Jump to content
MCat

MCat (aff) vs. MagicalBeanie (Neg) - Oceans

Recommended Posts

Comments after the round?

 

as far as I'm concerned the rounds over I already voted aff and gave 30 speaker points just because someone used gendered language in their post 

 

Find it! 

 

Hint, it has to do with being "wise" and why you should read policy affs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I'm concerned the rounds over I already voted aff and gave 30 speaker points just because someone used gendered language in their post 

 

Find it! 

 

Hint, it has to do with being "wise" and why you should read policy affs.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wise man once said:

 

"If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological."

MartyP was correct to an extent; if you're familiar with Crenshaw '97 or Gulli '13 they both explain different forms of structural violence that become pervasive within (political institutions); in the case of Crenshaw '97, for instance, racism develops on the refusal to speak on the assumed "white norm" the evidence very clearly states silence is active, not passive, which makes the 1AC an active refusal to acknowledge the structure of white privilege. When we don't talk about things (and every instance is key) we're perpetuating those same structures we "critique on the negative." Switch side shenanigans aside, the thing with "defending political engagement is good because it teaches us how to craft anti-_______ politics in the real world" amount to a utopian dream. I guess I'm being very fatalist here but, much like that Squidward paper everybody keeps trolling, capitalism (and institutions as such) has no room for subversion. You can oppose it all you want but the system will inevitably anonymize you and ignore your struggle (i.e. identity politics); this is what people such as Bifo and Baudrillard were getting it: the impossibility of resistance in contemporary digital capitalism. 

 

I mean, I know where he was getting at with regards to "reading K Affs have no reference point" thing is that the status quo is the reference point; K affs identity something that's messed up (in relation to the topic/resolution) and debate about it. 

 

If anything, this redirects back to the question of why even debate at all; 95% of debates amount to intellectual masturbation and fights for prestige, unless you're breaking at the NDT/ToC/CEDA/ and having your round live streamed, then people don't really give a shit about what you're reading, they're more focused on finding good articles to combat your aff (and this is where shitty word PIC's come from). I don't think every K debater has the same impact teams like Oklahoma CL had on people they debated, and that applies to policy as well. We're all not going to immediately go onto become government employees after graduating from Georgetown, or are going to have the capital to attend law school. 

 

There's a lot of stuff messed up with debate, and I doubt there are going to be changes anytime soon so you might as well prepare a K aff and Policy Aff, depending on your judges preferences. 

 

I still don't understand why "reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological."

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General

Status of advocacies?

 

T

On the fx,

1) Whats bidirectionality?

2) What do you mean we arent an actual increase?

 

Imp

What is hegemony and how it the aff a form of it?

Whats the alt for this k? and how does it solve the environment link?

Only links are the boesa card and environ managerialism?

Hoggett is in the context of US militarial security efforts (Bush's war on terror, government imprisonments, Cold War rehtoric, etc.). What about the aff makes this worse?

What about the aff is paranoid politics? Are our impacts true? Should we just leave them be?

 

Cap

DeFazio is an indite of scholarship drawing a line between human/non-human. 1) how is the aff a form of this? 2) how is this a link to cap?

Give me a warrant from Cole that talks about how our method is bad, please.

What about the aff increases capital? A lot of your evidence seems to indite the physical exchange of money, not the transfer of ideas.

How does the alt solve for anthropocentrism? What does the alt lead to? we reject in this instance then what?? How does it solve defazio?

Apply the root cause debate to the aff,

 

State Pic

1. will you claim a spillover or just you doing this?

2. what are the tangible impacts of this?

3. Why is an individual relationship impossible under the aff?

 

Fiat "Abuse"

1. Where do we fiat solvency?

2. how is the "Hydrologic Sciences Program for education" the same hydrologics referred to by our Neimanis evidence?

Edited by MCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

1. Since you mandate sustainable development, the plan could result in less development and exploration because "sustainable exploration and development" could mean less than status quo levels
2. You worded out your plan text abusively, analytics in the 1nc explains the rest of it

Imp
1. Hegemony is the leadership or dominance of a country, in your Boiesa 11 card it talks about how the "US is all awesome and stuff and a leader and that's why it will spill over"
2. It's a da
3. Your aff as a whole is the link, Pagano 6, Neimanis 12, etc, you put a bunch of cards saying that if the US doesn't do it or like if something doesn't happen then the environment's going to get destroyed,etc basically your entire aff in all links to it, not just individual cards.

