10. Why should the judge prefer your role of the ballot?

 

Because it's not self-serving and doesn't always culminate in an aff ballot - there's also an internal link to rhizomatic politics in the Gilbert '09 card

 

11. Why does the ballot matter? Pretty sure that I said role of the judge is to vote aff, not sign a piece of paper

 

Well, it doesn't really matter, but we'd argue that our Gilbert '09's collective definition of it is valueable because we need a new form of politics and subjectivity away from semiocapitalism

 

12. What's with all these cards about oceans and econ? Do you even have a link to the rez/the aff?

 

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Land '03 evidence - all this card is doing is describing the current game the system is playing; which is called Meltdown; we'd argue that the system is moving towards that meltdown; which is why we ask if what's playing you can make it to level 2; level 2, we'd argue can either be what our Wiltgen '05 evidence explains as a shizoid line of flight or a paranoiac molar investment; we'd argue that we need to rethink subjectivity in relation to semiocapitalism prior to this collapse
Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Define semiocapitalism. Why is it different from Capitalism?

 

2. I know the alt is suicide, like what does that do? Why not suicide bomb the game maker instead of this beautiful aff?

 

3. Who is the game maker, is this no game no life?

 

4. Yeah not sure how we don't break down teleology with the 1AC. Can you explain the link?

 

5. What's the impact to semiocap?

 

6. Is power bad?

 

7. If I win that the NSA will result in a global power structure that makes all violence inevitable, why vote neg?

 

8. What is subjectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw the 2AC should be 8 min worth of impact turns since this is one of those K's that only works because it sounds all weird and mystically but is really just a bunch of po-mo garbage and intellectual masturbation of the highest order. Seriously their is literally no point in engaging the K right now. 

 

Also, a terror talk K aff against a "Suicide Bomb alt"? You've gotta be shitting me. 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw the 2AC should be 8 min worth of impact turns since this is one of those K's that only works because it sounds all weird and mystically but is really just a bunch of po-mo garbage and intellectual masturbation of the highest order. Seriously their is literally no point in engaging the K right now. 

 

Also, a terror talk K aff against a "Suicide Bomb alt"? You've gotta be shitting me. 

1st. Thanks for the feedback

 

2nd. Is not debate itself "intellectual masturbation"?

 

3rd. You can choose not to engage it, doesn't make it go away; actually I think your argument is really what sustains white privilege (See Crenshaw '97).

 

4th. What's the problem with the alternative and the Aff?

 

5th. This is after all a practice debate round run through the internet; if you disagree with some things then share them after the round once we're done, or would you rather prefer the opponents that compete against you in your version of debate speak out whenever you make what they classify as a mistake? 

 

6th. If you have a problem with post-modernism, then please go voice these concerns on a Reddit forum, away from an activity that inevitably utilizes it. You complaining about postmodernism doesn't mean Michigan KM is going to stop reading their arguments on the aff and neg. 

 

7th. No reason why its garbage; it may be to you, but to somebody who uses post-modernist philosophy as an escape from the colonial matrix of power that I'm inevitably a part of, post-modernist philosophy allows me to be me in relation to others. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw the 2AC should be 8 min worth of impact turns since this is one of those K's that only works because it sounds all weird and mystically but is really just a bunch of po-mo garbage and intellectual masturbation of the highest order. Seriously their is literally no point in engaging the K right now. 

 

Also, a terror talk K aff against a "Suicide Bomb alt"? You've gotta be shitting me. 

Being able to reduce an arg to it's simplest form and figure out if it's a real arg or not is an art.  

 

@ the whole "suicide bomb alt"  I thought that was a bit strange, and I'm really interested to see what happens with it

 

Also I'll judge, and I'm pretty TAB, the big exception being I need to understand what I'm voting for.  Feel free to ask questions.

Edited by Backcountryguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Define semiocapitalism. Why is it different from Capitalism?

 

Right, so Genosko and Thoburn '11 define semiocapitalism as a new form of capitalism that makes affects, ideas, concepts; semiotics really; directly productive without materializing them. Kind of like how Facebook, or other social media networks, sell your information to companies in order to see what they ought to advertise to you; this very process of "selling information" is paradigmatic of semiocapitalism. It's different from regular old capitalism because it is no longer based on the production of material goods and wealth. If necessary we'll read evidence on this; but essentially what happens s that the ability to measure value in terms of time collapses in the era of semiocapitalism because the product is produced the very instant it is put on the production process; the production of a good and the good itself becomes immanent which means we can no longer define value in relation to time. Therefore, semiocapitalism is sort of this impossibility of regular old products because of the production process being reduced to immanent with the product itself. 

 

2. I know the alt is suicide, like what does that do? Why not suicide bomb the game maker instead of this beautiful aff?

 

You're absolutely correct, your aff is really cool, but we'd argue that your aff is what sustains the semiocapitalist system (or the "game-maker") through the process of cognitive labor - I mean your aff is all about "discourse first" so obviously you're gonna be one of the most helpful in the perpetuation of the Code. To answer the first question, the suicide bomb as a symbolic act gives the system what is known as the gift of death. Think about sort of like the phrase, "You can't pay back in money, what you owe in blood." The United States was given a symbolic gift of death, a gift of blood, but the United States tries to pay back this gift through material goods which are inevitably part of the Real, so it essentially tries to pay back what it owes in blood with money. The gift of death invites the United States, or the Code rather, to a symbolic challenge that it can only respond by committing suicide itself - which means that the symbolic act of suicide bombing sort of destroys the Code because the Code can only respond by killing itself. This is all part of the larger affective structure known as the Symbolic Exchange, which is essentially an affective structures that shapes relations in the status quo.

