Jump to content
TortillaBoy

vDebate [Surveillance] PailAmbrose (Aff) vs TortillaBoy (Neg)

Recommended Posts

I'll judge. I'm tab, and flowing on paper. I'm experienced with a wide variety of arguments, but I obviously do have preferences. Just extend warrants and we should all have a good time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NecroPTX

-What is "Whiteness"?

 

-Is whiteness apart of the institution (The prison structure, the bureaucracy, etc) of the prison system?

 

-Is whiteness apart of society, and if so, what society?

 

-What does it mean to be "black"?

 

-Is whiteness the causative factor

 

-So what is nectropolitics? How does necropolitics constitute what is "dead" and "alive"?

 

-What is the "guard-prisoner relationship"? Is guard-prisoner relationship similar to the master-slave relationship that Wilderson writes about? 

 

-When Sharman 14 says at the end that there is social death of  prisoners, does social death there refer to their capacity to have agency is taken away or what exactly is it saying? I see it talks about being the living dead, so would that mean their life is without value?

 

-How does the plan solve?

 

Plan/Case

-What exactly does this plan look like in practice?

 

-How do you suppose that abolishment of the the prison system is a curtailment in surveillance?

 

-What exactly happens to criminals currently inside the prisons once it's abolished?

 

-So what do we do with people who break the law since there are no prisons?

 

Framing and Solvency

-So what is "deontology" and what constitutes it?

 

-What would you call reform, and how is your plan not that?

 

May have follow up questions, not sure yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NecroPTX

-What is "Whiteness"?

 

"Whiteness" is a form of privilege which gives people a structural advantage in society, and which also enables them to deny their power.

 

-Is whiteness apart of the institution (The prison structure, the bureaucracy, etc) of the prison system?

 

Whiteness enables people to evade the prison system. The prison system is based around a racialized notion of criminality, which views black and brown bodies as inherently suspicious.

 

-Is whiteness apart of society, and if so, what society?

 

Whiteness is more of a privilege on the individual level, rather than a societal level. Whiteness does permeate society, but I wouldn't characterize it as a part of society.

 

-What does it mean to be "black"?

 

I can't say, the black identity is diverse. I don't want to essentialize.

 

-Is whiteness the causative factor

 

I'm not sure what this question refers to. Of prisons? Of blackness?

 

-So what is nectropolitics? How does necropolitics constitute what is "dead" and "alive"?

 

Necropolitics is a system which allows the State to decide where and how a subject dies. "Dead" in the sense of necropolitics can be physically dead or socially dead, where people experience a loss of value and autonomy.

 

-What is the "guard-prisoner relationship"? Is guard-prisoner relationship similar to the master-slave relationship that Wilderson writes about? 

 

The "guard-prisoners relationship" is a hierarchy between the guards and the prisoner, in which the prisoners has virtually no power to challenge the guard. The extreme power imbalance between the guards and prisoners is very similar to the master-slave relationship, yes.

 

-When Sharman 14 says at the end that there is social death of  prisoners, does social death there refer to their capacity to have agency is taken away or what exactly is it saying? I see it talks about being the living dead, so would that mean their life is without value?

 

A person who is "socially dead" is physically alive, but lacks basic agency and potentiality. They have been expelled from humanity, so to speak. In the eyes of the State they are without value, and can be killed at the discretion of the sovereign.

 

-How does the plan solve?

 

The 1AC identifies a specific power structure which causes social and physical death, at a rate reflexive of genocide. The plan removes this structure on the federal level.

 

Plan/Case

-What exactly does this plan look like in practice?

 

There are no more federal prisons and former prisoners are released.

 

-How do you suppose that abolishment of the the prison system is a curtailment in surveillance?

 

Prisoners are under constant surveillance by the State while in prison.

 

-What exactly happens to criminals currently inside the prisons once it's abolished?

 

They are released.

 

-So what do we do with people who break the law since there are no prisons?

 

Depends on what they do. For some, fines would be appropriate, for others drug rehabilitation or mental health care may be more appropriate.

 

Framing and Solvency

-So what is "deontology" and what constitutes it?

