Jump to content
Smitty

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

Nope, that's a counter productive strategy. I don't want to say too much because the debate is still going on, but the fundamental problem of all these left on left debates is that 'you weren't left enough' really just isn't competitive. 

 

And there's plenty to engage in with the "K" (there's really more like 5 or 6 mushed together, which I'l take problem with after the round). Just because it's pomo and worded oddly doesn't mean there aren't several "clear" (not in the understanding sense, but as in isolatable) points of contestation that the aff can push back against. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

I wish it would though, so I don't have to cut case negs to it

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last few questions then 2AC

 

1. Why does the terrorist exist?

 

2. Is semiocap the root cause of violence, or are you going to just say that the symbolic suicide of the state is a better way to solve?

 

3. Why do you not link to teleology?

 

4. (Suspense) Will all the criticisms be in the 2NR?

 

5. What is worse, microfascism or total fascism?

Edited by Smitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that's a counter productive strategy. I don't want to say too much because the debate is still going on, but the fundamental problem of all these left on left debates is that 'you weren't left enough' really just isn't competitive. 

 

And there's plenty to engage in with the "K" (there's really more like 5 or 6 mushed together, which I'l take problem with after the round). Just because it's pomo and worded oddly doesn't mean there aren't several "clear" (not in the understanding sense, but as in isolatable) points of contestation that the aff can push back against. 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish it would though, so I don't have to cut case negs to it

Alright fair enough; lol I know, sorry about that but I felt mixing stuff would be fun; but I'll probably concede some of these "satellite K's" in the block.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last few questions then 2AC

 

1. Why does the terrorist exist?

 

To oppose systems

 

2. Is semiocap the root cause of violence, or are you going to just say that the symbolic suicide of the state is a better way to solve?

 

Well there's no root cause to anything; but we'd argue that semiocapitalism definitely leads to violence and we'd also argue that semiocapitalism is what produced the War on Terror.

 

3. Why do you not link to teleology?

 

I'm obviously going to say no lol but in all seriousness; the symbolic act of suicide destroys all teleology and interpretation because the suicide bomber refuses interpretation; that means we are an openness to politics

 

4. (Suspense) Will all the criticisms be in the 2NR?

 

They pretty much all redirect towards semiocapitalism but some of the satellite K's, which act like links in the K, are "unconditional"

 

 

5. What is worse, microfascism or total fascism?

Well, microfascism, when resonating collectively produces macro-fascism, or fascism in general. There is no "total fascism" but we'd argue that microfascism necessarily presupposes macrofascism. Can't really say which one is worse because they're sort of immanent

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l0l ggez. Was actually gonna post the 2AC soon but it's cool. 

 

I'm not much of a baudrillard/deleuze debater, but I would say that you probably should use a better alt against the terror rhetoric aff. I hear symbolic terrorism would be a good one to access much of the symbolic exchange offense. That's just what I feel though, I could be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhhh reading through the 1NC, a lot of structural problems; I forfeit 

 

Anybody want to comment on the 1NC (again)? 

Welp...my internet is back up so I guess I'll try again.

 

Meta level stuff

You need case answers. Like specific ones. Stuff that's obviously responsive on the flow. Starting the debate over in the block only screws you because they speak last. Judges are gonna give the aff a lot of leeway in the 1AR with sketchy neg strats and you're stuck trying to use the 2NR as a 2AC basically. 

 

No rainbow highlighting. I have no idea hat you're reading and you don't even tell me which color to care about.

 

There's not really much point in playing games with the tags. Doesn't get you anything but confusion by the judges in this case.

 

Line by line (I'll be writing this stream of consciousness and it's gonna sound super negative, but just trying to give the most feedback possible)

 

You say you don't endorse ableist language and then don't un-underline the schizo stuff. That's like saying you don't endorse gendered language and then saying guys.

I have no idea what the point of the Land card is. I read enough theory that I don't see Land's ranting and faze out; this a strategy problem. I see like a sentence about the ocean and then...what's the point? You never say. How am I supposed to flow this? I come back when I'm making my RFD at the end of the 2AR, see something on a flow about level 2 and I'm like...welp, can't weigh that. 
 
