Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been having a hard time looking for a DA that isn't pres. powers or terror. It would be nice if they were easy enough to understand so that a novice could understand it, but if they aren't that easy to understand, that's okay, too, as long as somebody explains it well enough.

 

Thank you so much in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics, Reverse Spending (NSA is outsourcing now because of budget constraints, the plan frees up their budget which means they’ll hire government workers instead of doing outsourcing, outsourcing is good.) Let me know if you want the impacts for that. It also really depends on the aff you are hitting. Lots of specific DAs for different cases.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is probably ground for da's that impact out the effect curtailing our domestic surveillance has on relations and organizations with foreign countries.

Edited by 1961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is always great, especially alongside an XO CP. There doesn't seem to be a politics scenario right now, but I always run them because they link to any aff and serve as a net benefit to the XO CP.

 

Business confidence is also decent agaisnt certain affs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the courts cases are vulnerable to a Standing Precedent DA.  And if you don't know what that argument is just from the label - do some reading in US court jurisdiction and standing requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is in trouble right now. Terror is typically racist and non-unique (especially with the recent attacks in Paris). DAs this year seem to be really weak. I really like the Privatization DA though. It links to a lot of cases and doesn't contradict with a lot of Ks (unlike Pres Power and Ptx). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is in trouble right now. Terror is typically racist and non-unique (especially with the recent attacks in Paris). DAs this year seem to be really weak. I really like the Privatization DA though. It links to a lot of cases and doesn't contradict with a lot of Ks (unlike Pres Power and Ptx). 

 

I would've thought the Paris attacks check the racism accusations and prove uniqueness.  The Paris attacks change all the 'ISIS wants to attack western targets directly' from baseless fearmongering to clear and present danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've thought the Paris attacks check the racism accusations and prove uniqueness.  The Paris attacks change all the 'ISIS wants to attack western targets directly' from baseless fearmongering to clear and present danger.

 

 

And, notice that the critical issue here is not the misinterpretation of content, but the reduction of all content to a restrictive format. In debate, the sterile laboratory within which we engage one another desensitizes participants and enslaves the activity within a spectator mentality.

Mitchell, 1998 [Gorden, associate professor of communication at Northwestern University, “Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate,” v35, p43-4]

 

While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, notice that the critical issue here is not the misinterpretation of content, but the reduction of all content to a restrictive format. In debate, the sterile laboratory within which we engage one another desensitizes participants and enslaves the activity within a spectator mentality.

Mitchell, 1998 [Gorden, associate professor of communication at Northwestern University, “Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate,” v35, p43-4]

 

While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

 

Perm: do both?

 

On the one hand, i participated in a couple events to honor the dead in France and show solidarity with French citizens. 

 

On the other hand, a competitive format makes weaponizing news inevitable.  There is no alternative.

 

The key isn't to stop weaponizing current events (which btw, is a portable skill that has real life application), the key is to not become desensitized to those events even as you are looking at them for strategic value.

 

At the same time, too much emotional involvement with current events threatens the foundations of an open society.  Some of the best weaponizers seem to also be the ones most emotionally involved with events - from pro-life abortion clinic demonstrators to the current student protesters on Mizzou, Yale, and CMC. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that these demonstrators are too caught up in the emotional impact of it all.  How else to explain insanity like Westboro Baptist Church?  How else do you justify (unreasonably successful) student calls for the resignation of administrators who had nothing to do with the alleged racism on Mizzou, nor any proper authority to have taken any decisive action in the short timespan that had passed.  This kind of emotional investment in current events abrogates justice in the name of scapegoating to provide immediate targets for rage.  And it demands ideological conformity - anyone who isn't perfectly aligned with the message is marginalized and excluded.  (See especially the asian student at CMC who had the temerity of complaining about racism she experienced at the hands of african-american students - a unacceptable target for the message the protestors wanted to send)

 

Part of being an adult is to not let emotion overwhelm reason.  We're going to disagree with people, sometimes on profound things that conflict with our most deeply cherished values.  The correct response isn't to take up torches and pitchforks to go searching for a witch to burn.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, notice that the critical issue here is not the misinterpretation of content, but the reduction of all content to a restrictive format. In debate, the sterile laboratory within which we engage one another desensitizes participants and enslaves the activity within a spectator mentality.

Mitchell, 1998 [Gorden, associate professor of communication at Northwestern University, “Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate,” v35, p43-4]

 

While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

 

That card should have fucked up formatting so it isn't double turning itself by inscribing community norms about evidences aesthetics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perm: do both?

 

On the one hand, i participated in a couple events to honor the dead in France and show solidarity with French citizens. 

 

On the other hand, a competitive format makes weaponizing news inevitable.  There is no alternative.

 

The key isn't to stop weaponizing current events (which btw, is a portable skill that has real life application), the key is to not become desensitized to those events even as you are looking at them for strategic value.

 

At the same time, too much emotional involvement with current events threatens the foundations of an open society.  Some of the best weaponizers seem to also be the ones most emotionally involved with events - from pro-life abortion clinic demonstrators to the current student protesters on Mizzou, Yale, and CMC. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that these demonstrators are too caught up in the emotional impact of it all.  How else to explain insanity like Westboro Baptist Church?  How else do you justify (unreasonably successful) student calls for the resignation of administrators who had nothing to do with the alleged racism on Mizzou, nor any proper authority to have taken any decisive action in the short timespan that had passed.  This kind of emotional investment in current events abrogates justice in the name of scapegoating to provide immediate targets for rage.  And it demands ideological conformity - anyone who isn't perfectly aligned with the message is marginalized and excluded.  (See especially the asian student at CMC who had the temerity of complaining about racism she experienced at the hands of african-american students - a unacceptable target for the message the protestors wanted to send)

 

Part of being an adult is to not let emotion overwhelm reason.  We're going to disagree with people, sometimes on profound things that conflict with our most deeply cherished values.  The correct response isn't to take up torches and pitchforks to go searching for a witch to burn.

I'd add too that it's non-unique:

 

Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments

This isn't a description of the debate world; this is a description of politics. The right (here and in Europe) has already invoked Paris to justify increased resistance to Syrian refugees and Muslim immigration; the left has already invoked Paris for the exact opposite, and then there's assorted weird arguments invoking Paris to support other political issues (global warming, gun control). At least competitive debate allows for a way to test whether new events are correctly politicized.

 

Also:

 

Politicization of tragedies is good; it's key to causing change and solving problems

Obama 10/15 (Barack Obama, President of the United States, Statement of October 1, 2015 after Umpqua Community College shooting, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon)

 

And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. I would ask news organizations -- because I won't put these facts forward -- have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?

 

This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.

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...