 

Deontology is an ethical system which holds that morality is based on adherence to principles and obligations. In the case of the state, I argue that there is a prima facie burden to protect rights and dignity.

 

-What would you call reform, and how is your plan not that?

 

Reform is an attempt to alleviate the harms of a system without challenging the structure of that system. The plan is not reform because it rejects the moral legitimacy of prisons, and by extension, the legitimacy of the State which utilizes them. 

 

May have follow up questions, not sure yet.

 

Cool, I'd be glad to answer them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate feedback on this, that won't affect how I debate further, through personal messages (possibly after round, not sure what everyone feels about it). I want to see if people think my style is effective. 

 

Open for CX :)

1NC vs PailAmbrose.docx

Edited by TortillaBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K

 

What other factors cause the structural violence in prisons?

 

How do you define the "catastrophe" that your evidence refers to?

 

What exactly about the 1AC is linear? How many causes would I need to identify not to link?

 

Does the K conclude that banning prisons is a bad idea?

 

On the first impact, how exactly will banning prisons "recreate our impacts"? How can there be structural violence in prisons if there aren't prisons?

 

On the second impact, you argue that catastrophes are used for state legitimacy. Are you arguing that the plan will cause a nuclear war or something?

 

If challenging a "single, isolated, constituent of the system" proves linearity, then how can any change be achieved?

 

Edit: On the impacts of the K - are you claiming that by voting aff these "catastrophes" will happen?

 

Framing

 

When you say "weigh the impacts" are your impacts just the impacts to the K?

 

Edit: how can we "weigh impacts" under the K? How can we even claim impacts under the K?

 

How exactly does saying "rights are the most important impact" prevent a policy focus or block education?

 

Case Stuff

 

If reforming whiteness makes whiteness net-worse and you provide no anti-whiteness advocacy, then do you propose that we do nothing?

 

Even if there are other conceptions of racism and white privilege, why can the plan not solve the instance we've outlined?

 

Why can whiteness not be both individual and systemic?

 

There may be a follow up. Also, what pronouns would you prefer I use for you?

Edited by PailAmbrose
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate feedback on this, that won't affect how I debate further, through personal messages (possibly after round, not sure what everyone feels about it). I want to see if people think my style is effective. 

 

Open for CX :)

The complexity K makes more sense against standard policy aff's than soft left affs.

The warrants and explanation stuff should go in the 2nc.

Why no T?

 

My other comments would affect the block so I'll hold off on those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The complexity K makes more sense against standard policy aff's than soft left affs.

The warrants and explanation stuff should go in the 2nc.

Why no T?

 

My other comments would affect the block so I'll hold off on those.

This is a test run for he K, it's why I went Neg, but I appreciate the comments. 

 

Cross X will come in a bit, still and school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate feedback on this, that won't affect how I debate further, through personal messages (possibly after round, not sure what everyone feels about it). I want to see if people think my style is effective. 

 

Open for CX :)

I would have at least one other possibly winning position - because you're not going to win a case turn, thus your only offense is the K. Like a T or something short (if you really like the K)

 

At this point all they have to do is focus the K and its gg wp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have at least one other possibly winning position - because you're not going to win a case turn, thus your only offense is the K. Like a T or something short (if you really like the K)

 

At this point all they have to do is focus the K and its gg wp

 

I know any impact turn would be just wrong, but why wouldn't you criticism methodology or solvency mech? Like reading a state link as a solvency turn? (My understanding of the lit is minor so forgive my ignorance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a test run for he K, it's why I went Neg, but I appreciate the comments. 

 

Cross X will come in a bit, still and school. 

You should watch the NDT final round between Georgetown AM and Northwestern BK from a few years back (it's on Youtube). Georgetown beats NW on a 3-2 on the complexity K. I'd recommend flowing it and incorporating their args into your blocks, and the RFD's are also on Wake Forest's website so you can tweak your file from recommendations in there too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K

 

What other factors cause the structural violence in prisons?

