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?
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?