Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Suh dudes, I need a solid alt for the neolib k for this year's topic. Something that falls in line with a discourse first FW but isn't just "reject the aff" (which is what I've been running this season. i'd say we win on the K about 80% of the time, but we almost always kick the alt and go for the links as solvency deficits/inevitability claims/disads to their methodology). I've heard historical materialism or universalism are pretty solid?? @ my fellow k hacks, help 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just saying you shouldnt always run the same alt consistently. You should change ur alt versus different affs such as identity/PoMo/soft Policy/hard Policy.

 

but as ur "fellow k hack" I'd suggest histo mat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw my two cents in- I think you should be going for some sort of epistemology kind of framing- you want to show that the aff logic in acting itself is bad- something like this: 

 

Alt Stuff

Vote negative to open up space for resistance and critique against neoliberalism

Bleiker 2, Roland, professor of international relations at the University of Queensland, Politics After Seattle: Dilemmas of the Anti-Globalisation Movement, conflits.revues.org/1057     

46 While engendering a series of problematic processes, globalisation has also increased the possibility to engage political issues. Before the advent of speed, for instance, a protest event was a mostly local issue. But the presence of global media networks has fundamentally changed the dynamics and terrains of dissent. Political activism no longer takes place solely in the streets of Prague, Seoul or Asuncion. The Battle for Seattle, for instance, was above all a media spectacle, a battle for the hearts and minds of global television audiences. Political activism, wherever it occurs and whatever form it takes, has become intrinsically linked with the non-spatial logic of speed. It has turned into a significant transnational phenomena. 47With the exploration of new terrains of dissent, global activists also face a series of political dilemmas. This essay has addressed two of them : the tension between violent and nonviolent means of resistance, and the issue of unequal representation, the question of who can speak for whom. Rather than suggesting that these issues can be understood and solved by applying a pre-existing body of universal norms and principles, the essay has drawn attention to the open-ended and contingent nature of the puzzles in question. Protest acts against the key multilateral institutions of the world economy will continue, and so will debates about the nature of globalisation and the methods of interfering with its governance. Keeping these debates alive, and seeking to include as many voices, perspectives and constituencies as possible, is a first step towards something that may one day resemble globalisation with a human face. 48But making global governance more humane, more transparent and more democratic is no easy task. Principles of transparency and democracy have historically been confined to the territorial boundaries of the sovereign nation state. Within these boundaries there is the possibility for order and the rule of law. But the space beyond is seen as threatening and anarchical - that is, lacking a central regulatory institution. The standard realist response to these perceptions is well know : protect sovereignty, order and civility at the domestic level by promoting policies that maximise the state's military capacity and, so it is assumed, its security.68 It is questionable to what extent realist policies remain adequate - and ethical for that matter - at a time when process of globalisation have lead to a fundamental transformation of political dynamics. 49The Battle for Seattle, and the media spectacle that issued form it, may well demonstrate that the struggle for power takes place in a realm that lacks a central regulatory institution. But realist interpretations make the mistake of embarking on a fatalistic interpretation of this political realm, constituting conflict as an inevitable element of the system's structure. It may be more adequate - and certainly more productive - to characterise the international system in the age of globalisation and transnational dynamics not as anarchical, but as rhizomatic. For Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari a rhizome is a multiplicity that has no coherent and bounded whole, no beginning or end, only a middle from where it expands and overspills. Any point of the rhizome is connected to any other. It has no fixed points to anchor thought, only lines, magnitudes, dimensions, plateaus, and they are always in motion.69 How, then, is one to reach a moral position in a world of webs, multitudes and multiplicities ? Are the lines, dimensions and plateaus of the rhizome so randomly arranged that we are no longer able to generate the kind of stable knowledge that is necessary to advance critique and, indeed, dissent ? Is the very notion of political foundations still possible at a time when social consciousness gushes out of five-second sound-bites and the corresponding hyperreal images that flicker over our television screens ? Are there alternatives to realist approaches that protect domestic order by warding off everything that threatens it from the outside ? Answers to such questions do, of course, not come easy. And they may not be uniform either. But an adequate response will need to engage in one way or another with the search for political engagements beyond the territorial boundaries of the nation state.50 An extension of democratic principles into the more ambiguous international realm is as essential as it is difficult. It will need to be based on a commitment to democracy that goes beyond the establishment of legal and institutional procedures. William Connolly has pointed in the right direction when arguing for a democratic ethos. The key to such cultural democratisation, he believes, "is that it embodies a productive ambiguity at its very centre, always resisting attempts to allow one side or the other to achieve final victory."70 Such a model is, of course, the antithesis of prevailing realist wisdom, and perhaps of modern attitudes in general, which seek to achieve security and democracy through the establishment of order and the repression of all ambiguity.71 51Rather than posing a threat to human security, the rhizomatic dimension of the international system may well be a crucial element in the attempt to establish a democratic ethos that can keep up with the pace of globalisation. Some aspects of democratic participation can never be institutionalised. Any political system, no matter how just and refined, rests on a structure of exclusion. It has to separate right from wrong, good from evil, moral from immoral. This separation is both inevitable and desirable. But to remain legitimate the respective political foundations need to be submitted to periodic scrutiny. They require constant readjustments in order to remain adequate and fair. It is in the struggle for fairness, in the attempt to question established norms and procedures, that global protest movements, problematic as they are at times, make an indispensable contribution to democratic politics. 52 The political significance of protest movments is located precisely in the fact that they cannot be controlled by a central regulatory force or an institutional framework. They open up possibilities for social change that are absent within the context of the established legal and political system.72 The various movements themselves are, of course, far from unproblematic. The violent nature of recent actions against neo-liberal governance may well point towards the need for greater political awareness among activists. But such awareness can neither be imposed by legal norms or political procedures. It needs to emerge from the struggle over values that takes place in civil society. The fact that this struggle is ongoing does not detract from the positive potential that is hidden in the movement's rhizomatic nature. These elements embody the very ideal of productive ambiguity that may well be essential for the long-term survival of democracy.