Beats me. What I'm getting at with the K is that you use reductionism. It's not to say that whiteness or prisons don't cause structural violence [in prisons], the argument is that it's reductionistic because of you only show one relationship between constituents in the system. You analyze the relationships between prisoners and between the guards and the prisoner. You omit guard-guard relationships, like in the adaptability of the system. I'd like to believe that prison guards are not more pre-disposed to rape because they are prison guards. A complex model takes into account the relationships of nodes, which makes up the system. Using complexity to try and explain this phenomena, you could say that it has to do with feed back loops. Possibly, there is a negative emotional tole (a factor that affects a node as a result of the relationships of all other nodes) that is placed on the guard when they begin their work. This emotional tole wears down on them (adaptability) and they begin to use rape as an outlet (direct node-node relationship). That affects both parties, and then prisoner has now taken an emotional tole, and they two turn to rape. Now we have two nodes, and the cycle continues. They both now rape people, and that means the stress keeps moving through the system. This is what the concept of adaptability is. That stress, creates more stress in the system, which feeds back on the individual and makes it worse. This can continue for forever. 

 

How do you define the "catastrophe" that your evidence refers to?

It an be synonymous with crisis. A systematic crisis in your case would be like prisoner-on-prisoner violence. 

 

What exactly about the 1AC is linear? How many causes would I need to identify not to link?

The logic and links. It only attempts to explain the system through linear logic, like following a single chain of reaction between nodes in a single path. The way we understand systems is that this is not how a system works, so we're missing something in trying to make sense of how the problem works and spreads and how we can begin to solve it. An analogy I like, is imagine you are trying to look at the sky and connect the stars to make things like constellations. If you look through a toilet paper tube and only look at a few stars, you would see a radically different sky, and ultimately constellation, than if weren't blocking your peripheral. Similarly, complexity looks at the system as a whole, rather than a section of it. 

 

Edit for second part of the question: It's more the quality, than the quantity, I guess you could say. There's no definitive number. Something is sufficient because, for example, the evidence you used for your internal link was created with complexity theory. 

 

Does the K conclude that banning prisons is a bad idea?

The K concludes your method of going about it is bad. It's not attack the idea of banning a prison, it's attacking the way you come to understand and try and act on a system.  Action built on linearity is bad because it only seems like a good idea because you're looking at a section of the system. When you look at the ramifications of banning a prison outside of the ones you've isolated, it's highly possible to find that this might liberate people from a hellish-institution, but that created problems elsewhere. Often, ideas seem good when they are isolated, but then when you realize that they affect other things around you and there are other factors at play, then maybe not so much.

 

On the first impact, how exactly will banning prisons "recreate our impacts"? How can there be structural violence in prisons if there aren't prisons?

Technically, there can't be, but you can replicate it through a different method of transmission, or by affecting the stability of the system, etc. When we look at your  case, we see that you don't even have a definitive plan for all of the prisoners. They just go free. While it's arguable that the majority of prisoners are people convicted of non-violent crimes, they still will be coming into a system, with unpredictable effects, and same with the violent criminals. They can create crime themselves, and then this crime creates more structural violence. 

 

On the second impact, you argue that catastrophes are used for state legitimacy. Are you arguing that the plan will cause a nuclear war or something?

Not saying it will, but not saying it's an impossibility, and I don't defend that either one is more likely than the other. Small changes in a system can create systematic disaster. You don't know how your plan will affect the global system because it is predicated on reductionism. This could affect it in a number of ways, some highly unpredictable.

 

If challenging a "single, isolated, constituent of the system" proves linearity, then how can any change be achieved?

Change can happen all the time. We're not saying it can't, and we're not saying it's impossible to predict outcomes, and we I don't say that your impacts aren't rule. What we get at is that focusing on a single factor inside of a bigger system is a terrible way to go about the problem. Think about it like this. We, so far in the round, are at the stance that prisons are 

Edit: On the impacts of the K - are you claiming that by voting aff these "catastrophes" will happen?

Not defending they it will, and I'm not defending it won't. The magnitued is infinite and so is the probability. If you don't cause a crisis that's fine. Your plan worked similarly to the NASA scenario in the Tinsley card. The bigger problem is now that people now think it's ok to make poorly thought out decisions without taking the time to look at all the possible interactions with the system, simply because it worked once. Rhetoriclal Question: If one of us wins this round, does that mean our execution was perfect, or were there places that we still could have done better?

