Jump to content
SpaceColOutweighs

Luhan (aff) vs. SpaceColOutweighs (Neg) SURVEILLANCE TOPIC

Recommended Posts

Those plan flaws literally made me burst out laughing.

I mean, no disrespect to the Neg or anything, but I was in the sassiest state of analytic-writing ever when writing answers to the plan flaws.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those plan flaws literally made me burst out laughing.

Even funnier was the answer to the plan flaw...I was rolling, no disrespect.

 

You all realize that planflaws are legitimate arguments right? - a lot of 2nr's at St. Marks this year were plan flaws...

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even funnier was the answer to the plan flaw...I was rolling, no disrespect.

 

You all realize that planflaws are legitimate arguments right? - a lot of 2nr's at St. Marks this year were plan flaws...

Yeah. The answers, in my opinion, were pretty odd. I've never encountered plan flaws ever, so I was pretty aghast trying to make an argument against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T Curtail

1. Under your w/m, you say that the plan decertifies tech and that's why you meet - therefore, is the plan a restriction on technology?

2. Why is the c/i better? can i have actual warrants for why my interp overlimits and why your's is key to limits

 

T USfg

1. Are you conceding that you're plan text is extra t? lol

2. How are all affirmatives extra t? give an example using metadata or a core of the topic aff

3. How do other people running extra topical affs justify this abuse?

 

Planflaws

1. Does fiat matter? define fiat?

2. Why is fiat up to what you deem "common sense"

3. How is it fair that you're shifting your advocacy from defending the "FCC decertifying ISMI tech" to now in the 2ac "Federal Communications Commission decertifying IMSI tech"?

4. Define common sense, is it the same for everyone?

5. Isolate my typos in the 1nc...lol jk

 

K

1. If we win a link to the aff, how is perm do both legit? (If we win that you reduce people to bare life, how can we reject bare life and do the aff at the same time?)

2. How can we do both?

3. The Smith 13 ev is in the context of colonialism...how is it contextual to the K, or more specifically the alt?

4. The douglas 9 ev says:

the UK and the US have normalised the exception through the passing of ‘laws’ (Terrorism Act, Patriot Act, etc.) that essentially nullify the application of normal laws protecting human rights, while still holding them technically ‘in force’. We see also that these ‘exceptional’ laws go hand in hand with increased surveillance

How would the plan not be coopted by the state?

5. Explain the Wright 7 ev - how is this contextual to the k, or the plan being a necessary function to solve the K?

 

Advantage 1

1. in the overview you say that democracy is necessary to solve "nuclear war extinction" - how is this NOT existential threat discourse?

2. Whats the link between solving democracy in the US and solving democracy abroad - if the plan just solve democracy in the US how does it spread to other corners of the world?

3. How does democracy solve bare life?

Edited by SpaceColOutweighs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T Curtail

1. Under your w/m, you say that the plan decertifies tech and that's why you meet - therefore, is the plan a restriction on technology?

By decertifying the technology, we restrict the ability for law enforcement to use the device, so yes, we meet your interpretation. We restrict surveillance technology.

2. Why is the c/i better? can i have actual warrants for why my interp overlimits and why your's is key to limits

I mean, an interpretation such as yours where you pretty much specify what surveillance is and isn't basically limits out certain Affirmatives, such as the ones that do indirectly prohibit surveillance. The counter-interpretation provides a more general definition that better suits debate because it doesn't over-specify the meaning of surveillance. As explained in the reasonability, interpretations (especially specific ones) create a race to the bottom that limits out every Affirmative in the end.

T USfg

1. Are you conceding that you're plan text is extra t? lol

I mean, every Affirmative is Extra-T in its own way, therefore by pushing a voter on Extra-T you basically prevent any Aff from competing at all.

2. How are all affirmatives extra t? give an example using metadata or a core of the topic aff

All cases are complex, meaning they always overstep the boundaries in which the resolution provides, for example, not all Affirmatives involve JUST the USFG. Even a USFG-centric Affirmative like 702 involve more actors than just the USFG.

3. How do other people running extra topical affs justify this abuse?

I don't see how this is relevant ... What does it matter about how other people respond to Extra-T?

Planflaws

1. Does fiat matter? define fiat?

In your context, fiat is basically, well, (I really haven't debated on this before, so don't judge me) just not specifying and assuming its a given. We don't consider the circumstances. We fiat the meaning of FCC by assuming you know what FCC stands for (and I know you REALLY do).