4. That card was just an example, your aff makes this worse


C
1. Object Oriented Philosophy, Post humanism
2. The cole 9 card talks about "Information warfare is a key imperialist strategy and modus operandi of cap- italism; so is 'enfraudening the public sphere" any form of education is capitalist, just an excuse to hide lying deception and misrepresentation.
3. You're trying to reform the USFG , Zhao 09, Defazio 14 and Cole 9
4. We're saying that capitalism causes such thinking like anthropocentrism, thus causing all those environmental impacts. The alt leads to rejection of capitalism. All the impacts you claim are from the cause of your own affirmative. Are you asking for an extension of the alternative or world of the alt? mmm Interesting application for the root cause to your aff i see

State PIC
1. kappaler is saying that we as people need to act on issues and not the state and that the state doing something like this only makes people less likely to do anything.
2.Kappler 95, Delgado 91
3. You use the USFG which denies me as one of the people to create the change, I advocate to the level so a change can be made.

Fiat Abuse
1. Dilla 97
2. That's what hydrologic education does, it's been used for over 25 years referring to our Galbrich 91 card, if you want to argue against this we have a heck load more cards stating the same or similar thing to our card.

Edited by MagicalBeanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

1) im still confused- how is the p-text worded abusively?

 

Imp

1) if its a da, where's the uniqueness? Why will the plan somehow make this worse?

2) are the aff's impacts true?

 

Cap

1) cool, how does cap solve ooo? Why is that mutually exclusive w the aff?

2) ya, how is cap a root cause of anthro? Warrants, please. Then what about rejection in this singular instance is key?

 

Pic

Will you claim spillover to solve or is it just you?

Why does using the usfg shut out you from being a free-thinker?

 

After those, 2ac should be good by tomorrow night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

1. The resolution calls for development/ exploration of the ocean, by the way that your worded your plan text you worded it abusively in terms to create a framework, twist a few words and then propose hydrological education when the resolution calls for physical exploration/development of the ocean.

Imp
I'll concede the DA, i made a mistake and was confused when creating this and if i'm not allowed to drop it, i'll bring up the uq evidence in the 2nc.

Cap

1. ​The way that the affirmative attempts to use ontology in order to disguise exploitation, misrepresentation, makes the k mutually exclusive, the aff itself represents a link to the Defazio 14 and Cole 9 evidence. 

2. The idea that cap itself is the root cause of anthro. The aff claims that they solve for anthro when this is just another excuse for capitalism to exploit the environment and use the aff as a disguise. 
capital in one cycle after another, with each new phase of accumulation taking the last as its starting point. This meant ever more divided, more alienated human beings, together with a more globally destructive metabolism between humanity and nature
accumulation of wealth in the modern age “enormously increased human power of destruction” so “that we are able to destroy all organic life on earth and shall probably be able one day to destroy even the earth itself

Pic

1. we need to act first before anything else. That allows for personal agency to be obtained, once that happens spill over can occur.

 


2. Once again the state always enacting on something, only makes people less likely to do anything i.e. if a problem like global warming comes to the attention of people, they will see it as something huge that only something like the state can fix and that is bad because the people don’t actually do anything which bounds us to limited thinking. by advocating it myself it becomes not an action of the state but an action of a person and thus reduces the issue to something that people can solve

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2580 words, you can have some extra in the block

 

Here is the 2ac

Edited by MCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wise man once said:

 

"If you really want to effectuate change, you read policy on the aff and K's on the neg.  You do that so that you can actually learn how to craft policy that isn't racist, homophobic, classist, etc. rather than reading critiques on all sides, which just indicts a ghost in the room and never does anything.  You should understand that reading K's on the neg and an untopical K aff is absurdly tautological."

If you're reading a K aff that only criticizes policy idk how great your aff is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... eurocentrism?

speaking of which...

I'm not going to worry about a v debate until nats are over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to worry about a v debate until nats are over

lololololol ik dude I'm messing with you, who cares about vsebates anyway

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...