Jump to content

bacon bits

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

About bacon bits

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1990
  1. This begs the question; why do debaters think nuclear war is a terminal impact?
  2. bacon bits

    Round Rock

    Westwood vs Hallsville in finals. Idk who won
  3. I dislike that list simply because it lists shaqfu as a terrible game....anyone who ever played long enough to figure out how to make shaq shoot fireballs knows that the game was pure awesome.
  4. You should buy this:http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10775 The evidence is hawt and drowe is a reasonably smart dude, for five bucks its good deal.
  5. bacon bits

    you idahoians

    Indeed. The lazy bastard didn't even stay in school long enough to get his degree...
  6. Case You, sir, missed the boat. And take a good hard look at the mother fucking boat: I wrote a really long tag for this and then realized that it was mostly umimportant and you should probably just read the card. This explains it much better than I could anyway. Comrades Luther and Sonja explain* * [Luther Blissett, Sonja Brünzels, autonome a.f.r.i.k.a.-gruppe; Communication guerrilla - a message out of the deeper german backwoods] This message is directed to those who are fed up with repressive politics at their doorsteps, who are not frustrated enough to give up their critical positions and a perspective of political intervention, and who are refusing to believe that radical politics must be straight, mostly boring and always very serious. It addresses those who are interested in bending the rules of normality using textual, artistic, spacial expressions, playing with all kinds of materials and techniques such as wall-painting, woodcarving or the internet. It is sent by some communication guerrillas in provincial germany. It is an invitation to participate in, criticise, renew and develop a way of doing politics which acknowledges the relentless seriousness of reality without sending the more hedonistic parts of ourselves immediately to sleep. Wittyness in a situation of increasing racism, state-control and decline of the welfare state? Yet - even Karl Marx didn't declare boredom as revolutionary... The starting point for our reflections on communication guerrilla is a rather* trivial insight from our own actions: information and political education are* completely useless if nobody wants to listen. After years of distributing* leaflets and brochures about all kinds of disgraces, of organising* informative talks and publicising texts, we have come to question the common* belief in the strength and glory of information.* Traditional radical politics strongly relies on the persuasive power of* rational argument. The belief in the power of* plain information as an* effective form of political action is almost unshakeable. In a theoretical* framework that constructs a manipulative network of media messages* influencing the consciousness of the masses, critical content and the* unimpeded spread of 'truth' is seen as a sufficient tool to set the false* consciousness right.* Since the declaration of postmodernism it has become a bit unfashionable to* insist on The One And Only Truth. Yet still, traditional concepts of radical* political communication are still acting according to the saying: 'whoever possesses the senders can control the thoughts of people'. This hypothesis relies on a very simple model of communication. It only* focuses on the 'sender' (in case of mass communication usually centrally and* industrially organised), the 'channel' which transports the information, and* the 'receiver'. The hissing sounds in the channels of information are almost* neglected. Neither the euphoria around information society nor its* pessimistic critics - who worry about information overkill - are facing one* of the most crucial problems of bourgeois representational democracies:* factual information, even if it becomes commonplace, does not necessarily* trigger any consequences. Even if stories of disasters, injustice, social and* ecological scandals are being published, this rarely leads to much* consequence.* In recent years, there has been much reflection on the interrelations between* the reception of information, knowledge production and the options to act* within a social context. More emphasis is given to the codes which senders* and receivers are using in writing and reading messages. The question was -* and is:* how can information become meaningful and how can it then become* socially relevant. Information by itself has neither meaning nor consequences - both only evolve* from active reception and depend on the scope of action of the audience. But* this basic banality has far too rarely been taken into consideration within* the framework of radical politics. Guerrilla communication doesn't focus on arguments and facts like most* leaflets, brochures, slogans or banners. In it's own way, it inhabits a* militant political position, it is direct action in the space of social* communication. But other than many militant positions (stone meets shop* window), it doesn't aim to destroy the codes of power and signs of control.