Jump to content
renaes

Critique my aff?

Recommended Posts

Hey, 

 

I would appreciate any criticism/feedback on the 1ac below. I've only ran it at two rounds at a local tourney so far against teams that didn't have all that much experience (i've only hit T, FW, a novice level DA and two CPs), so I don't know how it would hold up against a good team. The link is down here:

 

Thank you!

 

Also, I'm curious to know what your neg strat would be against it. Any Ks/DAs/CPs you think I should prep against? Or do you think I should just disregard this aff entirely and run something else?

Edited by renaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from just quickly perusing what you have up, i see no evidence at all that there is any such federal surveillance.  I think a good team could trash you on T-its and presumption.

 

I also think you're weak on P-spec.  Restrict how?  Your advocacy is a resolution - it has no specific action.  

 

All of this gets to framing issues.  You're basically forcing the negative to debate ends only and not means.  And generically, 'security good/bad' isn't the worst framing of a debatable issue (compare 'racism good/bad' as how a number of K affs want to frame the round), the real answer isn't going to be all one way or the other, and by refusing to endorse and discuss means of action you reduce the debate to a caricateur of the issue.  And your specific claims after your advocacy statement move you directly into 'abusive' territory.  Especially your 'be skeptical...' card, where you're directly pre-constructing the negative as necessarily racist.  (Talk about dehumanizing).  This is why the affirmative should frame the round around a specific course of action - so the negative is not pigeonholed into defending harms only when many harms are indisputably bad.  Attempting to make the negative defend the indefensible is abusive.

 

There's also a status quo / presumption issue.  The 1AC *has already happened* by the 1NC.  If your 1AC speech was sufficient to solve, it's part of the status quo, and thus negative ground.  (Oops).  Yes, I'd vote on that.  Claims about discourse solving are dangerous ground for affirmatives.

 

I mean, from a technical standpoint, I'm pretty sure a clever negative can get you to talk yourself into a loss in the first cross-x, and then use those responses in a 30s conversational pace 1NC to justify a neg ballot.  I would award extra speaker points for having the chutzpah to just sit down at that point.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this gets to framing issues.  You're basically forcing the negative to debate ends only and not means.  And generically, 'security good/bad' isn't the worst framing of a debatable issue (compare 'racism good/bad' as how a number of K affs want to frame the round), the real answer isn't going to be all one way or the other, and by refusing to endorse and discuss means of action you reduce the debate to a caricateur of the issue.  And your specific claims after your advocacy statement move you directly into 'abusive' territory.  Especially your 'be skeptical...' card, where you're directly pre-constructing the negative as necessarily racist.  (Talk about dehumanizing).  This is why the affirmative should frame the round around a specific course of action - so the negative is not pigeonholed into defending harms only when many harms are indisputably bad.  Attempting to make the negative defend the indefensible is abusive.

meh. they don't have to win security good, they can just win their agent cps or ks

 

edit: i think the above post is a good reason you should not read this aff in front of all judges, though.

Edited by Miro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the plan text is way too vague. Not only are you vulnerable to solvency attacks or topicality violations due to this, you're also vulnerable to the argument that your case contradicts itself. You read all these cards about how it's essential we stand up to the evils of government, and it's unethical to tolerate any use of drones, and then when it comes time for you to make your big bold demand that will open up space for people to feel free from securitization, you make a wishy washy meaningless proposal. It's been a long time since I've read it, but isn't there a Zizek card somewhere about how this kind of fake utopianism is bad? Regardless, I feel that this objection to your case would be a strong one.

I think you should just end all use of domestic drone surveillance. You will be opened up to the possibility of a PIC, but that's okay. There are plenty of ways you can respond to the PIC. First, the usual theory arguments. Second, directly arguing against the specifics of what they're trying to allow. Third, arguing that the rhetorical strength of your demand depends on an uncompromising approach to ending drone usage. Fourth, arguing that allowing drones any foothold is bad for reasons of government corruption, legal precedence, moral normalization, and other slippery slope ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...