Jump to content
FUDGE

<A>MrFudgeFox vs <N>SnarkosaurusRex

Recommended Posts

CX:

 

Some questions about your advocacy statement:

Will you defend a reduction in domestic surveillance within the US?

 

Do you defend state action?

--- If not, why not?

 

Who do you "stand in solidarity" with?

 

If you're "return[ing] the symbolic gift of liberation through the 3d printed weapon," aren't you increasing the amount of government control?

--- Can you get a rain check?

 

Your authors say 3d guns are liberatory because "no one can take them away." How did that work out for those folks up in Oregon?

 

Some questions about your cards:

Your Cody Wilson evidence makes an awful lot of claims about how the world works. Why should we believe him?

 

You read a bunch of cards about God/Nietzsche being dead. How does affirming 3d printing do anything with that?

 

On your impacts:

The only external impact I found was 'Cap -> Genocide.' Anything I missed?

--- Your Zizek card on this is pretty specific to Agamben's refutation of Holocaust deniers. Where exactly does he apply this claim to the political state of America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I don't care if you send me 100000000000000000000 words

 

CX:

 

Some questions about your advocacy statement:

Will you defend a reduction in domestic surveillance within the US?

 

Yeah

 

Do you defend state action?

--- If not, why not?

 

No, because the state props up an ideological apparatus built upon a conservative/liberal distinction of master signifiers. This creates a space that obscures Capitalist violence (zizek 08 card).

 

Who do you "stand in solidarity" with?

 

Cody Wilson

 

 

If you're "return[ing] the symbolic gift of liberation through the 3d printed weapon," aren't you increasing the amount of government control?

--- Can you get a rain check?

 

Nahhh, the guns are free basically and also AR15 lowers are not given any specific patent or anything and all the files can be found on the dark net. No way to really regulate these things. Like, you can buy some guns on thier website which are regulated, but that's not the part of the aff we really care about.

 

 

Your authors say 3d guns are liberatory because "no one can take them away." How did that work out for those folks up in Oregon?

 

I mean, the idea is that you need to frame this in a hegelian sense of synthesis among the gun control debate. These guns actually break after 4 shots and theyre mostly a symbolic tool than anything.

 

 

Some questions about your cards:

Your Cody Wilson evidence makes an awful lot of claims about how the world works. Why should we believe him?

 

Because he's a badass

 

 

You read a bunch of cards about God/Nietzsche being dead. How does affirming 3d printing do anything with that?

 

It throws away the particularism within the squo about the gun debate, and frankly how little it matters in the scale of how structural violence works.

 

 

On your impacts:

The only external impact I found was 'Cap -> Genocide.' Anything I missed?

--- Your Zizek card on this is pretty specific to Agamben's refutation of Holocaust deniers. Where exactly does he apply this claim to the political state of America?

 

The Zizek 08 card says that capitalism throws structural violence under the rug. Also that card is in the context of Germany 1944 true, but it has a broader message that general desubjectification within the political is bad.

 

Edited by FUDGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I don't care if you send me 100000000000000000000 words

 

Just a few quick follow ups:

 

Advocacy Statement:

Okay, what are you reducing surveillance on? How does it get reduced by voting aff?

 

You say the state produces capitalist violence, and Wilson promotes anarchism. What good is a "symbolic tool" if it can't actually induce the kind of anarchism your authors promote that actually does something concrete about the state? It seems like you just leave it in place and the aff never takes concrete measures to do reduce the state and its violence?

 

Cards:

Even if Wilson is a badass (we can discuss the validity of that claim later), why does that qualify him to make ontological claims about the world and desire? John McClane is a badass, but I don't trust him to know anything about Baudrillard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few quick follow ups:

 

Advocacy Statement:

Okay, what are you reducing surveillance on? How does it get reduced by voting aff?

 

Ok, let me clarify this then. Of course the aff doesn't actually reduce any surveillance directly by any means, but it's effectual means as a tool in debate and Cody Wilson's actual method irl are a way to subvert the ideological barring that is the surveillance apparatus.

