Jump to content
Dankestshrek

Surveillance- DankestShrek (A) vs NativeWARLOCK

Recommended Posts

Actually two:

-ban surveillance on all religion?

-surveillance of...

Populations or churches or both?

lol shrek v shrek

 

gg i vote for donkey

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually two:

-ban surveillance on all religion?

-surveillance of...

Populations or churches or both?

1. Ban surveillance on the based of religion, race, and Ethnisity

2. Both, surveillance of people in churchs, mosks, and other common grounds for religious meeting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ban surveillance on the based of religion, race, and Ethnisity

2. Both, surveillance of people in churchs, mosks, and other common grounds for religious meeting

First Stabile card- says use informants for terrorism- do you defend the plan as a transit to bolster the war on terror or nah? Edited by NativeWarlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final one-

What about religious/racial organizations that use the Usfg's surveillance? As in co-operation; are they disallowed from the surveillance tech cause its based on a religious/racial situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final one-

What about religious/racial organizations that use the Usfg's surveillance? As in co-operation; are they disallowed from the surveillance tech cause its based on a religious/racial situation?

if the religious organisation is wanting to use the USFG's tech to do surveillance on its own members then it wouldn't be a problem, because it would be dealing with the organisation its self doing the surveillance, and not the Usfg, the plan is restricting the Usfg's use of surveillance, and how it determinants who to survival, and who not to survival. So if the Usfg when out of its way to get in cahoots with a organisation to spy on its members then it would be on the basis of Race, Religion, or Ethnicity that would be ruled unconstitutional. So the organisation its self could use the Usfg for teck help, but it couldn't then give the information to the Usfg.

 

The first card of the 1ac, talks about how individuals could report suspicious activity, but they don't because of the chilling effect caused by FBI informants. me saying that the organisation can use surveillance, doesn't make that advantage go away, because the organisation couldn't then turn it over to the FBI. There would be no chilling effect because they would still trust the FBI, because its their community doing the Surveillance, and not the FBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you see the federal surveillance structure is like an onion..

While Deleuze would have us think surveillance is an assemblage, it's got layers laddie

Thats Donkey in 69

 

And that makes the Shrekkoning inevitable- turns case

Farquad 4/20

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Deleuze would have us think surveillance is an assemblage, it's got layers laddie

Thats Donkey in 69

 

And that makes the Shrekkoning inevitable- turns case

Farquad 4/20

i gave you that k :3

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How does the ALT on the K solve?

2. Can you explain the link on the K, in your own words?

 

3. What is the "Event" or a "Particular event"?

 

4. Can you elaborate on your solvency arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, font is tight

 

 

1. How does the ALT on the K solve?

We refuse a collective assertion of ethics via an authority figure, ie the USfg in this instance. We embrace an individual assessment of the anti-Muslim state, but refuse to react within the confines of an order/ absolute power.

 

2. Can you explain the link on the K, in your own words?

Simulacram of truth- naming of enemies makes war inevitable, ie the American government is a terrorist. You tell people to rally around the flag of the AFF project which only re-inscribes more power, which makes violence towards outsiders inevitable. 

Universal ethics- naming of a specific racial identity in relation to surveillance structures reinforces the limits of the possible by confining liberation to one image, Haag uses the example of "The Turk". In this case, the informant. Assigning an absolute identity sets limits on our own ethics because we name them. We also get obsessed with finding situations that match the rules rather than focusing on the actual situation. 

 

3. What is the "Event" or a "Particular event"?

In this instance anti-black violence from the State, exploitation of informants, etc.  

 

4. Can you elaborate on your solvency arguments?

Agathangelou- liberal adoption of specific groups only props up more State power- invites them into the Empire via "peace" treaties. 

Antonio- obsession with roleplaying:

-eviscerates personal agency, we always will to be someone who we're not

-makes anti-black violence desirable, it gets you the ballot; means winning the round only makes you want more violence to happen to get good inherency claims for the AFF

-detaches us from the actual event of racism because we are passive spectators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up, I am super dyslexic, lots of the analytics will be slept wrong, spend a long time getting it to where its at, if spelling is your trigger, this is your warning.

2Ac, same order as the 1NC, 

 

Doc Map, is messed up. 
 