* It prefers to counteract the omnipotent prattling of power by distorting and* disfiguring the meanings. Communication guerrillas do not intend to occupy,* interrupt or destroy the dominant channels of communication, they focus on* detourning and subverting the messages transported. But what's new about all this? Nothing, really - after all, there have been* the Berlin Dadaists, the Italian Indiani Metropolitani, the Situationists and* many others. The practise of communication guerrilla can even be traced back* to legendary characters like the Hapsburgian soldier Svejk and Till* Eulenspiegel, the wise fool. Standing on the shoulders of earlier avantgardes, communication guerilla* doesn't claim the invention of a new politics or the foundation of a new* movement. It* is merely continuing an incessant exploration of the jungle of* communication processes, of the intertwined and muddled paths of senders,* codes and recipients. Looking not just at what's being said but focussing on* how it is being said is the method of this exploration. The aim is a* practical, material critique of the very structures of communication as a* basis of power and rule. The bourgeois system takes it's strength - beyond other things - from it's* ability to incorporate critique. Any democratic government needs an* opposition. Every opinion needs to be balanced with another one, since the* concept of representative democracy relies on the fiction of equal exchange.* Criticism which doesn't fundamentally shatter the legitimacy of the ruling* system tends to become part of it. Communication guerrilla is an attempt to* intervene without getting absorbed by the dominant discourse. We are* experimenting with ways to get involved in situations and at the same time to* refuse any constructive participation. Power relations have a tendency to appear as normal, even natural and* certainly inevitable. They are deeply inscribed into the rules of everyday* life. Communication guerrilla is one of the ways to create those short and* shimmering moments of confusion and distortion, moments which tell us that* everything could be completely different: a fragmented utopia as a seed of* change. The symbolic order of western capitalist societies is built around* discourses of rationality and rational conduct. Guerrilla communication* relies on the powerful possibility of expressing a fundamental critique* through the non-verbal, paradoxical and mythical. However, guerrilla communication cannot and is not meant to replace a* rational critique of dominant politics and hegemonic culture. It doesn't* substitute counter-information, but creates additional possibilities for* intervention. Yet this form is more than the topping on the cake, more than a* mere addition to the hard work of 'real' politics and direct, material action. In search for seeds of subversion, guerrilla communication is taking up the* contradictions hidden in seemingly normal, everyday situations. It attempts* to distort normality by addressing those hidden desires that are usually* silenced by omnipresent rules of conduct, rules that define the socially* acceptable modes of behaviour as well as the 'normal' ways of communication* and interpretation. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Just a simple* example: Most people will say that it is not okay to blag the bus-fare, even* if there is a widespread feeling that public transport is too expensive. If,* however, some communication guerrillas at the occasion of an important public* event (like the funeral of Lady Di) manage to distribute fake announcements* declaring that for the purpose of participating, public transport will be* free, the possibility of reducing today's expenses may tempt even those who* doubt the authenticity of the announcement.* Communication guerrilla is about attacking the power-relations that are* inscribed into the social organisation of space and time, into rules and* manners, into the order of public conduct and discourse. Everywhere in the* 'cultural grammar' of a society, legitimations and naturalisations of* economic, political and cultural power and inequality are inscribed.* Everybody has a knowledge of Cultural Grammar - which can be used to cause* irritations by distorting the rules of normality. Such irritations have a* potential to question seemingly natural aspects of social life. Hidden power* relations can be made visible and subverted or deconstructed. Using a term* coined by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, one might say that* communication guerrilla aims at a temporary expropriation of Cultural* Capital, at a disturbance of the symbolic economy of social relations.* Go Internet, experience the Future! The practice of communication guerilla developed in pre-computerised times.* Up to the present day, many communication guerrill@s feel a strange affection* towards living in the backwoods of late capitalist society. There is an* inclination towards the use and abuse of outdated media, such as billboards,* posters, printed books and newspapers, official announcements, face-to-face* events, interventions in public space.* Thus we are sceptical towards the hypes and promises in and about the web. It* is said that liberalism leads us directly into hyperspace. A space of* absolute absence of state control, no-copyright, free production of ideas and* goods, free and equal flow of information and people across all borders, such* is the dream brought forward by some Californian net-ideology of* freedom-and-adventure. Yet neo-liberalism doesn't really work this way, but rather: freedom for the* markets, control for the people. It's becoming more and more obvious that the* internet is no virtual space of freedom beyond state and corporate control.