No idea what the point of the first analytic is. 
 
Alright, so we get to something about cap. Well, semio cap. How does this relate to the aff? I mean, as of right now it looks like a UQ card to me which upon further reading looks more like an impact card maybe? Not sure what the point is.
 
Alright...so rational economic science is bad. That's great I guess, if the aff defended that. Looks like another impact card, which seems redundant. Your tags are still too long.
 
So...uh, well we've supposedly come to the link. No idea why the aff is dangerous hierarchical knowledge production. I googled the definition of teology and I guess I could sort of see what you're getting at in the tag from that, sort of. I mean, I get that talking about the purpose that terror rhetoric serves is teological but I don't see how it inscribes microfascism. Your tags just aren't saying anything here. Reading the card, I don't see what the link is. I mean, sure, I guess technically the aff is "complicit" in microfascism, technically and that, technically they didn't talk about it. So what? Pretty sure that saying that terror rhetoric is bad isn't anywhere close to the level of internal link you need to access your impacts. It certainly doesn't let you access the stuff about cap.
 
Ah, the good old 'language is auto-deconstructive so vote neg on presumption' arg. This might perhaps be more usefully deployed on case where the aff can't perm it. Right now, you're in a super awkward spot because this means either you lose the rest of the K or the aff could just leverage the perm against this and win a risk language is useful. Basically winning one arg takes out the other, which isn't an optimal situation.
Generally though, this arg just isn't that persuasive, I'd recommend actual case cards instead.
 
Wait what. How the fudge does suicide bombing the 1AC solve A) the link, or B ) capitalism? There's this stuff about poetry. That's great I guess, but there's nothing here even approaching a claim of solvency.
 
So now you sort of get to a link to the rest of the capitalism stuff. Probably should put that near the rest of the debate. Problem is that you also call for the ballot. Also, these Bifo cards as a whole are terrible. They don't actually provide a solid link to debate as a whole without massively reading into stuff. Instead of super generic 'aff = bad always' cards, why not have an actual specific counter K to the aff?
 
That Gilbert card puts you in a super tight spot with the failure to properly account for the ableist rhetoric. If I were the Aff I would pounce on the 'you are responsible for the content of speech acts' and push hard.
 
Concluding thoughts
Honestly this strategy is just way too generic. There's not an actual responsive argument in here that's not easily permed. I don't see a reasonable way to beat back the 'Look, even if we were a little micro-fascist, at the end of the day, we agree on the same things, so vote aff cause there's no reason not to' arg. 
 
I think this is too easily beaten by the true argument that suicide bombing will only lead to more threat con and securitization which obviously the aff will have an easy time proving bad. 
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Welp...my internet is back up so I guess I'll try again.

 

Meta level stuff

You need case answers. Like specific ones. Stuff that's obviously responsive on the flow. Starting the debate over in the block only screws you because they speak last. Judges are gonna give the aff a lot of leeway in the 1AR with sketchy neg strats and you're stuck trying to use the 2NR as a 2AC basically. 

 

No rainbow highlighting. I have no idea hat you're reading and you don't even tell me which color to care about.

 

There's not really much point in playing games with the tags. Doesn't get you anything but confusion by the judges in this case.

 

Line by line (I'll be writing this stream of consciousness and it's gonna sound super negative, but just trying to give the most feedback possible)

 

You say you don't endorse ableist language and then don't un-underline the schizo stuff. That's like saying you don't endorse gendered language and then saying guys.

I have no idea what the point of the Land card is. I read enough theory that I don't see Land's ranting and faze out; this a strategy problem. I see like a sentence about the ocean and then...what's the point? You never say. How am I supposed to flow this? I come back when I'm making my RFD at the end of the 2AR, see something on a flow about level 2 and I'm like...welp, can't weigh that. 
 
No idea what the point of the first analytic is. 
 
Alright, so we get to something about cap. Well, semio cap. How does this relate to the aff? I mean, as of right now it looks like a UQ card to me which upon further reading looks more like an impact card maybe? Not sure what the point is.
 
