Jump to content

James Franco

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


James Franco last won the day on October 6 2009

James Franco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-11 Bad

About James Franco

  • Rank
    Hotter as a Drug Dealer
  • Birthday 01/17/1992

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Chris Burbach
  • School
    Fremont High School
  • Biography
    I'm from Fremont DUH!!!
    My partner is Dylan Martinez
  • Location
    Fremont, NE
  • Interests
    Paintballing and Debating
  • Occupation
  1. Wow, I am so sorry about my inconviences. For the last few days, everytime i tried to load up cross-x it kept giving me the server down page. waving my 2NR is alright. and again I am sorry for the inconvience
  2. I just got access to my laptop, I am working on the 2NR as we speak, i'll have it posted in less than an hour.
  3. going to need some prep time, got to finish watching districts tommorow, will have posted by tomorow night.
  4. Federalism: Overview: On Obama’s Agenda, one of his main priorities is to return the power to the states. He is slowly getting away from passing bills that would even be conceived as state appropriations. He has begun this by starting to challenge the Bush administrations failures of a central government to pass all, and then proposing options for the state’s to regain their powers. This provides two implications: 1. The Case cannot solve, because the President who would sign the executive order, doesn’t want to impede states rights so he wouldn’t sign it, meaning the case cannot garner any post-fiat solvency 2. We have uniqueness on the Federalism debate The Affirmative then offers a social service, which is in state constitutions, and is a right for the state’s to control. This type of demand, erodes any chance of power for state policies to make a difference. This is a specific link to their case, because they force a state-based organization to act. Without state power, and state control over the policies indicted into their constitutions then poverty cannot be solved. This means two things: 1. The case is turned, because they claim the biggest impact in the round is Poverty, and without state powers poverty cannot be solved. 2. We solve the affirmative’s impact because we stop any entrenchment on state powers, and this will allow for state’s to pass social services to solve for poverty. Now the Line by Line: 2AC #1: This card is extremely power-tagged. Nowhere in the evidence does it say anything about Obama crushing federalism, it only talks about how Obama is taking control over car companies, banks, and health care. In fact, this card just bolsters our internal link, because it says we shouldn’t allow for the big government to take control and crush federalism. Here’s the line in the evidence: Overregulating employers won't create more employment; overtaxing investors won't foster more investment. Top-down, one-size-fits-all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our founders flatly stated and we governors understand, government closest to the people governs best." That’s his Walsh in 2010, also c/a the theory arguments from the 2NC about power-tagging. This also applies here. On 2AC #2: This card does not say what he wants it to say, it says that the courts don’t think federalism exists on its own, instead the governments are instituted for a reason. This reason is preservation of the common good. That’s our point, the state governments are in place to help people out of poverty, and that is a reason for them to exist. This just proves the DisAd. On 2AC #3: The no link is completely wrong, the executive order is passing a plan, which falls under social services under his we meet. These social services are a state issue. Even if you grant him any chance of mitigation you still err negative because the forced appeal on the state’s to act, removes their ability to perform their own action. C/A the analysis from the executive order, it’s the same thing here. C/A the analysis from the overview as well, the plan’s call for demands on the state to act, aka through a state controlled agent, crushes any chance for state power. Now here is where you make the big mistake, only putting three points on a Disadvantage that solves your case. ?>Major Turning Point in Federalism Now – States are becoming laboratories for social service programs –federal government action on social services will crush deccentralized authority ?>Sheppach 2k8 (Raymond C. Scheppach, Ph.D., is the executive director of the National Governors Association, “Will the 2008 election improve state-federal relations?,” pg online @ http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=323921 //ef) ?>we are at a major turning point in the role of the states in our intergovernmental system. Essentially, the long-term trend of increased centralization of authority in Washington, D.C., may slow dramatically or even be reversed.?>First, the next administration and Congress will have to focus more on international issues?>and to global economic issues such as the price of oil and other commodities and the value of the dollar??>. Second, on many of the domestic issues such as health care,?