 

Framing

 

When you say "weigh the impacts" are your impacts just the impacts to the K?

As of now, sure. It's your necroptx vs my K. The impacts on the K can sort of be broken down like this:

 

Cause your own impacts, or create an infinite number of other impacts, and case gets turned with net worse surveillance and there's no solvency on them

 

OR you solve your impacts, nothing happens right away, but the building impacts like the ones in eden, don't get solved and happen because of your 'popularization' of linearity and the case gets turned.

 

Edit: how can we "weigh impacts" under the K? How can we even claim impacts under the K?

Both teams will give different break downs. I'll probably say the same things I've said before on the K for the impacts, and I'll give my framework. You'll probably say the K is wrong, or it's false, or stupid, or you'll try and turn it on me, or anything. I don't know what you're going to say next. The point of my framework is it allows us to put all of our stuff on the impact calc and voters. Its a favorable thing for both teams, and it's most fair. 

 

How exactly does saying "rights are the most important impact" prevent a policy focus or block education?

Because its uneducational to cast aside my arguments simply because they were all not deontological. It gives more policy focus because, like real policy makers, they consider all effects. No sense in passing a bill that is good on paper but not in practice. Ultimately, this also good for the judges because it allows them to base the round on the flow. If in a round, we both win two impacts, the judge can vote on the bigger one, based on how they precieved the flow. 

 

Case Stuff

 

If reforming whiteness makes whiteness net-worse and you provide no anti-whiteness advocacy, then do you propose that we do nothing?

No, post alt, when we want to fight whiteness, our understanding of complexity will give us a better understanding of the issue. It's not saying do nothing, it's saying do the alt so that we can take the first step to solve all other problems in the world. 

 

Even if there are other conceptions of racism and white privilege, why can the plan not solve the instance we've outlined?

It totally could, in theory, but that takes a close second to the fact that you create linearity so more crisis happen, and that when crisis happens, the problem becomes net worse. 

 

Why can whiteness not be both individual and systemic?

It is systemic as a result of the collection of the individuals interacting in a system. A person can have whiteness, but the way whiteness affects a person, and how that in turn affects other, is what makes it systemic. The relationship between people and whiteness is a system. Whiteness is in relation to something else and it's comparative. If it has to do with advantages, by proxy, that means that there is a force or influence in the system on everyone. If I am at an advantage, that means somewhere, someone has to be at a disadvantage. Whiteness is solely complex. To understand whiteness, we have to realize its not just bestowed in the individual, its systemic.

 

There may be a follow up. Also, what pronouns would you prefer I use for you?

If you really want: He, Him, His, Parker's. I have, throughout this file, referred to myself as we as a result of my tendency to say it for normal debate rounds. I mean, technically, its your CX, but I guess I'll ask you the same question. Feel free to entertain it. 

 

 

Edited by TortillaBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've been calling myself "we" and you "them" without even really thinking about it. I use he/him/his/Paul's but I suspect we'll just use plurals from here on though. Word count is 1684 for the 2AC.

 

Edit: I forgot to say, but any feedback would be appreciated, I hadn't really heard this K going into the round

2AC.docx

Edited by PailAmbrose
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired, so I am going to just relax. Will post in the morning, probably around 7-8 oclock. 

 

Yeah, I've been calling myself "we" and you "them" without even really thinking about it. I use he/him/his/Paul's but I suspect we'll just use plurals from here on though. Word count is 1684 for the 2AC.

 

Edit: I forgot to say, but any feedback would be appreciated, I hadn't really heard this K going into the round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we assume there are other factors at play in prisons if you don't provide them or any prison-specific evidence?

 

Further, why should we care about the other factors if they cannot cause our impacts once prisons are banned?

 

You continually say things like "Aff creates net-worse surveillance through the triggering of their impacts, and/or the SQ" or that we make "proliferating systemic crisis inevitable." How is that not a linear impact?

 

How can anything be changed if we have to examine and change the entirety of society every time we need to make decisions?

 

How is "Aff solvency mechanism and internal links ignore the complexities and interconnections" not a link of omission?

