Jump to content
outlier

China vDebate – Outlier [A] vs NeXxet [N]

Recommended Posts

This was a solid debate, and I enjoyed judging.

 

I vote Affirmative.

 

I should preface this with the bias that I'm not as familiar with Baudrillard as I am with the 'plan/impact' model of debate.

 

 

To win, the Affirmative basically needs to justify 2 assumptions:

 

1) That information-sharing is a beneficial communicative structure.

I think this is the part of the debate that the Affirmative is most ahead on, for a few reasons:

 

-Throughout the debate, they've extended cards like Zanotti that argue political structures aren't totally good or totally bad, but can be used for both. This gives me the structure I need to assess the plan independent of the structures in which it exists, which becomes important later on.

 

-The Affirmative isn't necessarily a form of information-overload. I want to dichotomize this into the world of debate and the hypothetical world of the Affirmative. I think the Negative wins in the former that re-hashing high-speed evidence cards is not a particularly beneficial form of knowledge-making. However, it's difficult for me to associate that with the impacts of the K because I think in the latter that the Affirmative wins they 1) build a positive mutual understanding with China and 2) break down some of the over-loaded assumptions that exist now.

 

-The Affirmative's evidence is more specific to the cyber domain, and generally more recent.

 

-Finally, I think that both at the meta-level of debate and at the hypothetical level of the plan, the Negative does indeed link to their own arguments. Now, the Negative seems to take this as a form of solvency, of being un-intelligible. What I don't get out of that explanation is a reason I should vote for an unintelligible advocacy within my presumed position of intelligibility. In a way, voting Affirmative within the structure of debate is the best way to acknowledge the un-intelligibility of the alternative with my game-based ballot.

 

2) That their Affirmative plan is on-balance beneficial and a productive engagement with politics.

This is the most important area for the impact debate as well as the liberal violence arguments.

 

In my opinion, voting for the Affirmative will substantially reduce the likelihood that the U.S. and China will experience a nuclear exchange. My caveat to this is the Baudrillard deterrence argument, but this is 1) only vaguely extended in the 2NR, and 2) doesn't assume other internal links to conflict like lack of trust or miscalculation or critical infrastructure strikes or ambiguity and lack of attribution, which is the largely uncontested Affirmative internal link argument. There's enough here for me to give a pretty big risk to the advantage.

 

I agree with the Negative that the Affirmative was behind on the debate over liberal violence, but I disagree this is enough to vote Negative for 3 reasons:

 

1) I don't think the alternative fully solves liberalism or liberal violence. I'm convinced of this not only because of the Affirmative's arguments about how trying to radically move past the real will be co-opted into the over-arching system (which, as I'm applying it here, means that the alternative becomes an excuse for liberal violence rather than an escape from it) but also that the rejection of this Affirmative is an insufficient basis for the deconstruction of liberalism overall.

 

2) While I think the Oberg evidence is strong, the Affirmative embeds a lot of framing arguments in the debate about the particularities of the Affirmative. In this sense, being particular, rather than contributing to the dichotomy between the known and unknown subjects, might serve a beneficial purpose. Looking at Oberg, I get the impression that very abstract or poorly-defended policies are the ones most susceptible to being hi-jacked into liberal interventions. Looking through Oberg to find a good quote for this, a lot of the concepts seemed vaguely related to hegemonic visibility or the colonial gaze, which I'm unconvinced the Affirmative necessarily perpetuates because its goal is not to know and defeat China in cyber-space, and if it was that it would be justified to securitize in that manner.

 

3) I don't think the debate-level argument of the Affirmative is effectively translated by the Negative into the impact debate. This gives me a much lower threshold for arguments about "plan good" or "pragmatism good" because I can evaluate them independently of debate-space info-overload due to the fact that, as the Negative establishes in arguments about normativity or the fiat double bind, they don't actually affect over-arching structures. This plays into cards like Zanotti who says: "This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities" and "power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events."

 

Even if the material links - having China meet Western norms, etc. - are true, cards like Zanotti means that not every political action is holistically responsible for promoting those things, giving me a lower threshold for the other 2 arguments here.