>states and governors have been providing national leadership over the last decade. Health Care Reform – During the last several years, Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal coverage. Overall, about 35 states have enacted major reforms, including coverage expansions, insurance market reforms, small business pools, and disease management?>As the next president and Congress begin to set an agenda for 2009, it is critical that they understand both the shift in responsibilities that has taken place over the last decade on domestic issues, as well as the role states can play in helping move the country forward. They should build on states’ leadership and expertise on the major domestic issues. The good news is that states have shown a real policy path on these domestic issues; the bad news is that states could become an obstacle if the federal government continues a coercive approach to federalism.?> States are innovative and responsible – can solve welfare problems the federal government can’t or don’t want to. Again Case cannot solve their impacts, and we do! Daniel Beland and Francois Vergniolle de Chantal Abstract. 2004. “Fighting ‘Big Government’: Frames, Federalism, and Social Policy Reform in the United States.” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_journal_of_sociology/v029/29.2beland.html ?>The] bill sends the problem to the States with a high-flown rhetoric about State responsibility and innovation." (22) The welfare law debate confirms one definitive orientation: the reference to decentralization and federalism is instrumental as an ideological frame aimed at justifying retrenchment while diminishing the potential electoral costs of harsh social policy reforms. ?> Plan leads to a slippery slope that leads to the overexpansion of federal power Johnson 1 ?>the court found that?>because the statutory language did not stray too far, if at all, from the terms of the treaty, thus insulating the legislation from appellant's Necessary and Proper Clause attack?> it is not surprising that the Lue court premised its opinion on the presumptive validity of treaty-implementing legislation. n143 However, what this analysis fails to take into account is the slippery slope toward a limitless treaty power that could ultimately result in the over-expansion of federal power,?> 1) Federalism is key to checking unbalanced power in the government, preventing tyranny. ?>Calabresi?>95?> ?>. It is thus no accident that Americans have thought from the time of the founding onward that liberty would be preserved by having two levels of government that could serve as checks on one another?>We have seen already that national government cannot be expected to process all dispersed social knowledge as if it were omniscient?>it cannot be expected to exercise total governmental power as if it were benign?>Power corrupts and ab- [*786] solute power corrupts absolutely?>A national government unchecked by state power would be more rife with agency costs and more oppressive than the national government we have?>The existence of the states as constitutionally indissoluble entities provides a vital bulwark from which citizens can organize against tyranny?>, the existence of state governments helps citizens solve the collective action problem of organizing against tyranny?>n100 The states do help preserve freedom because they can rally citizens to the cause of freedom, helping to overcome the free rider problems that otherwise might cause national usurpations to go unchallenged by the "silent" majority of unorganized citizens?>Federalism, like the separation of powers, is a vital guarantor of liberty. 2) And checks on tyranny are necessary to prevent democide ?>Rummel?>97?>Where?>political elite can command all?>they are most likely to commit democide?>Where the elite are checked by countervailing power?>they are least likely to commit democide?>power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.?>There is?>a continuum?>At one end is liberal democracy?>in which?>an open and competitive system?>through the existence of multiple and overlapping power pyramids?>power is most restrained. At the other end are totalitarian regimes?>in which there are no?>power pyramids?>Power is centralized?>and no competition for political power is allowed?> 3) Death by absolutist government has killed more people than wars – our impacts outweigh ?>Rummel?>97?>Our century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars?>Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war?>is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars?>this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war?>the more freedom in a nation, the fewer people killed by government. Freedom acts to brake the use of a governing elite's power over life and death to pursue their policies and ensure their rule?>Absolutism is not only many times deadlier than war?>but itself is the major factor causing war?>It is a major cause of militarism?>absolutism, not war, is?>deadliest scourge of all?