* The law-suit of toy-selling e-company e-toys against the web-artists Etoy has* shown how badly the corporate world wants to take control of the territory of* the web. The subsequent toy-war and the complete victory of the web-artists* was a glimpse on what's possible if we use the web as a space of* intervention. (http://rtmark.com/etoy) There are still opportunities of free interchange, there are lines of* information transmission beyond police control, and some corners of the net* are still governed by potlach economy and not by commercialism. Yet the grip* of corporate economy is tightening - and if they succeed, aesthetics and* functioning of the internet will not be predominated by cyberpunks but by* corporate self-representation interspersed with a myriad of middle-class* wankers exhibiting their home-sweet-homes including garden gnoms on* corporate-sponsored homepages.* Our impression is that the structures and problems of communication in the* web do not differ fundamentally from those encountered elsewhere, at least* not as much as the hype wants to make believe.* Some media-theorists (like Michael Halberstedt in his "Economy of Attention")* have even discovered that the potential recipients of e-information are free* to filter and discard messages. They may do even much more with them! Most* users select messages not mainly according to content. Just like the reader* of a paper or the recipient of a leaflet, they/we also use criteria which may* be conceived in terms of cultural grammar and cultural capital. This is* evident to anybody* who has ever tried to distribute leaflets to people in* the streets. The web's potential to distribute infinite information is just* like traditional media structured by the needs of the audience. The basic* problems of communication are just the same on both sides of the electronic* frontier. To develop tactics to use the web as a space for critical intervention, we* need to move away from the belief in the glory of information. As in public* space, we need to focus on the influence of social and cultural settings. 'Access for all', 'Bandwidth for all': these are legitimate demands if the* web is to be more than an elitist playground of the middle classes. In some* professions, access to adequate means of communication has already become a* vital necessity of everyday life. But information and communication are not* ends in themselves. First of all, they constitute an increasingly important* terrain of social, political and cultural struggle. Even if we're all online,* it doesn't mean that a paradise of equal opportunities will emerge.* We'll* still need to attack power relations inscribed into the structure of* communication processes both inside and outside the web. In the dawn of* information capitalism, such attacks become more than just a method, more* than merely a technology of political activism: When information becomes a* commodity and cultural capital a most important asset, the distortion and* devaluation of both is a direct attack against the capitalist system. To put* it the swanky way: This is class war. Paradoxically, increasing attempts to police the net are also increasing its* attractivity as a field of operation. Fakes and false rumours inside and* outside the web are already* helping to counteract commodification and state* control - after all, the internet is an ideal space for the production of* rumours and fakes. Where technological knowledge is available, the* opportunities to fake or hijack domains and homepages, to spoil and distort* the flux of information are innumerable. Guerrilla communication relies upon* the hypertextual nature of communication processes. Even a newspaper or a* traffic sign has plenty of cross-links to other fragments of 'social text'; a* medium transporting plain text and nothing else cannot exist. Communication* guerrillas consciously distort such cross-links with the aim of* re-contextualising, criticising or disfiguring the original messages. In the* web, hypertextual aspects of communication have for the first time come to* the foreground, and the hypertext offers fascinating possibilities for all* kinds of pranks. Imagine hacking into a homepage of, say, the CIA, but instead of leaving a* blunt 'Central Stupidity Agency ' (see http://www.2600.com/cia/p_2.html)* simply modifying some of the links while leaving everything else as before.* There are terrible things one could do in this manner... But the fascination of those possibilities should not lead to a technocentric* narrowing of the field of vision. The mythical figure of the hacker* represents a guerrilla directed towards the manipulation of technology - but* to which end? The hacker gets temporary control of a line of communication -* but many of them are mainly interested in leaving web graffiti or simply* 'doing it' (see the Hacker Museum, http://www.2600.com). Others, however,* rediscover guerrilla communication practices of the ancient: In: <nettime>* net-artist Heath Bunting slated himself in a fake review (Heath Bunting:* Wired or Tired? http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/), thus re-inventing a method* which Marx and Engels had used when they faked damning reviews by first-rank* economists to draw attention on 'The Capital'. The internet offers fascinating possibilities also in a quite different* sense: Beyond its reality, THE WEB is an urban myth, and perhaps the* strongest and most vital of all. Social discourse conceives THE WEB as the* location where the people, the pleasures, the sex and the crimes of tomorrow* have already taken place. Go Internet, learn the Future! Fears and desires* are projected onto THE WEB: this is the mythical place where we can see the* future of our society. Paradoxically, the gift of prophecy attributed to the web gives credibility* to any information circulated there. The "real world" believes in them* because they come from