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.
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:
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.
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.