Jump to content

Shuffy

Member
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Good

About Shuffy

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 04/04/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    Robert
  • School
    Central
  • Location
    The Rock City
  • Interests
    Debate, Foucault
  • Occupation
    Being awesome
  1. Shuffy

    [AFF] RFID

    I have a couple specific questions 1) What evidence cites the monetary amount that these court cases lost, how drastically sales are affected by counterfeited drugs--or quantifies these paper losses for the company 2) What is the affirmatives characterization of the Nyquist impact evidence? 3) The Bate and Boatneg evidence makes the argument that other global fund programs send counterfeited AID....How does this function with the AID the plan would increase. I guess I do not see how this argument functions with the affirmative. Thanks
  2. assembled hazzardly -- The Foundry Field Recordings
  3. I completely agree. Again I was looking for one card to insert into my block as a sort of argument indict/link/defense...NOTICE: this is not the end of the argument. This is ONE card that makes ONE argument that i see commonly. This is only ONE argument that needed a card in the block im writing. The specifics are already done. see above. after reading over my block that answers this argument. I thought the block wasnt long enough and need some sort of generic defense/mini-link story that might garner enough of an impact to sort of moot that argument if i dont win the major offensive ones (the specific links, in which case im behind and need every bit of defense i can get). and yes I do have specific case defense cards. thats later on in the block. shit, i ask for one card for a specific argument and people assume thats the totality of my argument. i mean come on, i was only asking for a single card to fit an argument i knew was supported somewhere but couldnt find where. thats like jumping on a debater that asks for non unique cite for RMA because he isnt reading turns...
  4. Ok, you can assume what you will about the meta argument being used...thats fine. I was only looking for an external carded answer the this argument. I do not know about your experiences with the argument, but I have never seen the "prefer the specific truth claims of the 1ac" as a you havent answered case yet. I see it as an offensive argument as to why you look to the specific aff impact scenarios prior to the turns case or link arguments of the K. And maybe a defensive argument as to why the negative's criticism does not assume a specific scenario like the aff. Again, I was looking for some cards to answer a, that means one, common and sometimes convincing argument I was lacking cards for. Seriously, you can take that chip off your shoulder. Its not like im running science bad. I needed ONE carded answer to ONE common argument that pops up in the 2ac pretty consistantly. Get off your high horse and berate lazy K debaters elsewhere I mean, Im looking for objectivity indicts or cards that question the objectivity of self-heralded truths or objective analyses. If that doesnt make you go into "hate on K debate mode" than I dont know what would. Thanks for the example though; i understand that Layne probably thinks that unilateral US hegemony might not be good. However, I guess I was looking for more generic arguments, as in not advantage specific. Becuase in all honestly the advantage specific evidence is going on the link debate anyway.
  5. Shuffy