the realm of virtuality, and not despite it. An* example: In Germany, there is a longstanding game called "The Invention of Chaos Days"* (http://chaos-tage.de/start.shtml). Since the early 80ies, punks have created* a tradition to hold big meetings. Of course, the towns involved used to be* terrified, the police was alarmed, and more often than not the whole thing* ended up with a huge riot. In 1996, someone put a note in the web relating* that, on day X, all the punks of Germany would* unite in Hanover to transform* it into a heap of rubble. The announcement was made, a few leaflets (maybe a* dozen) were distributed to the usual suspects. That very day, processions of* journalists encountered hosts of riot squads from all over Germany on their* way to Hanover. Once again the forces of public order were on their way to* protect civilisation against the powers of the dark, only the latter were* nowhere to be found. Apparently, they met quietly and undisturbed by police* in another place. The most astonishing thing about this game is that it* worked several times: Obviously, for the guardians of public order and public* discourse, THE WEB is a source of secret knowledge too fascinating to be* ignored. We do not mention in detail the innumerable occasions when journalists, state* officials, secret services etc. were taken in by false rumours circulating in* the net - for instance, the major German press agency dpa who fell for the* homepage of a fake corporation offering human clones, including replicas of* Claudia Schiffer and Sylvester Stallone. This effect has been reproduced: the* next one was a prank about 'ourfirsttime.com'. There is little danger that* mainstream media will learn quickly. is Besides its function as a networking tool, the web is a nice playground* for communication guerrillas, especially those living in the netscapes of* electronic communication. But let's not forget to walk and talk our way* through the jungle of the streets, to visit the not so devastated landscapes* of outdated media, to see and feel the space and the power of capitalism -* may we not forget what all the prankstering is good for.* T- The new war over information is here- the Luther and Sonja evidence explains how neoliberalism is attempting to control the internet to control the flow of information- allowing capital to won guarantees more class oppression. Topicality functions identically- it is used to exclude alternative forms of communication within the debate community and controls what information is considered acceptable. The 1ac may not be topical, but we challenge these types of social controls by mocking their operations- our plan text includes a sentence long rant, probably as extra-t as Ive ever heard. This mockery opens a discoursive space to change the control of information. You should reject their attempt to control information- true spread of ideas can only come through by affirmation of all possibilities. And even if he wins T is a voter, his argument is just stupid- a. Alternative energy incentives exist now, we expand them to include nuclear energy. This gramtically true in the context of his interp- his evidence say there must be a subject of increase to grow on- the subject of the resolution is 'alternative energy incentives' which means we only have to add to existing incentives b. incentives for nuke exist Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 4 [Nuclear Production Tax Credits and the Energy Bill] One cost estimate from Friends of the Earth totals the entire HR 6 boondoggle at about $70 billion. The nuclear section alone totals at least $15 billion, including a controversial tax credit for new reactor construction. In fact, this tax credit could total a lot more (see below). It is not surprising that the nuclear power industry receives such largesse in this misguided energy bill. The industry trade and lobby organization, Nuclear Energy Institute, had contact with Vice-President Cheney’s energy task force 19 times—reportedly more than any other interest group or trade industry. Huge disad to his interp- it forces affs to read inherency take outs against themselves just to prove themselves topical- that means there is no way the aff can win because the 2nc will always concede the we meet debate as a reason the aff is no longer inherent. Thats an independent voting issue for being a complete dick move. Incentives can be new. Predictability debate- We're predictable in context of his standard- just because something doesn't happen now doesn't mean there isn't literature supporting doing it, otherwise there would never be any new policies advocated. Expanding nuke power is in the literature base- thats the parton evidence. Ground debate- he has no internal link, his ground argument is a question of whether or not the literature exists- if we're winning predictability then his ground arguments go away. His type of ground doesn't matter anyway- we don't defend the plan, only the discoursive act of posting the 1ac on the internet. And confining the aff to incentives that exist now is bad- a. destroys aff creativity- it deters affs from researching new policies which are the focus of political debates about alternative energy b. skews ground- if the incentive exists then the harms would have been solved- that can only mean that if the aff has an advantage the literature base would have to conclude that the incentive isn't working, skewing the literature base in favor of the neg Competing interp is terrible for evaluating T anyway- a. No community consensus- there is never agreement on what is and isn't T- deciding it on a round by