Alright...so rational economic science is bad. That's great I guess, if the aff defended that. Looks like another impact card, which seems redundant. Your tags are still too long.
 
So...uh, well we've supposedly come to the link. No idea why the aff is dangerous hierarchical knowledge production. I googled the definition of teology and I guess I could sort of see what you're getting at in the tag from that, sort of. I mean, I get that talking about the purpose that terror rhetoric serves is teological but I don't see how it inscribes microfascism. Your tags just aren't saying anything here. Reading the card, I don't see what the link is. I mean, sure, I guess technically the aff is "complicit" in microfascism, technically and that, technically they didn't talk about it. So what? Pretty sure that saying that terror rhetoric is bad isn't anywhere close to the level of internal link you need to access your impacts. It certainly doesn't let you access the stuff about cap.
 
Ah, the good old 'language is auto-deconstructive so vote neg on presumption' arg. This might perhaps be more usefully deployed on case where the aff can't perm it. Right now, you're in a super awkward spot because this means either you lose the rest of the K or the aff could just leverage the perm against this and win a risk language is useful. Basically winning one arg takes out the other, which isn't an optimal situation.
Generally though, this arg just isn't that persuasive, I'd recommend actual case cards instead.
 
Wait what. How the fudge does suicide bombing the 1AC solve A) the link, or B ) capitalism? There's this stuff about poetry. That's great I guess, but there's nothing here even approaching a claim of solvency.
 
So now you sort of get to a link to the rest of the capitalism stuff. Probably should put that near the rest of the debate. Problem is that you also call for the ballot. Also, these Bifo cards as a whole are terrible. They don't actually provide a solid link to debate as a whole without massively reading into stuff. Instead of super generic 'aff = bad always' cards, why not have an actual specific counter K to the aff?
 
That Gilbert card puts you in a super tight spot with the failure to properly account for the ableist rhetoric. If I were the Aff I would pounce on the 'you are responsible for the content of speech acts' and push hard.
 
Concluding thoughts
Honestly this strategy is just way too generic. There's not an actual responsive argument in here that's not easily permed. I don't see a reasonable way to beat back the 'Look, even if we were a little micro-fascist, at the end of the day, we agree on the same things, so vote aff cause there's no reason not to' arg. 
 
I think this is too easily beaten by the true argument that suicide bombing will only lead to more threat con and securitization which obviously the aff will have an easy time proving bad. 

 

Cool, thanks for the feedback.

 

I was actually thinking of cutting a strategy from Puars book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism during Queer Times; would that have been better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, thanks for the feedback.

 

I was actually thinking of cutting a strategy from Puars book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism during Queer Times; would that have been better?

How do you plan to make that responsive? Both Puar and I presume the 1AC (I haven't looked at it in a while) say that SQUO images of terrorists are bad. Sounds like the perm solves.

 

You probably wouldn't be a fan of the strat I would recommend, but I'd just impact turn the aff. IR lit, particularly on terrorism, has a lot of self reflexive people who are like, realism takes into account that stuff is constructed, but terrorists are still dangerous. It's easy to just beat them on quality of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhhh reading through the 1NC, a lot of structural problems; I forfeit 

 

Anybody want to comment on the 1NC (again)? 

I Don't have anything to say about the 1NC, but if you want to talk about the Puar strategy you had thought about deploying you should totally PM me.

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. 

Sorry for the double post, but what is the conceivable impact turn that isn't a double turn with the AFF? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you plan to make that responsive? Both Puar and I presume the 1AC (I haven't looked at it in a while) say that SQUO images of terrorists are bad. Sounds like the perm solves.

 

You probably wouldn't be a fan of the strat I would recommend, but I'd just impact turn the aff. IR lit, particularly on terrorism, has a lot of self reflexive people who are like, realism takes into account that stuff is constructed, but terrorists are still dangerous. It's easy to just beat them on quality of evidence.

Are there any sources in particular you would recommend looking at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any sources in particular you would recommend looking at?

Background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28international_relations%29

 

Examples of the lit:

http://ire.sagepub.com/content/23/3/411.short

 

Examples of debate relevant articles:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17539150701848225?journalCode=rter20

  • 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...