 

3. Who is the game maker, is this no game no life?

 

lol this isn't an anime, and if it was I'd like it to be Hunter x Hunter; the game maker would sort of be us as we will semiocapitalism, and structures of powers themselves actually, into existence

 

4. Yeah not sure how we don't break down teleology with the 1AC. Can you explain the link?

 

Well it's essentially saying that we should be open to a plurality of political projects; not just one, but many. The affirmatives belief that their method is the only true method (i.e. "discourse shapes reality" "discourse first") is a form of teleology that makes multiple political projects an impossibility. Evidence describes how this breads what Deleuze and Guattari call a "micro-fascism" which is sort of this concept that describes an internalization of desiring-repression where we subconsciously and simultaneously willingly choose policies that harm us. The evidence explains how it's very easy to be anti-fascist on the molar level, which means on the big scale; so you could be protesting against the construction of the identity of terrorist; but be blind to the micro-fascism that harbors within you, that grows and eventually resonates with other micro-fasicms to produce fascism. Think of it sort of like the American Revolution - the revolution was fought to end tyranny (on the macro-level), but the micro-fascism that manifested themselves through things such as the love for power, the displacement and disposability of native life, and racism towards the  black body meant that whatever freedom we gained from the revolution inevitably reinscribed a new form of fascism; except this one was more covert. Deleuze and Guattari would call this a "State-appropriated war-machine"

 

 

5. What's the impact to semiocap?

 

Genosko and Thoburn '11 describe "psycho-bombs" which are things such as anxiety, depression, exhaustion, etc. which are developed because of the human minds inability to cope with the unending exploitation of the cognitive worker. Wiltgen '05 describes a "planetary war-machine" that has an insatiable drive to organize insecurity (which is one of the main reasons why we engage in the War on Terror), increase machinic enslavement, and create a peace full of war (so like the War on Terror would be an example of this peace time during war; we think we're safe, but yet we still overall fund a war we'll never win). Wiltgen '05 explains how "unspecified enemy" is the continual feedback loop of this war-machine as it cannot distinguish between friend or foe and therefore annihilates everything in its' path - which is sort of the thesis of the image of the terrorist. We don't know what a terrorist looks like, we merely know what they do, and even then our attempts to explain why terrorists do what they do, as our Fernando '10 evidence explains, still fail to grasp the reason why terrorists do what they do, this is because after they're dead, we can't really ask them why they would do something so "illogical." The War on Terror is a war fought against a concept, and really anybody could fall under the identity of terrorist, which is exactly that "unspecified enemy" which our Wiltgen '05 evidence describes. 

 

6. Is power bad?

 

Well, power isn't really a priori attached to any normative statements; which means that power isn't inherently good or evil. Power is merely there, it's a factor of life; now, people can USE power as a telos to achieve a much more insidious goal, or can use in things such as biopower to achieve a good society. Think of power sort of like a cog in the machine: The machine is developed by numerous different cogs. What the cogs do is allow the machine to work; if that machine is used as a death machine or a machine that produces pasteurized water, we do not know, nor does the cog know; the cog merely allows that system to work, yet never takes any normative positions. In English; no power is not bad lol

 

7. If I win that the NSA will result in a global power structure that makes all violence inevitable, why vote neg?

 

We'd argue that the NSA is part of a broader, much bigger structure; which we'd define as semiocapitalism. We'd argue that voting negative can resolve the construction of certain individuals as terrorists. 

 

8. What is subjectivity?

 

the "who" in being - Bifo says there is an impossibility of subjectivity in the age of semiocapitalism because we become the commodity (and therefore the object) in the the immaterial market. That's why Bifo urges us to rethink subjectivity in the age of semiocapitalism; Bifo identifies the symbolic act of suicide as being a sort of paradigmatic event that could allow us to rethink subjectivity in relation to what Wiltgen '05 describes as either the paranoiac molar investment or the schizoid line of flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to reduce an arg to it's simplest form and figure out if it's a real arg or not is an art.  

 

@ the whole "suicide bomb alt"  I thought that was a bit strange, and I'm really interested to see what happens with it

 

Also I'll judge, and I'm pretty TAB, the big exception being I need to understand what I'm voting for.  Feel free to ask questions.

Seeing as how you said we should feel free to ask questions:

 

What does that bolded area mean?

 

And 

 

Do you have any experience/prior knowledge of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Jean Baudrillard, or Franco "Bifo" Berardi? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how you said we should feel free to ask questions:

 

What does that bolded area mean?

 

It means the ability to take an argument, remove all of the jargon, all of the ethos-building moments and all other extraneous bits and then put it into terms that you understand and/or is understandable to the layperson, or the judge (not always all at the same time), is super helpful in formulating responses.  Sometimes there is a real argument that is being made in context of your args, sometimes there is an argument being made not in context of the aff, and sometimes people try to make it look like there is an argument by using lots of jargon andmakes their arg sound, as Rain put it "weird and mystically".  In other words being able to understand the arg early in the debate makes you win more.  In context of this debate specifically I won't comment on where your args fall in this (both because I haven't thoroughly read the speech yet, and also because the 2AC hasn't happened yet), but I'll reiterate that I really need to know what the arg I am voting for says. (and you probably shouldn't rely on the judges prior knowledge of a lit base to win a debate anyways)

And 

 

Do you have any experience/prior knowledge of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Jean Baudrillard, or Franco "Bifo" Berardi? 

Fair warning none of these authors is what I generally read, however

DnG: cursory - but if you want to make a bunch nuanced claims you are probably going to either have to explain the jargon or cut it out (these dudes are ridiculous in this regard)

Baudrillard: Definitely more familiar with baudrillard than either of the others, although to be fair tha majority of baudrillard cards I've read are out of that super old and bad baudrillard file everybody has.

Bifo: read some speech docs, familiar with the concept of semiocapitalism.

  • 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...