round basis doesn't solve their standards and proves why their framework is arbitrary. T is only a check on obviously abusive affirmatives- if we're guaranteeing equal ground its not a reason to vote. b. Neg's will always find an interp of the topic to exclude certain affs- that makes their paradigm arbitrary and unpredictable c. offense/defense is bad- encourages teams to read any T argument and always say that there is a risk the aff doesn't meet- that sets the neg up to win every T debate RVI- if they don't go for this its just a huge time suck- reason to reject the team I-Spec- A lot this was answered on the T flow- Y'all know what the important arguments are. Our plan text proves why specification arguments like this are bad-2 reasons 1. destorys link ground- affs will strategically write the plan text to include things to avoid certain neg arguments- also negs will lose generic link ground which increases the research burden. 2. encourages pics- specifying more allows teams to have more things to pic out of- thats his 1nc ground argument- thats bad because pics moot the 1ac, jacking aff ground and reducing the debate to miniscule comparisons of plan vs. counterplan that aren't important- independent voter for dickery No risk of aff condo- we'll defend any incentive on his list. CX would have checked had he asked us about any of those. Also short circuits his ground claims. Even if we're condo its ok because it reciprocal to conditional neg advocacies. We still solve, his list is the incentives we give. RVI- specs are stupid and running this has litterally made me more stupider Kuletz- You couldn't have read a worse argument against this aff. We mock scientific control- the Prima evidence is descriptive of all the harms the nuclear industry claims to control- unrelenting nuclear waste isn't going to give us superheroes, its just going to kills us. The Kuletz evidence is indicative of recognizing these problems in order to break to the control of the psuedoexperts of the nuclear industry. The Luther and Sonja evidence are particularly good here- the mocking of the traditional impact structure challenges the truth of information give to us by things like the nuclear industry- the dissimination of the 1ac distrupts the social control they criticize. Oh and by the way- only the 1ac questions the epistemology of the nuclear industry by begging the question of how harmful nuclear fuel could be. I feel like most of this debate is self explanatory and there is zero chance of link here anyway, so Im not going to spend too much time on this level of the debate. They also don't access case- they're still in the same form of giving out brochures about all the problems natives are having- the Luther and Sonja evidence is fucking on fire as to why this fails to create change. Also, perm- vote aff and recognize indigenous people. And perm- do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt. If anything the only competition derives from a link of omission that we don't talk about natives- thats bad because the only thing we know to talk about at the beginning of the debate is alternative energy- saying we just should have talked about other shit is impossible for us to predict and literally makes the research burden infinite- voter for fairness. Baudrillard- really? I almost feel like I shouldn't have to answer this, its just so completely wrong. Zero link- their evidence indicts giving poor people shit to help them- we don't do that. Also, we're not portrarying impacts as means to scare you into action, quite the opposite- we show how rediculous these types of claims are and think you should vote aff to stop them. If you read the luther and sona card im sure it fills in all the blanks for ya. Better yet- our Luther and Sonja evidence say that disrupting the current flow of information with the bullshit that was the 1ac destroys the convention symbols and images used by the media and turns them against the media structure itself- thats a reason why we're link turn and an alt to this argument. Only offense is from the aff- no alternative means they can't solve any of the shit the criticize anyway. Alt can't solve- rejecting the aff doesn't do anything and won't stop things like USAID giving food to people in Africa. And perm- do the plan and the alt. Im not sure what this means yet, we'll wait till you make one up a real in the block to find out. Condo bad- skews the 2ac and when you go for just 1 world in the block and its not reciprocal- voter for fairness. Counter interp- the neg has to defend dispositionality- solves all their offense Cp Perm- do the plan and the cp Perm- consult as per the cp and do the plan anyway perm- do the cp they don't solve the case- they condition the message on someone else- im not sure what the impact is but im sure luther and sonja have shit to say about it No internal link to their offense- their evidence say chuck is a good actor not that we have to consult him. They also have no evidence that says not consulting chuck pisses him off- their evidence just says we shouldnt piss him off in general- they can't solve this anyway since the cp text is literally “consult Chuck Norris before enacting the plan” which means even if he doesn't like it the plan still happens. Counter interp- pedo bear is chuck norris- makes consult normal means. Also if chuck norris isn't pedo bear it would mean we still send him a letter saying fuck off, which he'll be pissed anyway. Impact D- Existence is meaningless anyway. And if chuck knows everything then he would know this. Consult cps are a voter- they're plan plus which jacks all aff ground.