Ultimately, I was convinced that I should make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty, and that the Affirmative plan represented that rationality.

 

There were a number of contradictions by the Negative --

 

-reading info to say that info-reading is ineffective

-arguing debate doesn't really change things but also that the informational reading of the Affirmative causes bad things

 

-- that make it difficult for me to internalize what their alternative means. Usually, when I vote, I have to pick a side and then defend all the arguments on that side when justifying a decision to the debaters. That makes it hard for me to vote Negative, probably because I don't understand it enough, which is a bias I'll acknowledge.

I'm convinced institutions and pragmatism are good and I don't have to endorse all of liberalism in order to vote Affirmative.

 

I'm also convinced of the "all or nothing" framing of the alternative and it made me scared to vote Negative.

 

By the way, one thing that was weird was that the 2AC made "perm-do both," which wasn't acknowledged by the Neg in the 2NC. It went away after that.

 

I'd love to answer questions if you have them. Truly awesome debate that engaged some very deep philosophical questions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a solid debate, and I enjoyed judging.

 

I vote Affirmative.

 

I should preface this with the bias that I'm not as familiar with Baudrillard as I am with the 'plan/impact' model of debate.

 

 

To win, the Affirmative basically needs to justify 2 assumptions:

 

1) That information-sharing is a beneficial communicative structure.

I think this is the part of the debate that the Affirmative is most ahead on, for a few reasons:

 

-Throughout the debate, they've extended cards like Zanotti that argue political structures aren't totally good or totally bad, but can be used for both. This gives me the structure I need to assess the plan independent of the structures in which it exists, which becomes important later on.

 

-The Affirmative isn't necessarily a form of information-overload. I want to dichotomize this into the world of debate and the hypothetical world of the Affirmative. I think the Negative wins in the former that re-hashing high-speed evidence cards is not a particularly beneficial form of knowledge-making. However, it's difficult for me to associate that with the impacts of the K because I think in the latter that the Affirmative wins they 1) build a positive mutual understanding with China and 2) break down some of the over-loaded assumptions that exist now.

 

-The Affirmative's evidence is more specific to the cyber domain, and generally more recent.

 

-Finally, I think that both at the meta-level of debate and at the hypothetical level of the plan, the Negative does indeed link to their own arguments. Now, the Negative seems to take this as a form of solvency, of being un-intelligible. What I don't get out of that explanation is a reason I should vote for an unintelligible advocacy within my presumed position of intelligibility. In a way, voting Affirmative within the structure of debate is the best way to acknowledge the un-intelligibility of the alternative with my game-based ballot.

 

2) That their Affirmative plan is on-balance beneficial and a productive engagement with politics.

This is the most important area for the impact debate as well as the liberal violence arguments.

 

In my opinion, voting for the Affirmative will substantially reduce the likelihood that the U.S. and China will experience a nuclear exchange. My caveat to this is the Baudrillard deterrence argument, but this is 1) only vaguely extended in the 2NR, and 2) doesn't assume other internal links to conflict like lack of trust or miscalculation or critical infrastructure strikes or ambiguity and lack of attribution, which is the largely uncontested Affirmative internal link argument. There's enough here for me to give a pretty big risk to the advantage.

 

I agree with the Negative that the Affirmative was behind on the debate over liberal violence, but I disagree this is enough to vote Negative for 3 reasons:

 

1) I don't think the alternative fully solves liberalism or liberal violence. I'm convinced of this not only because of the Affirmative's arguments about how trying to radically move past the real will be co-opted into the over-arching system (which, as I'm applying it here, means that the alternative becomes an excuse for liberal violence rather than an escape from it) but also that the rejection of this Affirmative is an insufficient basis for the deconstruction of liberalism overall.

