Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EveBYoung last won the day on September 12 2010

EveBYoung had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

About EveBYoung

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 09/13/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Highland Park High School
  • Location
    Highland Park
  • Interests
    music, literature, art, sports, politics, science
  • Occupation
  1. Were there any new affs broken?
  2. http://www.mediafire.com/?m4gmgmuihji I just uploaded the full article to mediafire and I think that's the correct link.
  3. I think people are missing some pretty big components of capitalism as a system (I also think someone should try to steer this thread back towards its initial purpose). Competition can exist under any economic system. Profit can exist under other systems as well. The unique component of capitalism (and the part that cap bad debaters will say leads to devaluation/commodification/whatever) is the extraction of surplus labor value. Capitalism doesn't maximize social well being for the general population. Because the means of production (ie capital) are possessed by a minority who exert control over the majority of the population, the goal is not mere subsistence for the workers but is to extract greater labor than is necessary to survive in order to turn a greater profit (ie exploitation). Factory workers perform far more labor than is necessary for their well being and happiness and they reap very few of the benefits. Instead they are abstracted from their work and turned into interchangeable workers that generate profit for the owning class. edit: in response to the original post, the Dillon card is written in the context of capitalism but is often used as a more generic calculability/securitization/utilitarianism critique. The argument is just that calculative decisions (whether economic in nature or not) rely on value judgments, the converse of which is devaluation which can extend to the point of counting a life or group as worth nothing, in which case killing them is a logical project. Something that's less often included in debate is that the next few paragraphs of the evidence describe the alternative/solution, which Dillon says is infinite responsibility to the other (a-la Levinas) and acceptance of the future as unknowable.
  4. the unt link in the first post is not nearly all of the unt files. fix?
  5. your title for this thread may have been sarcastic, but doesn't the article imply that humans wipe out 1 percent of what's there every year? as in, 1 percent of species this year, then 1 percent of what's left next year, then 1 percent of what's left again the next year, etc.? that's how i take it, and if that's the case then we will not in any way wipe out all other animals. i may have taken that way too seriously haha
  6. i think the people above me cleared most things up, but just a few things: @ audit: it's still not reciprocal because even if an advantage like soft power is a da to the actor counterplan, the consult counterplan absorbs it. that forces the 2ac to work within 4 to 5 different worlds and make answers to each one of them that won't be useful on other flows, but must be sufficient to win a 2ar. that's possibly abusive. @ bigmistake: first of all, like i said in my first post, i personally think multiple counterplans are okay. i've run them and will probably do so again. but your "unique da" scenario doesn't play out if the neg is running multiple counterplans the strategic (or abusive, depending on how you look at it) way. i.e. even if a unique da that is solved by the affirmative is offense against an actor counterplan, it's not offense against a consult cp that does the entirety of the aff, or a pic that does all but a miniscule part. so the 2ac is forced to invest time into arguments that can't be cross applied and the neg can wave off with a shrug, or make broad generic arguments that can be cross applied but aren't nearly as offensive. that makes the 2ac (some would say unfairly) difficult.
  7. what alex said is true. you may be right (audit) that they can still win with their other advantages, but they must at least defend their soft power position. the difference with the two counterplans is that the actor counterplan goes away entirely and the affirmative loses the majority of their offense, which is now sucked up by the consult cp (just an example - their are others). also, what do you mean my "weird policy derived framework"??
  8. I disagree with this. I think you're missing one of the primary reasons multiple counterplans is abusive: because one counterplan can suck up all the offense from the other one. The problem with multiple counterplans and fairness is that the 2ac is forced to make huge time commitments to both that that don't apply to the other. In most instances the work, especially impact/advantage work, a 2ac does on one flow can be cross-applied to another, while if the negative runs an actor counterplan and a consult counterplan in the same round and the 2ac spends a ton of time making us key and no solvency arguments on the actor counterplan, the 2nc can just get up and say "okay you're right, going for consult instead," and the 2ac strat has just been damaged. Your scenario isn't as abusive (in my opinion) because the offense the 2ac garners against any one of those actor counterplans applies to the others (at least in the context of EU and Russia). all that said, i still think multiple counterplans is probably okay, and definitely defensible. the aff should be required to defend their case in multiple manners.
  9. banning is probably not topical, although those cases will probably be around next year. when alternative energy sources are discussed (solar power, hydro, ethanol, etc.) people are generally working under the assumption that the means of achieving those would be via incentives. ie granting subsidies to particular industries to encourage investment and use or alternatively placing taxes on fossil fuel industries to discourage their use.
  10. you seem to misunderstand the question of the resolution. the resolution does not say "increase alt. energy". the resolution says increase incentives. alternative energy acts as an adjective modifying the term incentives. instating a carbon tax on face increases incentives, because a tax is an incentive. putting someone into political office does not on face increase incentives. you must also understand what f-x t is. the question is whether or not the plan text in a vacuum fulfills the resolution. looking at the plan text only, carbon taxes are alternative energy incentives. looking at the plan text only, electing hrc is not. this is why a standard on most fx t arguments is "mixing burdens." your argument about solvency cards proves the abuse - we should be able to determine topicality without muddying the debate with solvency advocates.
  11. EveBYoung

    30 Days

    it's funny you mention keynes given roosevelt was heavily inspired by him in his post great depression policies. totally off-topic, but interesting i thought.
  12. EveBYoung

    30 Days

    not that i think capitalism is perfect, but your example is innaccurate. the US response to the great depression was actually not capitalist in manner at all. the government imposed extremely large tariffs (i.e. not free trade/open market) in an attempt to keep home made products selling (that actually lead to more depression as the global economy stagnated.) hoover, despite being a personal advocate of government nonintervention and self help, gave out immense loans, provided large relief efforts (welfare like) and invested in public works in an attempt to solve the problem. then roosevelt came along with the "new deal" and encouraged strict government regulation of the economy and a lot of social welfare like reform that was a big part of what lead to our so called "welfare state" today. done with the history lesson now haha. by the way, synergy, do you have any proof of your claim that few to no economists are communists? that's an assumption i believe is probably true, but i'm just wondering if it really is an assumption on your part or if you have any evidence to support it.
  13. i think what you're essentially saying is you'd like to run your aff as a cp with the advantages as artificial net benefits. while this is perfectly possible and probably legitimate, there are very few situations where it would be strategic given your aff as a cp may or may not solve the other team's advantages and it's almost certainly not mutually exclusive. *edit well, i was neg repped for this post because apparently "that's not what he's saying at all" and i "should read the thread" i'm sorry if i misunderstood something, but i certainly read the thread. he's saying he wants to run his aff as a counteradvocacy against another aff because it "links to the status quo" so it's basically like a k. however, given that an aff is a policy option and does not generally contain an alternative, that's really more like running your aff as a cp. and given your advantages don't link to the other team's aff, it's really more like reading artificial net benefits. that all seems perfectly logical to me. if i'm wrong i apologize, but no one has clarified otherwise.
  14. his criticism is not of actual material technology, but of technological thinking. heidegger probably wouldn't reject the use of a timer in a debate round, but he rejects an understanding of the world that sees everything around us as something to exploited for our use (calculative, technological thought). the distinction between material technology and technological thinking is one that heidegger debaters often use to get out of some aff answers.
  15. that's not entirely true; i've heard of people running capitalism arguments from deleuze. if i'm not mistaken i think steven murray has done so. the advantage i suppose would be simply that it's a different spin, and if you understand your arguments well enough you can get out of generic cap answers. i know his alternative would be drastically different from those of more common cap authors. as far as the impact story goes i'm not sure.
  • Create New...