 

You say the state produces capitalist violence, and Wilson promotes anarchism. What good is a "symbolic tool" if it can't actually induce the kind of anarchism your authors promote that actually does something concrete about the state? It seems like you just leave it in place and the aff never takes concrete measures to do reduce the state and its violence?

 

Like I said, I'm not advocating for the type of violence or even the message of libertarian thinkers such as those in Oregon take, or Anarchosyndicalist/muturalists/libcoms want. I just think that guns should't be the political's focus especially in the context of the globalized world we live in. Read a bit of my last Zizek card. It talks about "With Lenin, as with Lacan, the revolution ne s'autorise que d'elle-même: one should assume the revolutionary ACT not covered by the big Other - the fear of taking power "prematurely," the search for the guarantee, is the fear of the abyss of the act. It is only such a radical stance that allows us to break with today's predominant mode of politics, the post-political biopolitcs, which is a politics of fear, formulated as a defense against a potential victimization or harassment." now combine this with the Zizek 5 card that says ".” Crucial for the proper comical effect is not difference where we expect sameness, but, rather, sameness where we expect difference" and the Wilson card that says, "And the same goes for Christianity: we are not FIRST separated from God and THEN miraculously united with him; the point of Christianity is that the very separation unites us" and you might see where I'm going with this.

 

 

Cards:

Even if Wilson is a badass (we can discuss the validity of that claim later), why does that qualify him to make ontological claims about the world and desire? John McClane is a badass, but I don't trust him to know anything about Baudrillard. 

 

I only have to defend that his act traverses the fantasy of the modern gun debate. Anyways, I think ontological claims about the world and desire are pretty existential claims, they aren't scientific sort of things that need credentials imo.

Edited by FUDGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a few quick follow ups:

 

Advocacy Statement:

Okay, what are you reducing surveillance on? How does it get reduced by voting aff?

 

Ok, let me clarify this then. Of course the aff doesn't actually reduce any surveillance directly by any means, but it's effectual means as a tool in debate and Cody Wilson's actual method irl are a way to subvert the ideological barring that is the surveillance apparatus.

 

You say the state produces capitalist violence, and Wilson promotes anarchism. What good is a "symbolic tool" if it can't actually induce the kind of anarchism your authors promote that actually does something concrete about the state? It seems like you just leave it in place and the aff never takes concrete measures to do reduce the state and its violence?

 

Like I said, I'm not advocating for the type of violence or even the message of libertarian thinkers such as those in Oregon take, or Anarchosyndicalist/muturalists/libcoms want. I just think that guns should't be the political's focus especially in the context of the globalized world we live in. Read a bit of my last Zizek card. It talks about "With Lenin, as with Lacan, the revolution ne s'autorise que d'elle-même: one should assume the revolutionary ACT not covered by the big Other - the fear of taking power "prematurely," the search for the guarantee, is the fear of the abyss of the act. It is only such a radical stance that allows us to break with today's predominant mode of politics, the post-political biopolitcs, which is a politics of fear, formulated as a defense against a potential victimization or harassment." now combine this with the Zizek 5 card that says ".” Crucial for the proper comical effect is not difference where we expect sameness, but, rather, sameness where we expect difference" and the Zizek card that says, "And the same goes for Christianity: we are not FIRST separated from God and THEN miraculously united with him; the point of Christianity is that the very separation unites us" and you might see where I'm going with this.

 

 

Cards:

Even if Wilson is a badass (we can discuss the validity of that claim later), why does that qualify him to make ontological claims about the world and desire? John McClane is a badass, but I don't trust him to know anything about Baudrillard. 

 

I only have to defend that his act traverses the fantasy of the modern gun debate. Anyways, I think ontological claims about the world and desire are pretty existential claims, they aren't scientific sort of things that need credentials imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Limits and ground—not defending topical action explodes research burdens which makes preparation and clash impossible, which creates shallow debates that skirt the question of operationalization of the affirmative method in favor of creating self-serving biases"

 

 

Can you verify this within the context of a critical affirmative like the aff that, like if I can prove that we are core of the topic do we give you enough clash?