 

2) While I think the Oberg evidence is strong, the Affirmative embeds a lot of framing arguments in the debate about the particularities of the Affirmative. In this sense, being particular, rather than contributing to the dichotomy between the known and unknown subjects, might serve a beneficial purpose. Looking at Oberg, I get the impression that very abstract or poorly-defended policies are the ones most susceptible to being hi-jacked into liberal interventions. Looking through Oberg to find a good quote for this, a lot of the concepts seemed vaguely related to hegemonic visibility or the colonial gaze, which I'm unconvinced the Affirmative necessarily perpetuates because its goal is not to know and defeat China in cyber-space, and if it was that it would be justified to securitize in that manner.

 

3) I don't think the debate-level argument of the Affirmative is effectively translated by the Negative into the impact debate. This gives me a much lower threshold for arguments about "plan good" or "pragmatism good" because I can evaluate them independently of debate-space info-overload due to the fact that, as the Negative establishes in arguments about normativity or the fiat double bind, they don't actually affect over-arching structures. This plays into cards like Zanotti who says: "This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities" and "power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events."

 

Even if the material links - having China meet Western norms, etc. - are true, cards like Zanotti means that not every political action is holistically responsible for promoting those things, giving me a lower threshold for the other 2 arguments here.

Ultimately, I was convinced that I should make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty, and that the Affirmative plan represented that rationality.

 

There were a number of contradictions by the Negative --

 

-reading info to say that info-reading is ineffective

-arguing debate doesn't really change things but also that the informational reading of the Affirmative causes bad things

 

-- that make it difficult for me to internalize what their alternative means. Usually, when I vote, I have to pick a side and then defend all the arguments on that side when justifying a decision to the debaters. That makes it hard for me to vote Negative, probably because I don't understand it enough, which is a bias I'll acknowledge.

I'm convinced institutions and pragmatism are good and I don't have to endorse all of liberalism in order to vote Affirmative.

 

I'm also convinced of the "all or nothing" framing of the alternative and it made me scared to vote Negative.

 

By the way, one thing that was weird was that the 2AC made "perm-do both," which wasn't acknowledged by the Neg in the 2NC. It went away after that.

 

I'd love to answer questions if you have them. Truly awesome debate that engaged some very deep philosophical questions.

 

My gut reaction after I read the 2AR was that outlier won too, mostly because I felt that the risk of their DAs to the alternative outweighed my DAs to info-overload and normative political engagement. Would you think that I would have gotten your ballot with the following things?

 

1. Spend less time rehashing impacts in the 2NR, and instead allocate more time to the alternative. This probably would have helped resolve the issues you pointed out with not knowing why you should vote for intelligibility, how we can't fully solve liberal violence, and why double-turns/cooption is actually solvency for the Neg.

 

2. Argue that even if political structures aren't inherently bad as per Zanotti, the form of information itself makes productive engagement with those structures within the Aff's framework impossible because the oversaturation of information makes tools ineffective/they get reabsorbed by the system, and thus the alternative is a better orientation towards those structures by defying them with unintelligibility.

 

3. You said "I don't think the debate-level argument of the Affirmative is effectively translated by the Negative into the impact debate", so I think that I should have explained that the debate sphere and the policy sphere can't be separated - ie even if the Aff can overcome info-oversaturation to develop conceptual tools for activism like they said in their answers to normativity, the way in which those tools would get utilized is bad. I would basically be arguing that training debaters to "master information" and work within institutions turns them into bureaucrats like Karl Rove who invade countries to eliminate the unknown - unfortunately, I didn't really develop this argument in the block

Edited by NeXxet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut reaction after I read the 2AR was that outlier won too, mostly because I felt that the risk of their DAs to the alternative outweighed my DAs to info-overload and normative political engagement. Would you think that I would have gotten your ballot with the following things?

 

1. Spend less time rehashing impacts in the 2NR, and instead allocate more time to the alternative. This probably would have helped resolve the issues you pointed out with not knowing why you should vote for intelligibility, how we can't fully solve liberal violence, and why double-turns/cooption is actually solvency for the Neg.

What's weird is that your K focuses on how the more we try to "know" things, the less real they become. In that sense, making the alternative vague is less strategically sensible, but more true to the K, and explaining the alternative in a very concise and specific way is more strategic, but less true to your argument.