> This is another turn on their plan, with their crushing of state powers and federalism then their won’t be a check for federal government power, this federal government power will result in tyranny, and preventing tyranny is key to preventing democide, without the prevention of democide state killings become inevitable, and this impact has killed more people than any other impact, this means we will always outweigh. Federalism solves violence, economic inequality and secession – prefer this evidence, it is based on empirical examples Will Kymlicka, Professor of Philosophy at University of Toronto, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, July 2000 I believe that this trend has been beneficial, and indeed quite successful, as measured by any of the criteria which should matter to liberals, such as: [use a bullet here and below]- peace and individual security: these multination federations are managing to deal with their competing national identities and nationalist projects with an almost complete absence of violence or terrorism by either the state or the minority. - democracy: ethnic conflict is now a matter of "ballots not bullets", with no threat of military coups or authoritarian regimes which take power in the name of national security; n10 - individual rights: these reforms have been achieved within the framework of liberal constitutions, with firm respect for individual civil and political rights. - economic prosperity: the move to multination federalism has also been achieved without jeopardizing the economic well-being of citizens. Indeed, the countries that have adopted multination federalism are amongst the wealthiest in the world. - inter-group equality: last but not least, multination federalism has promoted equality between majority and minority groups. By equality here I mean non-domination, such that one group is not systematically vulnerable to the domination of another group. Multination federalism has helped create greater economic equality between majority and minority; greater equality of political influence, so that minorities are not continually outvoted on all issues; and greater equality in the social and cultural fields, as reflected for example in reduced levels of prejudice and discrimination and greater mutual respect between groups. On all these criteria, multination federalism in the West must be judged as a success. Indeed, this trend is, I believe, one of the most important developments in Western democracies in this century. We talk a lot (and rightly so) about the role of the extension of the franchise to Blacks, women, and the working class in democratizing Western societies. But in its own way, this shift from suppressing to accommodating minority nationalisms has also played a vital role in consolidating and deepending democracy. These multination federations have not only managed the conflicts arising from their competing national identities in a peaceful and democratic way, but have also secured a high degree of economic prosperity and individual freedom for their citizens. This is truly remarkable when one considers the immense power of nationalism in this century. Nationalism has torn apart colonial empires and Communist dictatorships, and redefined boundaries all over the world. Yet democratic multination federations have succeeded in taming the force of nationalism. Democratic federalism has domesticated and pacified nationalism, while respecting individual rights and freedoms. It is difficult to imagine any other political system that can make the same claim.
  5. yes it does, but that is not our indictment, later in the card he specifically indicts exploitation of all kinds.
  6. Any C-X questions for me? because as soon as I get to school the 1NR will be posted.
  7. Framework: Here are the key points on the framework debate. Extend the #1: fiat isn’t real. That means the burden of proof is on them to show that it’s a helpful practice for debate. If there’s any doubt in your mind, err negative because our interpretation is more intuitive and applicable. Our #4 is game over – our critique is an attack on the mindset and images they use to justify their policy impacts, which is like attacking the warrant to the claim on an argument. Of course their case will seem like a good idea if you grant them all the justifications they provide for it. However, once the warrant is removed, the claim is no longer an argument, just like the case is no longer a reason to vote aff. Their theory issues are irrelevant to this, because it doesn’t matter how good fiat is for debate if they can’t defend the mindset that justifies their case. Also, our evidenced arguments are more important than any theoretical whines they have – fairness ceases to be an issue when we show that their framework is destructive to the activity and the real world. Extend our #3, the Nayar 99 card. He says that creating the image of an ideal world we can act on, like they do with fiat, ignores the people around us and those who will be impacted by the case. Because their focus is on a distant worldview, they don’t see the people who are being harmed now, which marginalizes any contribution those people might have to the political world. That’s terrible for debate because it encourages an elitist worldview where only the opinions of people in our academic game matter, and is irresponsible to the rest of the world. Extend our #6, Mitchell 98, which specifically talks about debate and fiat. Mitchell says that fiat creates a spectator mentality where we observe