Systemic critique is a better method than reactive reform (may not want to use this card b/c it's kinda too much about surveillance)

Giroux 14, Prof of Cultural Studies @ McMaster University, 2014  (Henry, “TOTALITARIAN PARANOIA IN THE POST-ORWELLIAN SURVEILLANCE STATE,” http://philosophersforchange.org/2014/02/18/totalitarian-paranoia-in-the-post-orwellian-surveillance-state/)

Nothing will change unless the left and progressives take seriously the subjective underpinnings of oppression in the United States. The power of the imagination, dissent, and the willingness to hold power accountable constitute a major threat to authoritarian regimes. Snowden’s disclosures made clear that the authoritarian state is deeply fearful of those intellectuals, critics, journalists and others who dare to question authority, expose the crimes of corrupt politicians and question the carcinogenic nature of a corporate state that has hijacked democracy: This is most evident in the insults and patriotic gore heaped on Manning and Snowden. How else to explain, in light of Snowden’s initial disclosures about the NSA, the concern on the part of government and intelligence agencies that his “disclosures have renewed a longstanding concern: that young Internet aficionados whose skills the agencies need for counterterrorism and cyber defense sometimes bring an anti-authority spirit that does not fit the security bureaucracy.”[81] Joel F. Brenner, a former inspector general of the NSA made it very clear that the real challenge Snowden revealed was to make sure that a generation of young people were not taught to think critically or question authority. As Brenner put it, young people who were brought into the national security apparatus were not only selling their brains but also their consciences. In other words, they have to “adjust to the culture” by endorsing a regime of one that just happened to be engaging in a range of illegalities that threatened the foundations of democracy.[82] What is clear is that the corporate-security state provides an honorable place for intellectuals who are willing to live in a culture of conformity. In this case as Arthur Koestler said some years ago, conformity becomes “a form of betrayal which can be carried out with a clear conscience.”[83] At the same time, it imposes its wrath on those who reject subordinating their consciences to the dictates of authoritarian rule. If the first task of resistance is to make dominant power clear by addressing critically and meaningfully the abuses perpetrated by the corporate surveillance state and how such transgressions affect the daily lives of people in different ways, the second step is to move from understanding and critique to the hard work of building popular movements that integrate rather than get stuck and fixated in single-issue politics. The left has been fragmented for too long, and the time has come to build national and international movements capable of dismantling the political, economic and cultural architecture put in place by the new authoritarianism and its post-Orwellian surveillance industries. This is not a call to reject identity and special-issue politics as much as it is a call to build broad-based alliances and movements, especially among workers, labor unions, educators, youth groups, artists, intellectuals, students, the unemployed and others relegated, marginalized and harassed by the political and financial elite. At best, such groups should form a vigorous and broad-based third party for the defense of public goods and the establishment of a radical democracy. This is not a call for a party based on traditional hierarchical structures but a party consisting of a set of alliances among different groups that would democratically decide its tactics and strategies. Modern history is replete with such struggles, and the arch of that history has to be carried forward before it is too late. In a time of tyranny, thoughtful and organized resistance is not a choice; it is a necessity. In the struggle to dismantle the authoritarian state, reform is only partially acceptable. Surely, as Fred Branfman argues, rolling back the surveillance state can take the form of fighting: to end bulk collection of information; demand Congressional oversight; indict executive-branch officials when they commit perjury; give Congress the capacity to genuinely oversee executive agency; provide strong whistle-blower protection; and restructure the present system of classification.