 

One way to go about this would be to instead of focusing on what the alternative is, focus on what it is not. Don't let yourself get pinned down so much and the 2NR will have a much easier time explaining alt solvency because you can explain your way out of every Affirmative attack.

 

You tell me frequently that you want to move faster than the real, but you then proceed to debate the real in every other aspect of the debate. I think I might be more persuaded by some meta-arguments - focus on why their answers wouldn't apply in the world of the alternative because most of the Aff stuff like cede the political are based on radical strategies that never move past the real in the first place. Once they catch you in that trap, defeating alt solvency is really easy for the Aff.

2. Argue that even if political structures aren't inherently bad as per Zanotti, 

What?

 

3. Explain that the debate sphere and the policy sphere can't be separated

Yeah, that'd be good. But then you'll have to reconcile that with the fiat double bind and other arguments that do presume a distinction.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting argument you could make in reference to the debate-level and the hypothetical level would be that the Affirmative is right in that the judge writing the word Affirmative on the ballot won't change the 'real.' But, in combination with the information-overload stuff, winning the debate changes the Affirmative's 'real' - their own subjective form of objective reality. Every time they win a round on that Affirmative, a new reality is created in which a nuclear war has been stopped. This contributes to apathy, as per the normativity arguments or the fatal theory framework -- to the Affirmative, the suffering of the world can be easily ignored because the Affirmative, in their own minds, already are saving lives and reducing suffering. This world outside of debate doesn't matter because they can feign being productive and helpful by saving lives in the debate worlds, and the two become indistinguishable.

 

edit: if you ask more stuff I'll answer it tomorrow

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2. Argue that even if political structures aren't inherently bad as per Zanotti, 

What?

 

I meant that even if they win their Zanotti argument that institutions aren't 100% good or bad, I should have said

1) they can't engage those institutions effectively because info-overload makes people ineffective advocates who just throw cards at eachother, which doesn't allow people to learn how the government actually works outside the magic circle of debate.

2) We engage those structures in a good way by radicalizing activism and refusing to work within the pre-defined boundaries of liberal institutions - this is where I would start talking about Occupy UC Berkeley, the Joker, May 68, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the perm (do both). What function would that have played in the round had it been extended? Does the perm do both mean read the 1nc and do the hypothetical implementation of the plan? Or to combine methods/mindsets in order to more effectively implement the plan pre fiat? Or post fiat? Is that where the pluralism good arguments would help the perm? I'm just wondering because it doesn't seem to me that the perm is particularly effective in this type of debate, and I know people think of it as a big deal vs. k's. It seems to me like links are DA's to perm and alt and case are

mutually exclusive would easily defeat any perm, but i'm pretty sure i'm not understanding it right. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to post a full rfd, but I think that the link debate was way too shallow in the 2NR. You should condense and contextualize one or two link arguments so that you're ahead on specificity and have time to allocate elsewhere. 

 

I think your best link would have stemmed from combining this harmony and transperancy link because I think you ultimately have won that transparency undergirds intervention, but in relationship to the 1AC's attribution args I don't see where those two connect. I do think there's a very easy link to this affirmative, namely that proper cyber-attribution would necessitate that all attacks get traced back to their origin, and if say, a non-democratic/non-western developing country or even sub-political cell operating within that country were to conduct even a low-level cyber attack it would necessitate liberal violence, whether that be through imposing suffocating sanctions, drone strikes, or even flat our intervention there would certainly be retaliation. This gets magnified if you 1) reference squo geopolitical imaginaries/existing threat construction (can you imagine if syria or north korea conducted a cyber-attack and it was traced to them?) and 2) were to c/a Shapiro because it means actors don't act rationally, and then reference your args about info being dissuasive, etc which would take out any of their "liberal norms good/prevent conflict" because none of those assume the current political climate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2. Argue that even if political structures aren't inherently bad as per Zanotti, 

What?

 

I meant that even if they win their Zanotti argument that institutions aren't 100% good or bad, I should have said

1) they can't engage those institutions effectively because info-overload makes people ineffective advocates who just throw cards at eachother, which doesn't allow people to learn how the government actually works outside the magic circle of debate.