events in the real world without considering our ability to change them, and where tragic events become just another tool in a debate round instead of a reason to go do something about them, which creates political apathy in debaters and destroys any real value to the activity. Also, this accesses our Baudrillard impacts, because fiat encourages debaters to cheer bad things happening to others for our simulated disads and case arguments. Our collective enjoyment of this suffering guarantees we’ll never do anything to resolve it in their framework, which is a reason to reject it. Now for the theoretical issues. Extend our #2, fiat requires stupid and annoying strategies like politics where everything ends in nuclear war, so we never talk or learn about the case, where the resolution is actually focused. Extend #5: if fiat is weighed on the same level as discourse, teams can use terrible rhetoric and claim it doesn’t matter because their case has big impacts, which justifies horrible racist or sexist language that excludes people from the activity. Finally, extend the #7. You can still get all the benefits of fiat in debate through our framework, it just comes after the discourse, so none of their offense applies and they lose on our critique. He makes a wrong move by not answering any of the points on our framework debate 1. By only extending his arguments from the 1AC, he drops our points of how his idea of fiat debate is horrible, we answer his framework through the 1NC. 2. Even if you grant his arguments, then framework becomes a wash, because supposedly neither of us ever answered any key arguments, even though my framework is a turn to his framework of a status quo or policy option. No Negative Alternatives 3. And even if you don’t buy that Framework becomes a wash, then we meet his framework, we don’t offer an alternative but to reject the rhetoric, that is a status quo option. Kritik: Why is reality television so popular? People don’t like to exist in their own lives – the vicarious experience of other’s problems is one of the great joys of the modern age. Extend our Baudrillard 94 evidence. Baudrillard says that images of destruction, catastrophe and disaster are exaggerated by the media and used to give pleasure to those in the first world at the expense of everyone else. As a society, we export death and import back its image, drawing satisfaction from the exploitation of other people and cultures and our efforts to solve the problems that we actually enjoy so much. The affirmative is a perfect example of this process – their harms detail disaster in the status quo which they provide a simulated solution to through fiat, all in an effort to make themselves feel powerful in this exchange of suffering. Their supposed solution is a part of this process – they will never actually fix all the problems they claim, because then they would be left without a source of enjoyment. Even if their solution does work, it will have the side effect of creating more suffering to continue the cycle. A perfect example of this is Iraq – we get all worked up over what a terrible person Saddam is and the damage he could cause, so we go remove him to improve the situation, but now there’s been an explosion of porn, drugs and violence in Iraq after the invasion so we can continue to consume the images of disorder and trouble and justify even more interventions, which makes their harms are inevitable. Also, this quest for more sources of suffering is a constantly expanding process. Once we run fix some problems, we have to generate more to keep the images flowing, encouraging artificial tragedies to replace natural ones. This mindset ends in human extinction as the ultimate spectacle. If you buy into this system of representation by giving them the ballot, you’re helping the cycle of catastrophe to continue. Instead, strategic indifference is required. Don’t acknowledge their images. When there is no more demand for suffering, the supply will decrease as well, making the problems obsolete. Note that we don’t ask you to ignore suffering in the real world – Baudrillard has no problem with helping people out. It’s only in the context of this debate round and the illusion of fiat, which has no relevance to the real world, that you should refuse to be moved by images of catastrophe. Also, we can advocate the plan as a good idea minus the images they present – the affirmative can’t sever out of the discourse they already used, but we can advocate the rest of the plan as a good idea and get the same advantages. Now the Line by Line: On his A point: We do not claim any destruction of the human race impacts, c/a the analysis from the overview, we state that if we continue the rhetoric of presenting images of disaster and destruction then we align ourselves up for that rhetoric to continue, we don’t bite our own Kritik. On B: We are not a one-shot impact, c/a my answer to his cross-x of the 1NC, and the analysis on the impact from the overview and c/a my analysis from above. On C:That’s ridiculous. Our argument is a criticism of the assumptions and images behind the affirmative’s presentation of their case, not just the plan. They don’t give a text to their assumptions, because they’re found in the evidence. Our