[84] These are important reforms worth fighting for, but they do not go far enough. What is needed is a radical restructuring of our understanding of democracy and what it means to bring it into being. The words of Zygmunt Bauman are useful in understanding what is at stake in such a struggle. He writes: “Democracy expresses itself in continuous and relentless critique of institutions; democracy is an anarchic, disruptive element inside the political system; essential, as a force of dissent and change. One can best recognize a democratic society by its constant complaints that it is not democratic enough.”[85] What cannot be emphasized enough is that only through collective struggles can change take place against modern-day authoritarianism. If the first order of authoritarianism is unchecked secrecy, the first moment of resistance to such an order is widespread critical awareness of state and corporate power and its threat to democracy, coupled with a desire for radical change rather than reformist corrections. Democracy involves a sharing of political existence, an embrace of the commons and the demand for a future that cannot arrive quickly enough. In short, politics needs a jump start, because democracy is much too important to be left to the whims, secrecy and power of those who have turned the principles of self-government against themselves.

 

FW

Framework – the judge should evaluate the ideology that underpins the aff prior to the plan’s immediate legal effects - this means the AFF has to be responsible for the plan and its assumptions. Prefer our interpretation - 1. Logic - you can’t assess the desirability of the AFF without first determining that the value system it works within is a sound one. If the AFF has the wrong starting point we shouldn’t be forced to debate from it, that wrecks policymaking and critical thinking by narrowing the subject of debate so much that all of our propositions are too limited to be impactful. 2. Error Replication - prioritizing legal debate prevents academics from questioning the foundation of power structures. That drains debate of any decision-making benefits since radical, systemic change is the only method that can make a meaningful impact on the lives of the oppressed. Their model is an abdication of social responsibility because it focuses on what we can do instead of what we should    

Shantz 13, Criminology Lecturer @ Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2013 (Jeff, “In Defense of Radicalism,” Radical Criminology (2): http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/article/view/34/html)

Anti-radicalism is inherently elitist and anti-democratic. It assumes that everyone, regardless of status, has access to channels of political and economic decision-making, and can participate in meaningful ways to address personal or collective needs. It overlooks the exclusion of vast segments of the population from decisions that most impact their lives and the unequal access to social resources that necessitate, that impel, radical changes. Activists, as well as sociologists and criminologists, must defend radicalism from below as the necessary orientation to struggle against injustice, exploitation, and oppression and for alternative social relations. Actions should be assessed not according to a legal moral framework provided by and reinforced by state capital (for their own benefit). Assessment should be made on real impacts in ending (or hastening the end of) injustice, exploitation, and oppression, on the weakening of state capital. As Martin Luther King suggested, a riot is simply the language of the unheard. Self-righteous moralizing and reference to legal authority, parroting the voices of state capital, is an abdication of social responsibility for activists. For sociologists and criminologists it is an abandonment of the sociological imagination which in its emphasis on getting to the roots of issues has always been radical (in the non-hegemonic sense). Critical thinkers and actors of all stripes must defend this radicalism. They must become radicals themselves. Debates should focus on the effectiveness of perspectives and practices in getting to the roots of social problems, of uprooting power. They should not center on fidelity to the law or bourgeois morality. They should not be constrained by the lack of imagination of participants or by the sense that the best of all worlds is the world that power has proposed.