2. Why is fiat up to what you deem "common sense"

I mean, the "Federal Communications Commission" is already the most common meaning for the acronym FCC, also we're debating about the USFG and surveillance technologies, so if you were to use common sense, you'd know that the FCC we refer to is the Federal Communications Commission.

3. How is it fair that you're shifting your advocacy from defending the "FCC decertifying ISMI tech" to now in the 2ac "Federal Communications Commission decertifying IMSI tech"?

I mean, they're literally the same thing if we apply common sense. Any normal person, when seeing FCC in a USFG surveillance tech debate would obviously assume its the Federal Communications Commission. Any normal person also would have understood the typo we made between ISMI and IMSI. It's a human construct to be imperfect, and everyone understands that. A normal person would be like, "Oh, a typo. It's alright, I knew what he meant."

4. Define common sense, is it the same for everyone?

Common sense is correctly using your context and general knowledge to make an assumption. I really don't understand why anyone would interpret FCC as "Frederick Community College" in the first place, because "Federal Communications Commission" is already the most popular and commonly used meaning for FCC right now. Also, we're debating surveillance technology, which the FCC practically specifies in. Finally, we address the USFG. Piece all of those together and you'd be RIGHT to assume it's the "Federal Communications Commission." I really don't understand your common sense, but any person, upon reading our 1AC, would know what we mean.

5. Isolate my typos in the 1nc...lol jk

Sigh.

K

1. If we win a link to the aff, how is perm do both legit? (If we win that you reduce people to bare life, how can we reject bare life and do the aff at the same time?)

I mean, according to how debate works, yeah if you win the link, permutations are illegitimate, but the status of who wins the link is pretty much in the air right now.

2. How can we do both?

I mean, if your Alt is to reject bare life, and our plan is to curtail surveillance ... There shouldn't be a problem doing both. They're not related to each other, nor do they conflict in anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem doing both.

3. The Smith 13 ev is in the context of colonialism...how is it contextual to the K, or more specifically the alt?

Your Alt is talking about ending bare life, whereas Smith 13 talks about ending suffering in general. The vagueness of the Smith 13 card basically covers for your Alt as well.

4. The douglas 9 ev says:

the UK and the US have normalised the exception through the passing of ‘laws’ (Terrorism Act, Patriot Act, etc.) that essentially nullify the application of normal laws protecting human rights, while still holding them technically ‘in force’. We see also that these ‘exceptional’ laws go hand in hand with increased surveillance

How would the plan not be coopted by the state?

Our plan literally hinders the management of life. The state wouldn't want to do that.

5. Explain the Wright 7 ev - how is this contextual to the k, or the plan being a necessary function to solve the K?

Wright 7 is basically saying how we need to take legal approaches when solving the impacts of the K. The K seeks to end bare life, whereas Wright 7 aims to boost the rights and powers of the people, literally the same concept. We take people out of this "bare" state and empower them.

Advantage 1

1. in the overview you say that democracy is necessary to solve "nuclear war extinction" - how is this NOT existential threat discourse?

We never stated "nuclear war extinction" we just said war.

2. Whats the link between solving democracy in the US and solving democracy abroad - if the plan just solve democracy in the US how does it spread to other corners of the world?

Democratization. By other countries adopting our democratic norms, they adopt the liberal peace theory and make themselves void of militarism. Not only that, but by solving for our own democracy, we too maintain our peaceful values and prevent warfare with any other country. The US, being a major superpower, would prove to make a catastrophic conflict if engaged in war.

3. How does democracy solve bare life?

Extend Mouffe 9 and Starr 7 ... Democracy strongly advocates for the rights of people as well as preventing the exclusion of certain groups. I understand that our country isn't quite there yet at maintaining equality, but we're getting there. Look at non-democratic countries and see how equal they are. The most equal countries in the world in terms of race and gender are democracies. The best countries in the world, in general, are democracies, and with a good country comes good treatment of their citizens.

These are all bloody terrible answers and I beg you not to cringe upon reading them.

Edited by Luhan
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post it tomorrow. I'm pretty caught up in schoolwork and I have a busy week ahead of me but I'll do as much as I can to continue the debate tomorrow.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm going to assume that you forfeit this round considering that you've started other vDebates...

When have I ever started another debate after this? Last week, I was prepping for a debate tournament, and now I have a state tournament to prep for this week, so sorry if apparently I don't have time to do this debate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the kid who dropped 0-3 in quarters at state to a spacecol aff

watch it buddy, that's pretty hypercapitalist of you to say. Edited by CMuney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf is this thread 

 

Idk, it was once a debate but now it's a flame off with only one person participating (I think they lit themselves on fire lol).

  • Upvote 4

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...