2) We engage those structures in a good way by radicalizing activism and refusing to work within the pre-defined boundaries of liberal institutions - this is where I would start talking about Occupy UC Berkeley, the Joker, May 68, etc.

 

Yeah that would be a lot more nuanced. Combine that with a discussion of how those institutions, whether they're good or bad, are just obsolete.

I'm not going to post a full rfd, but I think that the link debate was way too shallow in the 2NR. You should condense and contextualize one or two link arguments so that you're ahead on specificity and have time to allocate elsewhere. 

 

I think your best link would have stemmed from combining this harmony and transperancy link because I think you ultimately have won that transparency undergirds intervention, but in relationship to the 1AC's attribution args I don't see where those two connect. I do think there's a very easy link to this affirmative, namely that proper cyber-attribution would necessitate that all attacks get traced back to their origin, and if say, a non-democratic/non-western developing country or even sub-political cell operating within that country were to conduct even a low-level cyber attack it would necessitate liberal violence, whether that be through imposing suffocating sanctions, drone strikes, or even flat our intervention there would certainly be retaliation. This gets magnified if you 1) reference squo geopolitical imaginaries/existing threat construction (can you imagine if syria or north korea conducted a cyber-attack and it was traced to them?) and 2) were to c/a Shapiro because it means actors don't act rationally, and then reference your args about info being dissuasive, etc which would take out any of their "liberal norms good/prevent conflict" because none of those assume the current political climate.

This would have been a really compelling link argument, especially with examples or evidence because then you don't need the alt in order to have the Aff directly cause violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the perm (do both). What function would that have played in the round had it been extended? Does the perm do both mean read the 1nc and do the hypothetical implementation of the plan? Or to combine methods/mindsets in order to more effectively implement the plan pre fiat? Or post fiat? Is that where the pluralism good arguments would help the perm? I'm just wondering because it doesn't seem to me that the perm is particularly effective in this type of debate, and I know people think of it as a big deal vs. k's. It seems to me like links are DA's to perm and alt and case are

mutually exclusive would easily defeat any perm, but i'm pretty sure i'm not understanding it right. Thanks.

plain 'ole perm do both is definitely misguided in this debate - perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances seems like a good (albeit cheating) perm against this criticism because attribution is definitely the will to transperancy, but maybe it's good in this one instance

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was also interesting for me to observe

 

There are two high level questions for me in this round-

is the alternative strategy of injecting radical thought to make things unintelligible a good idea overall?

The other question is how should I frame my decision calculus- is pragmatic reform or radical revolution a better strategy for the political sphere?

 

The answer to the second question is pretty clear- pragmatic reform is better and I thought the neg was behind on this layer throughout the debate. Especially conceding that they get to weigh the aff, the claudio and walsh evidence means that only concrete material reforms, even advocated within debate, can create effective politics.

 

The implication of this layer to me means that the aff gains an edge when answering the K because I hold the alt to more scrutiny as to whether it's an effective or good idea- which means I filter the K flow through the lens of political pragmatism/reform.

 

This brings me to my answer to the first question- I buy that the alt fails. This is due to the claudio evidence again. I frame my ballot this way, because like the other comments have said, this link debate was very, very messy and shallow- by the end of the debate I can't explain to you what even you think your links claim to be, let alone how the aff links to this- if I had to wade through the link debate, then I would probably err aff because I couldn't point to a specific way the aff links. 

 

Hence, I vote aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give a quick RFD, since I've got APs. DM me with any questions. Coming out of the 2ac I thought this was a neg ballot, but the 2AR made most of the right arguments and they pretty much won the impact debate. If I were the 2NR I would've spent a bit more time on the first will to transparency impact of the overview. You could have won the debate on that. The aff wins that they get to weigh the 1AC which means that link debate which is specifically impacted out is important and the 2NR didn't have enough of that for me to vote neg. Thus, I vote aff. Good debate.

Edited by Piedude

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...