    A2: Biopower Perms

    I dont whether you just want a block to go or what a block might/should look like but here you go. A. (Theory Either Severance or Intrinistic) B. Perm still links 1. explain link 2. " " 3. " " C. Perm links more. Have a card on this, usually along the lines of a masking argument if that sort of link story isnt out in the K proper. D. Explain how any risk of a link leads to the entiery of your impact and then make explain how a risk of your impact either turns or/and outweighs the net benefits of the permutation E. Explain the solvency defecit. Or reason why the perm would never solve. This was touched upon by Msacko. Look at your altenrative and explain why the permutation would not solve. This has to be tailored specifically to your alternative card and to the permutation. For example your solvency defecit argument for a "do both" perm would be different than a "do plan and all non-competative parts of the alternative" perm Cards are also preferable on the sovlency defecit debate. You should always attack the warrants or point out the lack thereof in the permutation solvency card. you can do this in a seperate point of a subpoint on the solvency defecit debate G. (More theory if you have time multi perms bad, timframe perms bad, perms bad??)
  6. Yes, wow this is what I need. What the hell am I thinking? I mean, I ask a question related to critical arugments...damn. Your so right. I must be on the wrong side of the debate, because hegemony is awesome right? I never even thought about a policy option. What a lazy K debater I am! Please. If you feel the need to rant at critical debate take it somewhere elese where that is the topic to be had. And as far as Layne goes, I dont really think his arguments would work that well with the arugment I am trying to make. Plus, my argument doesnt really go along the lines of hegemony bad. I forgot to review my post. What I was trying to say is not that any and all truth claims are good. But the universal or absolute as Sean pointed out are problematic. I guess I did not word my question or orignal post clearly enough.
  7. to re-direct to discussion becuase...well synergy opened his mouth and everything got blurry after that. I wasnt asking for truth claims bad as much as was looking for a cite for cards like bernhauer(sp). or ideas on how to articulate answers to 'making truth claims good'. Every argument that clashes with 'the specific 1ac truth claims are good' does not have to be to be 'truth claims bad'. So, to re-iterate saying that the truth claims of the 1AC are bad is more responsive and avoids all your arguments as to why truth claims in general are good. Shit, I was only looking for a cite or two and some ideas not this. Synergy. it would be wise to re-read the orignal post in the thread. And if you want to continue to berate me about this go ahead...just make sure you get the truth first
  8. I was once in possesion of a very large (over 170 pages) Threat Con file. It was from 04 and i believe that it was from a camp though it never had any sort of markings on it. I inherented it from the bowels of our debate room one day last year and have had it since. In the upper left hand corner are three initials which must stand for either fiel author, lab, or something im missing. The initials are KBK. In the right hand corner is Threat Con. The index is split up into 'Topshelf' '2NC A2' 'Impacts' 'Links'. Its a combination of a regular or traditional criticism of threat con/security and a envormental security file at the bottom of it. I know its from 2004 and no one probably has a copy. Just fishing to see.
  9. Shuffy

    The Book Thread

    Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari Discipline and Punish by Foucault all other readings have been put on hold as I ma going to try to finish a book or two instead starting a new one every week. 400th post
  10. Im looking for some cites and general argument ideas for answering the 'truth claims/specific scenarios prove our aff is a good idea.' cards. I am not looking for critical indicts only, just ones that would jive with a more critical strat Specifically. Im looking for cites for a truth link, the foucauldian conception. And, -Indicts of objectivity. I have found some eveidence for this, but your help would be appreciated. MOD. Sorry if this blurs the line between ev trade and critique forum. If it makes you feel better, I can almost assure a discussion of the cites and such posted.
  11. seconded and heres some awesome border/control society/security/biopower evidence http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/ajana_biopolitics.pdf
  12. Well heres the deal. Marathon or Experienced...no matter what session cut neg 'gripes' or positions. You will have a choice. (plan II=experienced session 2). However, during the second session a larger amount of specific K work is done compared to 1st session. This is also true of some of the affirmatives. There was a generic Foucault file put out 1st sesssion with some specific cards, but during the second session there was a lab dedicated to cutting specific 1nc one off shells for cases.
  13. I want to through something out into a discussion and to ask an open ended question. Is Heidigger's concept of being mutually exclusive with the Foucauldian concept of subjectivity? And even if they are generally, what about within the concept of security as discussed specifically by the modern security authors: Dillon, Campbell, Reid, Agamben, Burke....(I left out Der Derian, Lipschultz, and some others because I am not as familar with their work on this concept. If you do know the answer to the question, if there is one, feel free to comment just make sure you make clear where you are referencing.) To me, I see the concept very similarly. However, I know little to nothing about Heidigger. What little I do know is limited to a very narrow understanding of Campbell and Dillon reading Heidigger on the issue of security. So, to me I see no issue reading evidence that speaks of security to the concept of being whereas another piece of evidence references it as subjectivity. So the question is somewhat threefold. Is it intellectually mutually exclusive, if so in general then what about specifically within the concept security, and then is it mutually exclusive within a debate frame? I do not want another discussion of Heidigger's work in earnest. I know that there are threads for that, but if it is neccesary to delve in depth on certain aspects of his work and others' work to understand that is fine.
  14. Shuffy

    Biopower K

    booooo python238@sbcglobal.net email me and I will send you the generic files i have.
×
×
  • Create New...