alternative is effectively a set of counter-assumptions that refute the affirmative, so there’s no way we can give a simple textual alternative, and if they want to know about our assumptions, they can read our evidence, just like we did to find theirs. Debate centered on assumptions rather than wording of the plan is better because: a. Focuses on intent, not semantic details – we focus on what the debaters are actually saying, rather than the 5 second sound bite they call the plan, which preserves the value of all the other stuff they say in their speeches. b. Gives more ground – we can argue about all the assumptions presented, which gives tons of ground to both teams, which is also very predictable, because they should know what their authors are saying and what people say in response. c. More depth to debate, because instead of focusing on the superficial points, we require debaters to examine all the warrants and basis for their author’s arguments, which gives better understanding and more education. Second, here’s the textual alternative – don’t vote aff. We’ll defend their advocacy is a bad idea throughout the entire round. They get all the ground for trying to show that it’s a good idea, which is all they need. Third, there’s no ground loss – any evidence they’ll have against our criticism will be focused on our assumptions, so all their offense still applies. Don’t buy any moving target arguments until you see one in the round, and cross-x will always check back abuse; it’s their fault if they didn’t ask us to clarify what we meant. On his D point: it’s answered above, because first we need to reject any continuation of this current rhetoric, our impacts are only inevitable if you grant the affirmative the chance to continue presenting the images of catastrophe through the 1AC, this means voting negative is the only way to solve On his E point: Nowhere does Baudrillard every use capitalism or economic exploitation as his indict, this argument doesn’t apply On F: This has been answered above, plus it will only continue if you grant the affirmative the ballot, if you grant the negative the ballot, then we reject the rhetoric. And solving this discourse is key. Now On Case: Solvency: His only answer to the turn is the Marsh evidence, this evidence talks about how post-modernism is bad, but They’re missing a link – how exactly are we postmodern? We say to reject them, but that doesn’t increase postmodernism in any way. Second, that doesn’t refute any of the arguments we make. Even if postmodernism as a principle is bad, it doesn’t make the plan a good idea. Third, their argument is irrelevant unless they claim our discourse has impacts outside of the round, which is a postmodern idea about the impact of discourse, so they’re equally postmodern if their argument has any impact, putting them in a double bind. Fourth, postmodernism is a response to the current era, not the other way around. It’s impossible to reject postmodernism, they have to engage our critique. Feldman in 94 [stephen M. SPRING, Professor of Law, University of Tulsa DIAGNOSING POWER: POSTMODERNISM IN LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP AND JUDICIAL PRACTICE Northwestern University Law Review] Postmodernists, in response to this attack, might insist that they neither colonize nor depoliticize different voice scholarship; rather (as already discussed) postmodern theory both builds upon and supports such scholarship. Indeed (possibly speaking for Schlag), one reason we now question the ability of subjects to choose and pursue normative goals is that different voice scholars have helped reveal that the very concept of the "choosing subject" represents a manifestation of a dominant majority's exercise of power. Of course, some critics of postmodernism, discounting such postmodern responses, might reply that the postmodern emphasis on the antifoundationalist and anti-essentialist play of signifiers inevitably leads to a "slippery slope of "totalizing critique,' " n268 which leaves no standard for criticizing oppression and domination. To be sure, the problem of justifying critique looms as a crucial difficulty for postmodernists, n269 but postmodernism is not merely some grand theory that we can choose to reject because of some serious weakness. Postmodernism, at a minimum, is a cultural era or tradition that includes or manifests itself in certain types of theory. n270 With this recognition, the problem of critique becomes a challenge that must be confronted, not a defect that somehow justifies the impossible (rejecting the postmodern). n271 [*1105] Fifth, Baudrillard doesn’t say postmodernism is good, he just presents a way to look at life in a postmodern world. Rejecting his views is like rejecting a path that helps guide us because we don’t like where we are now – their argument is more counter-productive than postmodernism itself could ever be. He fails to answer the turn, this turn is very specific to his case, he tries to re-incorporate the impoverished farmers back into society, this destroys their identity as humans, this type of rhetoric will destroy all the identities of “this other” and will destroy the identities, of the rest of society, thus making them the outsiders as well, this will collapse the