3. Neg Ground – their interpretation allows them to no-link impact turns – they got infinite prep to find the best plan and scholarship to support it, they should be culpable for the strategic choices they made. 4. Tautology – their fairness impacts are self-referential, they only make sense if you start from the premise that it’s a good idea to train to be a policymaker which our critique calls into question. Their clash arguments don’t make sense unless they win there is value in legalistic debate first. 5. vote for the most emancipatory scholarship. Debate is never neutral, voting AFF privileges a particular intellectual practice over another. If we win that their militarized, zero sum view of IR is net worse, reject it in order to build a better theory of security

Bilgin 5, IR Prof @ Bilkent University, 2005(Pinar, “Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective,” pg. 7)

From a critical perspective, thinking differently about security involves: first, challenging the ways in which security has traditionally been conceptualised by broadening and deepening the concept and by rejecting the primacy given to the sovereign state as the primary referent for, and agent of, security. Critical approaches also problematise the militarised and zero-sum practices informed by prevailing discourses and call for reconceptualising practice. Second, thinking differently entails rejecting the conception of theory as a neutral tool, which merely explains social phenomena, and emphasises the mutually constitutive relationship between theory and practice. That is, the way we (the community of students of security) think and write about security informs practice; it privileges certain practices whilst marginalising others, thereby helping constitute what human beings choose to call ‘reality’. Theory is itself a form of practice; theorising is recognised as a political activity. Finally, adopting a critical approach to security implies adopting an explicitly normative (for some, emancipation-oriented) approach to security in theory and practice.

6. Epistemology and method are necessarily relevant questions---it’s nonsensical to claim they can be divorced from an evaluation of the plan ---if we disprove the usefulness of those prior commitments it necessarily disproves the desirability of the plan 

Fernando Cavalcante 11, Ph.D. Candidate at the Centre for Social Studies, Coimbra University, Portugal, March 16, 2011, “The Underlying Premises of UN Peacebuilding: Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology,” online: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p501820_index.html