 

What is the link to the cap K? Just curtailing state regulation of the economy?

 

Is all individualism capitalist? Also should we align towards just keynesian status quo neoliberalism to fight capitalism? Like is that the alt?

 

What is hyper reality?

 

What does "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" have to do with the aff?

 

Why is psychoanalysis bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Limits and ground—not defending topical action explodes research burdens which makes preparation and clash impossible, which creates shallow debates that skirt the question of operationalization of the affirmative method in favor of creating self-serving biases"

 

 

Can you verify this within the context of a critical affirmative like the aff that, like if I can prove that we are core of the topic do we give you enough clash?

 

The phrase "core of the topic" is meaningless. Also, even if it wasn't, winning that guns would be core of the topic seems like it'd be difficult.

 

What is the link to the cap K? Just curtailing state regulation of the economy?

 

The "k" is an impact turn to the aff. You say cap bad, we say cap good.

 

Is all individualism capitalist? Also should we align towards just keynesian status quo neoliberalism to fight capitalism? Like is that the alt?

 

Individuist strategies strat reject the political are inherently neoliberal. We'd argue there's a distinction between neoliberalism and regulated capitalism.

The alt isn't Keynesian. We think that government interventions to correct for externalities like global warming is good, and we'll defend that the alt would result in programs like incentives for clean energy, regimes sort of like Cap and Trade, that curb emissions, and so on.

Keynesian economics isn't every kind of 'market intervention,' it's contrasted with classical economics and posits particular views of the business cycle and argues for counter-cyclical policies. Basically #NotAllRegulations

 

What is hyper reality?

 

Some Baudrillard nonsense that isn't true.

 

What does "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" have to do with the aff?

 

Hmm?

 

Why is psychoanalysis bad?

Our argument is more that it's wrong. I mean, it's probably pretty oppressive according to some people *cough* DnG *cough* but the point of those cards is that your picture of the world is wrong.

 

 

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My word count is broken, but it's 26 pages

Edit: I've got a test Tuesday morning, so if the block isn't up tonight, then it means it'll probably be up sometime Tuesday night. 

 

Your word count is 3700.

 

I can either add 1000 words to the block and we can try to keep on track later, or chop 1000 words off the 2AC.

 

CX

1) I'm pretty confused about what the aff does. In 1AC CX you say: "Of course the aff doesn't actually reduce any surveillance directly by any means" but in the 2AC on T, you say you "signify the curtailment of surveillance on CAD files," which is it?

 

2) When you say: "This is The ACT, a terroristic form of violence which traverses the fantasy and destroys the dominant capitalist symbolic order," I presume you're speaking metaphorically, correct? Otherwise this is a double turn with: "Like I said, I'm not advocating for the type of violence or even the message of libertarian thinkers such as those in Oregon take" from the 1AC CX.

2a) You said in 1AC CX that these guns only have 4 bullets, and that you don't endorse some kind of actual call to arms. How then do you end capitalism? I don't want more Zizek buzzwords, what does the aff actually do. What does it look like if carried out in the world?

 

3) Your Incommensrability DA: All this evidence says is that they did some experiments where they dressed something up as a rabbit, then said "This is a rabbit" and the sentence wasn't true...K? Why does this affect who has a better model for debate?

 

4) Your "Have a Puzzle" card -- the last sentence you highlight is this: "But if you had no opinions at all about the future, you would be paralyzed," so it seems like scenario planning is probably good, no?

 

5) On the Cap K, you say that "Hegelian synthesis between two conscious bodies" is good, and that we should focus on similarities instead of differences, but then the very next card you read is "only totalizing method provides the logical foundation for constructing a clear blueprint of action" (Lukacs). How is this not another double turn?  

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX? Or is the round not going anymore?

oh man,I'm sorry, I've been really busy lately with school. I still want to continue, but maybe next week.

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...