entire social realm that is currently established, this is a direct turn to their solvency, because they can never solve for this outsider they are trying to incorporate into society. This turn establishes a double-bind: 1. The affirmative just replicates the impacts of the 1AC because they will just cause the rest of society to become the group they are trying to incorporate back into “society” 2. Or they cannot solve for the “outsiders” aka rural farmers, because they don’t try and incorporate them back into society, which is what their Solvency is based on. Executive Order: His 2AC #1 is the Warber in 06 evidence, this evidence is extremely power-tagged, it only says that executive orders have been used, but no where does it say that they are successful. Power-Tagging is extremely abusive for multiple reasons: A. Education: by tagging the cards, with what one wants them to say, we don’t actual get the warrants of brilliant pieces of evidence. This destroys the education we could be getting from published authors, and that is the point of debate is to get education from multiple resources. This is an independent reason to vote negative. And the power-tagging of the Warber evidence fails to answer the warranted Cooper in 97 evidence, which states executive orders, produce to much complexity and conflict, and will not provide long-term benefits, because the next president will just come in change the situation. Also, Executive orders are a weaker foundation to build policies other than using the government as a whole. On 2AC #2, Again this card is extremely power-tagged as well, no where does it say anything about successes, c/a the theory objection from above. Another reason to vote neg. 2AC #3 is again completely power tagged, the warrant of the evidence is that the president takes into account these things, but he doesn’t consent with them. C/A the theory from above. This is not a turn, because the card is extremely unwarranted. On the 2AC #5 there is no net benefit to increasing presidential power for the affirmative, instead it just bolsters our turn. Executive orders will increase the prez’s power and then this power will become a rupture in the separation of powers. The impact to this is tyranny. On 2AC #6 This card just proves our turn as well, the president will not have to wait for the other branches to check back which destroys the basis our country was built on. C/A the analysis from above about the turn. On 2Ac #7 No we have dis-proved this, through the power-tag arguments, and the analysis on each of the cards, it does not increase powers. On 2AC #8 the Reed evidence is what causes the rupture in the separation of powers, an executive order will pressure congress to take action, this is the unjustified order, which also causes the inter-branch conflicts, because congress isn’t going to act on their own they have to act with the extreme pressure of the Prez. This will cause conflict within the United States and outside. They lose. He made a big mistake dropping the Anderson in 02 evidence, this evidence is killer as to how executive orders bypass the legislative branch ,this is a violation of the separation of powers, and then his dropping of the Redish in 91 evidence which states then when the separation of powers is violated, then tyranny is executed. Tyranny is a government where one person makes all the decisions, and this undermines the people’s voices, this is worse than any affirmative impact. This means the actor of his plan is turned, which means he will not be able to garner any form of solvency.
  8. Where is the rvi on the T? In your Walsh evidence where are the accusations that one representative from Virginia proposed warranted? On the Alderman card, where does it say specifically that federalism doesn't exist? quote the card please Where do we claim impacts that cause the extermination of the human race? Do you not understand explanations of impacts? Explain to me, where in my Baudrillard evidence, he kritiks capitalism at all? or economic exploitation of the poor? How is Baudrillard's Kritiks contradictory? and naive? because all that is said in your evidence is that it is naive, but gives no warrants, and the contradictory isn't even stated. WHere in your Warber evidence does it say anything about successes? Because I'm calling bullshit. Where does your jennings evidence ever say anything about executive orders? On your second Walsh evidence how does that say he uses all the other branches? Your read evidence says "but also ourexperience has been that every step we take through executive action also helps to build pressure for Congress to take action as well.", how is this creating cooperation? when it is just forcing the congress to act?
  9. ummm.... can i get that fixed? so i can cross-x and get the 2nc done... I know I'm being demanding but I am trying to keep the tournament on schedule.
  10. That word count is 4625, the limit is 2500. please fix. then let me know when the 2NC needs to deploy.
  11. I completely agree. But this is a replication of the comodification of suffering. we all know how they are treated, we see it all over, the media, legislation, but yet we still go to the circuses, we still watch shows where animals are exploited.
  • Create New...