 
Where in the Mangalagiu card does it discuss complexity theory at all? All it seems to be saying "every society has a different response to crisis."
 
Why vote neg if you refuse to defend an impact?
 
Can you define "utopian fiat"? What makes this plan different than fiating "the NSA should stop mandating backdoors"?
 
There may be a follow up, but probably not.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've been calling myself "we" and you "them" without even really thinking about it. I use he/him/his/Paul's but I suspect we'll just use plurals from here on though. Word count is 1684 for the 2AC.

 

Edit: I forgot to say, but any feedback would be appreciated, I hadn't really heard this K going into the round

I think the time spent on the "framing" block could have been better spent (ironically) setting up more framing in the other parts of the debate. Even though it's the 2AC, you should be setting up the flowmath for how the judge should evaluate the round (things like 'They don't have an external impact -- vote aff on presumption.') 

You should filter your 2AC through how you plan to frame those arguments in the 2AR, and then put those at the top of each 'section' of arguments. A common criticism in aff losses at higher levels of debate is that the '1AR didn't sound much like the 2AR and the 2AC' -- IE that it seems like each aff speech is making new arguments instead of developing and winning the arguments they came up with in the 2AC, which makes the aff look reactionary to every neg speech. By getting these framing/flowmath devices out front, you can anchor your 1AR and your 2AR around those which develops consistency and makes sure that you can focus on what you're winning out of the block. For example, say the neg doesn't do a good job developing an external impact. Then the 1AR can filter a lot of the K through: 'Extend that you should vote aff on presumption -- the block didn't do a good enough job developing an external impact. <<example, example, some case outweighs work>> This means that at best they have non-uq case turns but risk of aff solvency outweighs because...'

At that point you're winning arguments, and not just trying to scramble to extend everything on the flow and see what sticks.

 

*edit: typos 

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why should we assume there are other factors at play in prisons if you don't provide them or any prison-specific evidence?

Because even if neither of us can provide all the other factors in the system, we know that systems are not linear.

Further, why should we care about the other factors if they cannot cause our impacts once prisons are banned?

Because that's one level of the system. Your looking at that dense group of intersections, while ignoring it's interconnections inside a higher system. The prison system is inside larger social system around it, like the municipalities, and that's is the bigger nation system, and that's inside the global system. You can keep looking deeper into the web, and find dense interconnections, but they still have many interconnections to the rest of the system. (one way you could imagine it is like a circle inside another circle, except the lines the circles are made of are blurred, because it intersects with the other circle. Also think about this. An atom is a system, and that atom is in a system. On one level, the atom is made of electrons and protons that interact. On a higher level, those atoms and their subatomic particles interact will other atoms and their subatomic particles. A level lower is looking at the system of like the proton. And we know protons are made up of even more subatomic particles. We would never understand chemistry as well as we do know if we only looked at one atom, and it's interactions with a few other atoms. And chemistry is a sort of system, governed by simple rules like all systems, that atoms and other things are factors it.)

 

In another case, if we look at witnesses as a sort of system or as a "rule" of the larger system, we see that you only remove an avenue of it. Your action doesn't change how whiteness exist, it just removes one of its relations in a system

 

You continually say things like "Aff creates net-worse surveillance through the triggering of their impacts, and/or the SQ" or that we make "proliferating systemic crisis inevitable." How is that not a linear impact?

It's not linear because we don't outline a single linear line that transmission follows. What we do know is that, even empirically, crisis are used as justification for surveillance. Systems do have waves of patterns and feedback loops, and we can reasonably come to the conclusion that it is going to happen again.

 

How can anything be changed if we have to examine and change the entirety of society every time we need to make decisions?

We don't need to uproot society and radically change the institutions and relations that govern them. In fact, small actions can create radical change to a system. Change doesn't have to happen after examination, but we argue it should. What we say is that we need to look before we jump. If we don't use complexity to get a view of the whole systems interconnections to the lower system, then we can't possibly imagine how there will be meaningful change. Systems are adaptive, so if we don't fundamentally change how whiteness operates, then it will just adapt to the change. Complexity is the first step to addressing all levels of the problem you present in the round. The prisoner-prisoner relationship might play a larger role in psychology, so maybe the problem isn't just the prison, it could be the system of the prion intensifying it. The prisoner-guard relationships and the advent of rapes are highly likely to not be as simple as you have outlined them. And all of those combined might give us different insight to how necropolitics as a whole works. 

