Jump to content

TheHempKid

Member
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TheHempKid last won the day on February 9 2011

TheHempKid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Good

About TheHempKid

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 03/02/1993
  1. TheHempKid

    Idaho

    Not on fb = not a real person
  2. Well its monday and still nothing. Anyone know if we can expect one to come out
  3. No really though, anyone?
  4. What exactly is the Jirga CP against afghanistan. I get that it has somethign to do with a peace process but i cant figure out what the text would be/what it does. Any help/comments would be appreciated.
  5. I know at the TOC that lexington read a Iraq policy aff with a stability advantage, i was doing some cite tracking on it and one of the cards i really need is originally written in arabic. It says they translated it to english, so A. Does anyone know where i might be able to find a copy of said article in english B. Could anyone translate it if A cant be done Here is the cite and what not: Hatem 4/25 (Uday Hatem, staff writer for al-Hayat, an Iraqi daily newspaper, April 25, 2011, “Information to send an Iraqi delegation to Tehran to persuade them to keep quiet about the survival of part of the U.S. forcesâ€, http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/259309) [this card has been translated from Arabic]
  6. I can has elaboration?
  7. What was GBN's aff?
  8. First K 1. Whats the link? Uh. You antagonize a form of debate. Basically the second part of the 1AC envisions debate as a battle between the traditional, "OMG EVERYTHING NUEK WURR AAAAH" debate and another form of debate (presumably one that is more helpful in the real world, and is less of a game), and this destroys creative immanence. How does envisionoing multiple forms of approaching debate destroy "creative immanence" 2. What is "creative immanence" K, basically what we mean by creative immanence is that every truth claim of the 1AC only makes sense because of its entanglement in a creative "flow" with its opposites. This "flow" is what we call creative immanence. Can you re-explain that? Especialy in context of waht the alt embraces? Second K 1. What is the thesis to this arg K, so the 1AC antagonizes the drones rather than the people that made the drones. The 1AC sees the weapons as the problem, and they fail to see that the real problem is the people committing violence. Drones don't kill people, people do. Just like the term "Nazi", drones were created by the people IN ORDER to create ontological distancing. 2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes? We'll defend that you make drones seem like flesh-eating demon spawn without really holding people to blame for making said flesh-eating demon spawn. I feel kinda bad for Uncle Sam. :[ Why do you feel bad for Uncle Sam? 3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones Though the card is contextualized towards nukes, if you just replace "nuke" with "weapon" the card perfectly applies to your aff. So while it might be about nukes, the same exact theory applies to drones. Can i replace words in cards if i feel like it? 4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex. You have the wrong solution -- antagonizing weapons makes it easy for the USFG to be like "KK WE REMOVED SUM WEAPONS FROM THAT POOR SAP COUNTRY SO WE LOOK GOOD NOW LETS GO DOMINATE SOME OTHER POOR SAP COUNTRY." In other words, antagonizing the weapons won't result in the shift in your stance against dominance. So this is predicated on the idea that the 1 AC only criticizes drones and nothing else, correct? 7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting out against other motivations for war? The "war against weapons" conceals the political conflict and violence raging, and how we as humans are "seduced" by war. How? What specifically "distracts" us?
  9. As far as the first K 1. Whats the link? 2. What is "creative immanence" Second K 1. What is the thesis to this arg 2. How does the stance taken by the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting against other forms of militarism or war like your alt describes? 3. Bond-Graham seem to contextualize their arguments to nuclear weapons, how does this apply to drones 4. If our affirmative takes a stance against the logic of "military dominance" in the first place then how do we cede further action against the military complex. 5. How does the aff not try to make peace? 6. How do we make the "US a zombie to drones" 7. On Shwartz and Derber, how does the speech act of the 1 AC stop us from acting out against other motivations for war? 8. What are the "other motivations" for war.
  10. I'll take it. my partner will be using my account. do you want to start the thread?
  11. Not really sure what your question is at all. We've had a ton of CX questions can i have a 1NC?
  12. Drones are created in the attempt to make war more "clean" and "safe," words are created to distance and dehumanize.
  13. The way that we used words like "gook" or "jap" in order to dehumanize the enemy so we didnt feel bad about killing them. The way we were conditioned to think of killing in terms of "missions" and "targets" in order to place objectivity into the picture. The way we convinced ourselves we were so different from the: Nazis, Communists, Savages, Terrorists, extremeists, warlords, dictators, militarist regimes etc. in order to justify war against them to put us back on top.
×
×
  • Create New...