2ac Vs Shrek.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an interesting debate, and a very difficult one to judge.

 

I vote Neg.

 

RFD: The argument this came down to is the texts of the plan and CP. I think that the Aff misinterprets the CP to mean that the Neg is making being a white supremacist a racial thing rather than a political one, when I think the CP only contends that if someone is a white supremacist/right-wing terrorist you can monitor them on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity. The CP isn't saying you can monitor anyone on the basis of being a white supremacist, rather you can monitor white supremacists on the basis of race. Because most of the Aff answers to the CP are predicated on this understanding, I have a lot of conceded offense. Any risk the Neg wins that the CP alone is key to fighting white nationalism, hate crimes, violence etc. means I vote Neg. The CP solves and turns the Aff even before I consider the DA.

 

Other notes:

-I think the Aff plan text is way to vague for their one advantage.

1. They only use the word "surveillance" which forces me to accept that blood quantum monitoring is a type of surveillance.

2. Most of the Neg's offense would be avoided if you made your plan text to cease the use of FBI informants in Islamic communities.

-I think that PICs and severance cancel out - the Aff wouldn't have to make that perm if you didn't run a PIC. But that didn't end up mattering.

-Good job to both, very fun round to judge. Hopefully these things are helpful - I haven't judged that many rounds yet.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an interesting debate, and a very difficult one to judge.

 

I vote Neg.

 

RFD: The argument this came down to is the texts of the plan and CP. I think that the Aff misinterprets the CP to mean that the Neg is making being a white supremacist a racial thing rather than a political one, when I think the CP only contends that if someone is a white supremacist/right-wing terrorist you can monitor them on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity. The CP isn't saying you can monitor anyone on the basis of being a white supremacist, rather you can monitor white supremacists on the basis of race. Because most of the Aff answers to the CP are predicated on this understanding, I have a lot of conceded offense. Any risk the Neg wins that the CP alone is key to fighting white nationalism, hate crimes, violence etc. means I vote Neg. The CP solves and turns the Aff even before I consider the DA.

^^^^^^even if you had to look to the DA, do you think the cp solved it? Or is blood quantum the establishing factor of race, therefore you cant say "only take blood of white people to see if they're white"?^^^^^^

 

Other notes:

-I think the Aff plan text is way to vague for their one advantage.

1. They only use the word "surveillance" which forces me to accept that blood quantum monitoring is a type of surveillance.

2. Most of the Neg's offense would be avoided if you made your plan text to cease the use of FBI informants in Islamic communities.

-I think that PICs and severance cancel out - the Aff wouldn't have to make that perm if you didn't run a PIC. But that didn't end up mattering.

^^^would you explain this a bit more even though it didn't matter?^^^^

-Good job to both, very fun round to judge. Hopefully these things are helpful - I haven't judged that many rounds yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an interesting debate, and a very difficult one to judge.

 

I vote Neg.

 

RFD: The argument this came down to is the texts of the plan and CP. I think that the Aff misinterprets the CP to mean that the Neg is making being a white supremacist a racial thing rather than a political one, when I think the CP only contends that if someone is a white supremacist/right-wing terrorist you can monitor them on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity. The CP isn't saying you can monitor anyone on the basis of being a white supremacist, rather you can monitor white supremacists on the basis of race. Because most of the Aff answers to the CP are predicated on this understanding, I have a lot of conceded offense. Any risk the Neg wins that the CP alone is key to fighting white nationalism, hate crimes, violence etc. means I vote Neg. The CP solves and turns the Aff even before I consider the DA.

 

Other notes:

-I think the Aff plan text is way to vague for their one advantage.

1. They only use the word "surveillance" which forces me to accept that blood quantum monitoring is a type of surveillance.

2. Most of the Neg's offense would be avoided if you made your plan text to cease the use of FBI informants in Islamic communities.

-I think that PICs and severance cancel out - the Aff wouldn't have to make that perm if you didn't run a PIC. But that didn't end up mattering.

-Good job to both, very fun round to judge. Hopefully these things are helpful - I haven't judged that many rounds yet.

Thanks for judging

Fare assessment of the round

10/10 would bang

  • Upvote 1

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...