 

Let me give a really good scenario that articulates the point I might have been missing to articulate well enough. There are different dimensions, similar to how there are different systems. If we were 2D, that means we are only able to see that dimension down. I can see the single points - thats the 0-dimension. Next, I can look at how two points can interact, to create a line between them. Now I have an understanding of small understanding of the first dimension down. Now we know that the first dimension isn't that simple; two lines can interact. So now we can have an understanding of how single points (0 dimensions) have relationships to make lines (1st dimensions) and how two lines can interact via two points to create intersections, and work in new ways, like up and down and not left and right (2nd dimension). However, we know that the whole is greater than the sum of those parts. There's a third dimension of relationships, and all other dimensions operate with rules under that dimension. 

 

Your plan takes a two dimensional approach. We don't argue that the lines themselves are wrong, we argue that there is more than just those lines, and we need to look at more than that to solve the problem. The problem could be "above" the problem. As I said before, linearity only looks great because you're only looking at it through a linear 'lense'. It is possibly right, but it's not the whole story. It's one part of it. 

 

How is "Aff solvency mechanism and internal links ignore the complexities and interconnections" not a link of omission?

That's our critique of linearity. Linearity ignores the way systems work, and the best models for systems we have is complexity. 
 
Where in the Mangalagiu card does it discuss complexity theory at all? All it seems to be saying "every society has a different response to crisis."
Fair enough, it doesn't explicitly state complexity theory. However, the card directly talks about organizational methods of systems and describes the pillars of them with them with the same principals of complexity. 
 
Why vote neg if you refuse to defend an impact?
I don't outline a specific definitive impact because that's not the point of the argument. It's like a double bind. Either you do one thing, or you do the other. If you really want me to defend a specific stance, then I'll give you the one I've been articulating the whole round. I'll defend that you have a good change of solving the problem on the single level, the prison. Abolishing the prison will technically work, that said it's like a DA. You divert the problem, and you create crisis inevitable. 
 
Can you define "utopian fiat"? What makes this plan different than fiating "the NSA should stop mandating backdoors"?
Utopia fiat is a fiat where you overcome the link two an argument, no matter how strong it is, or overcome an argument wholly or in part, solely via fiat. I argue that it's not possible, congress won't forget tomorrow. I argue that its unfair because if you can claim fiat simply because you say so, then we should lose every round. And lastly, we argue that if you sufficiently win the flow and the voters can you claim fiat. 
 
There may be a follow up, but probably not.

Sound good! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why should we assume there are other factors at play in prisons if you don't provide them or any prison-specific evidence?

Because even if neither of us can provide all the other factors in the system, we know that systems are not linear.

Further, why should we care about the other factors if they cannot cause our impacts once prisons are banned?

Because that's one level of the system. Your looking at that dense group of intersections, while ignoring it's interconnections inside a higher system. The prison system is inside larger social system around it, like the municipalities, and that's is the bigger nation system, and that's inside the global system. You can keep looking deeper into the web, and find dense interconnections, but they still have many interconnections to the rest of the system. (one way you could imagine it is like a circle inside another circle, except the lines the circles are made of are blurred, because it intersects with the other circle. Also think about this. An atom is a system, and that atom is in a system. On one level, the atom is made of electrons and protons that interact. On a higher level, those atoms and their subatomic particles interact will other atoms and their subatomic particles. A level lower is looking at the system of like the proton. And we know protons are made up of even more subatomic particles. We would never understand chemistry as well as we do know if we only looked at one atom, and it's interactions with a few other atoms. And chemistry is a sort of system, governed by simple rules like all systems, that atoms and other things are factors it.)

 

In another case, if we look at witnesses as a sort of system or as a "rule" of the larger system, we see that you only remove an avenue of it. Your action doesn't change how whiteness exist, it just removes one of its relations in a system

 

You continually say things like "Aff creates net-worse surveillance through the triggering of their impacts, and/or the SQ" or that we make "proliferating systemic crisis inevitable." How is that not a linear impact?