  7. Damn i totally forgot about this. Now i feel like a bigger dbag than usual. My promises that it will be up tomorrow, sorry for the hassle.
  8. wtf does that even mean? If the neg is making link arguments specific to the aff, the burden is on you to prove how those link arguments apply to the alternative. You can just say "how DOESN'T this link back?" and assume its a round winner just because you may have implied a casual link to the alt. If you ask me in cx why my K doesn't link to itself, I would just say you would have to prove and move on. This is like any other argument in debate- i can't just say "how DOESN'T your plan lead to nuclear war?" or "how DOESN'T your plan create the partisanship necessary to trigger my politics DA?" and then think I ACTUALLY have links to those arguments. THE BURDEN IS ALWAYS ON YOU TO PROVE A LINK- you can't just assume it exists and ask the other team to prove it doesn't. Court room analogy- innocent until proven guilty. Im not guilty of linking back until you make a warranted argument about it in your speech. ya, but voting aff just because the aff says "The beg has proved why we link but hasn't proven why they DONT link" is stupid and asinine. if this was the way of deciding rounds then every neg would win on the argument that the aff hasn't proven why their plan doesn't kill every species in the universe.
  9. the onus is on you to prove a link back into the k......
  10. Sorry for the delay but prom over the weekend+having to turn in all my senior projects this week has made me really busy. I have been working on it slowly, however, so the 2ac is about halfway done right now and will be up in the next couple days. sorry for the inconvenience.
  11. Thought I would have the 2ac up today, but I just got back from my last college visits and am swamped with school. Sorry for the delay, ill have it up later this week.
  12. More trollish statements that don't answer the substance of what I said. How predictable coming from a tool like andrew. I can see the reason you lose debates is that you fall back on ad homs instead of making arguments. Good job. Im curious as to what makes you the ultimate authority on speaker positions. Have you ever been anything but a 2n? Have you ever cleared at a ToC tournament? Won an elim round there? Until you have a little bit of experience debating outside the houston local circuit, you should probably do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up. You don't have any authority to speak on how good teams operate. The fact you can cite ZERO examples of the shit you talk about in response to my post proves how unfamiliar you are with the subject matter. Regardless of what you think of my analysis, I can at least speak with experience about the issue. I have been a 2a and a 2n over the course of my high school career. I have cleared at local tournaments and ToC's doing both positions. I also debated with a novice this year and regularly did the 'ins' on the affirmative early on in the year. This isn't to brag or talk shit, but does provide context for me being able to say with some certainty that I would rather give a 1ar against a devastating block than a 2ac against a 9 off and case 1nc. Anecdotal evidence may not be perfect, but I was simply sharing my thoughts and experiences with both positions. You made essentialist statements that were grounded in fallacious reasoning and made no attempt to either warrant your arguments or respond to mine. I wonder who's analysis is more 'shitly'.
  13. This is just what i expected from damien- "we don't need to talk about our ethical practices, just email our coach!" It seems that damien is regularly called out for un-ethical shit and never wants to answer to the community for it. If you're going to write your own cards, I think you should at least be willing to engage in a public discussion about that practice. But of course, i guess they'll call this a 'keyboard war' and avoid the issue.
  • Create New...