Before presenting how ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects influence „concrete‟ policies, it is important to discuss how they are defined and their relationship. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, ontology “refers to metaphysical issues concerned with the nature of existence and the structure of reality at large” (2006: 423). Ontological inquiries thus relate to assumptions about the nature, the structure, the components (units) and the dynamics that are to be known, which are all within what is generally referred to as „reality‟. Ontological questions, therefore, relate to what one assumes to constitute reality. However, how can we know something? The answer to this question is related to epistemological claims. Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, “tries to answer questions about the nature, sources, scope and justification of knowledge” (ibid.: 171). Hence, when one speaks of epistemology one speaks of what s/he considers as knowledge, of what s/he considers as the basis for that knowledge, of what can be known and of what criteria matters to justify his or her knowledge as knowledge – and not a belief or something else. Epistemology, therefore, relates to claims about what is knowledge and how can one know about something. As abstract as such concepts may be, they provide a deeper and more thorough understanding of theories since they explore the assumptions adopted prior to the very creation of theories. For instance, it is a specific ontological position – that the „reality‟ of international politics is constituted by a (materialist) structure made of states – that allows Waltz (1979) to explain that anarchy is a constant state of being of the „international system‟: a Hobbesian state of “war of all against all”. However, by adopting an ontology in which the „reality‟ of international politics is understood to be constituted by a (social) structure made of statesintersubjective practices, Wendt explains that anarchy is not a constant state of being of the „international system‟, but rather “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt, 1992; see also Wendt, 1999). The ontological choices made by those theorists, therefore, have a significant influence on both Waltz‟s neorealism and Wendt‟s constructivism, as well as on any other theoretical discussion supported by each of those theoretical models. Although adopting different ontological positions, both Waltz and Wendt have relied on the same (positivist) epistemology. Epistemological choices nevertheless affect how a theory is created and applied. Regarding issues in the realm of epistemology, examples abound in IR, since the different epistemological positions adopted by IR scholars are at the core of the “fourth debate” of the discipline (on IR 'grand debates', see Wæver, 1996). Feminist theories are only one of such examples.1 Their theorists have firmly pointed out how minorities and marginalised groups have been excluded from international relations “not only at the level of discrimination but also through a process of self-selection [conducted by elite males in Anglo- and Euro-centric contexts] which begins with the way in which we are taught about international relations” (Tickner, 1988: 430). Still related to epistemology and ontology, methodology deals with how actual research is, or should be, conducted. According to Norman Blaikie, methodology also deals with logics of enquiry, of how new knowledge is generated and justified. This includes a consideration of how theories are generated and tested – what kind of logic should be used, what a theory looks like, what criteria a theory has to satisfy, how it relates to a particular research problem, and how it can be tested. (Blaikie, 2000: 8)2 However, how do epistemological, ontological and methodological choices relate to each other? Grix‟s answer to the question is based on the following scheme: [Figure 1 omitted] According to Grix, alongside methods and sources, such choices are the “building blocks”, the core components of research.3 They are interrelated according to a specific directional pattern: the fundamental and starting point of research, he argues, is an ontological claim, since “research necessarily starts from a person‟s view of the world” (Grix, 2002: 179). That claim is then followed by an epistemological assumption on how that same person can gather knowledge about that same world, and by a methodological question about “how to go about acquiring it” (ibid.: 179). Whilst the rationale involves a rather controversial discussion,4 I adopt such a logical sequence in this paper as a starting point anyway – since this is a work in progress, this initial assumption might be challenged and criticised in a more advanced stage of research. Considering the role of ontological, epistemological and methodological options in shaping theories and concepts, as well as the influence of these theories and concepts, either explicitly or implicitly, in policymaking and in the implementation of policies, I thus suggest they have fundamental importance for understanding the theoretical and conceptual bases of policies and subsequent courses of action. I now turn to the concrete case of UN peacebuilding as an illustration for that conceptual framework.

Edited by vmanAA738

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an epistemilogy alt is fine, but if your impact is "neolib kills the environment" you want to be able to weigh that under your FW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to come up with a solid alt is just to pick up a few books/articles and read through them. Even if you don't cut cards from them, using cards from a similar field will be a lot easier if you understand the material. Cutting your own alt can also throw the aff off their feet if it has a twist to it that they aren't anticipating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an epistemilogy alt is fine, but if your impact is "neolib kills the environment" you want to be able to weigh that under your FW.

Is there a reason why environment can't get weighed under an epistemology first framing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why environment can't get weighed under an epistemology first framing?

If you're arguing that the judge should value in-round knowledge production over hypothetical impacts, then you don't really get to weigh your impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're arguing that the judge should value in-round knowledge production over hypothetical impacts, then you don't really get to weigh your impact.

Is it possible to argue that their epistemology and justifications for the aff are neoliberal, without making the argument that the in-round knowledge production should come first? If not, what could an impact other than the environment be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to argue that their epistemology and justifications for the aff are neoliberal, without making the argument that the in-round knowledge production should come first? If not, what could an impact other than the environment be?

Oh. I see what you're saying. Fundamentally, framework exists as a way to compare the alt and the case in a policy-making vs. critique paradigm. But if you're just trying to use epistemology as a link argument then you mighr not even need framework. You could just straight-up say "the Aff bolsters neolib, that's bad, vote Neg to get rid of neolib" and weigh it against the Aff impacts. Though if the Aff reads something like "the Neg has to defend a competitive policy action" then you do need to answer that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. I see what you're saying. Fundamentally, framework exists as a way to compare the alt and the case in a policy-making vs. critique paradigm. But if you're just trying to use epistemology as a link argument then you mighr not even need framework. You could just straight-up say "the Aff bolsters neolib, that's bad, vote Neg to get rid of neolib" and weigh it against the Aff impacts. Though if the Aff reads something like "the Neg has to defend a competitive policy action" then you do need to answer that.

Cool, thanks!

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...