It's not linear because we don't outline a single linear line that transmission follows. What we do know is that, even empirically, crisis are used as justification for surveillance. Systems do have waves of patterns and feedback loops, and we can reasonably come to the conclusion that it is going to happen again.

 

How can anything be changed if we have to examine and change the entirety of society every time we need to make decisions?

We don't need to uproot society and radically change the institutions and relations that govern them. In fact, small actions can create radical change to a system. Change doesn't have to happen after examination, but we argue it should. What we say is that we need to look before we jump. If we don't use complexity to get a view of the whole systems interconnections to the lower system, then we can't possibly imagine how there will be meaningful change. Systems are adaptive, so if we don't fundamentally change how whiteness operates, then it will just adapt to the change. Complexity is the first step to addressing all levels of the problem you present in the round. The prisoner-prisoner relationship might play a larger role in psychology, so maybe the problem isn't just the prison, it could be the system of the prion intensifying it. The prisoner-guard relationships and the advent of rapes are highly likely to not be as simple as you have outlined them. And all of those combined might give us different insight to how necropolitics as a whole works. 

 

Let me give a really good scenario that articulates the point I might have been missing to articulate well enough. There are different dimensions, similar to how there are different systems. If we were 2D, that means we are only able to see that dimension down. I can see the single points - thats the 0-dimension. Next, I can look at how two points can interact, to create a line between them. Now I have an understanding of small understanding of the first dimension down. Now we know that the first dimension isn't that simple; two lines can interact. So now we can have an understanding of how single points (0 dimensions) have relationships to make lines (1st dimensions) and how two lines can interact via two points to create intersections, and work in new ways, like up and down and not left and right (2nd dimension). However, we know that the whole is greater than the sum of those parts. There's a third dimension of relationships, and all other dimensions operate with rules under that dimension. 

 

Your plan takes a two dimensional approach. We don't argue that the lines themselves are wrong, we argue that there is more than just those lines, and we need to look at more than that to solve the problem. The problem could be "above" the problem. As I said before, linearity only looks great because you're only looking at it through a linear 'lense'. It is possibly right, but it's not the whole story. It's one part of it. 

 

How is "Aff solvency mechanism and internal links ignore the complexities and interconnections" not a link of omission?

That's our critique of linearity. Linearity ignores the way systems work, and the best models for systems we have is complexity. 
 
Where in the Mangalagiu card does it discuss complexity theory at all? All it seems to be saying "every society has a different response to crisis."
Fair enough, it doesn't explicitly state complexity theory. However, the card directly talks about organizational methods of systems and describes the pillars of them with them with the same principals of complexity. 
 
Why vote neg if you refuse to defend an impact?
I don't outline a specific definitive impact because that's not the point of the argument. It's like a double bind. Either you do one thing, or you do the other. If you really want me to defend a specific stance, then I'll give you the one I've been articulating the whole round. I'll defend that you have a good change of solving the problem on the single level, the prison. Abolishing the prison will technically work, that said it's like a DA. You divert the problem, and you create crisis inevitable. 
 
Can you define "utopian fiat"? What makes this plan different than fiating "the NSA should stop mandating backdoors"?
Utopia fiat is a fiat where you overcome the link two an argument, no matter how strong it is, or overcome an argument wholly or in part, solely via fiat. I argue that it's not possible, congress won't forget tomorrow. I argue that its unfair because if you can claim fiat simply because you say so, then we should lose every round. And lastly, we argue that if you sufficiently win the flow and the voters can you claim fiat. 
 
Edit: Shit, got hasty with it and forgot the second part. And the fiat isn't different. The Aff has to win sufficient arguments to overcome the fact that, for example, it doesn't se
em like something the NSA would follow. If fiat was exactly what you say it is, then they could fiat the plan past anything and there would be Aff wins every round. It's obviously not how it works, because neg can win, so I'm saying reject your response. What I was arguing is that in the way of solvency, it doesn't pass the "makes sense test". 
 
There may be a follow up, but probably not.

Sound good! 

 

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...