Jump to content

bond1

Member
  • Content Count

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

bond1 last won the day on July 11 2010

bond1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About bond1

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/16/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    James
  • School
    St. Margaret's Episcopal School
  • Location
    Southern California
  • Occupation
    Judging Philosophy--http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Marcu%2C+James
  1. bond1

    Hey, admins!

    I don't understand what the second infraction was for. It makes no sense to me. The first however was probably from "its not like they are on the same epistemic level" which could be interpreted as "they are stupid and wont get our more advanced concepts" whether or not it was meant that way (which I belleive it probably wasn't considering the context of the post). Misunderstanding?
  2. I'm looking for one. And not that camp file from MGW. Anyone got one?
  3. Patriarchy is at the heart of the military and the military industrial complex – there is no hope in solving violence in the affirmative’s framework – only the alternative solves Cock 92 The best is you get to say things like "Extend our Cock...evidence..."
  4. Yeah, Im good with the Fallen. And Clayton, I know you didn't mean to do it. I'm not upset, you fixed it.
  5. 2. You are saying you advocate a plurality of ethics and that this is the only way we can solve for war, and that if you vote aff it would be inhuman because we aren't embracing your way of framing. HOW IS THIS NOT THE FORM OF EXCLUSION YOUR K ATTACKS? Who am I excluding? What one point am I taking? I'm sorry, but refusing to view humanity as adherence to a singular point does not link to the K. By excluding my way of thinking that neoliberalism is something that is morally wrong and needs to be solved for because thinking of conflict on a moral level is bad and that the alternative is a superior way of thinking, isn't this exactly what you're critiquing?Ummm...ok. A couple things: 1) Your argument is that I'm excluding your exclusion? You can see why that doesn't really make sense, right? 2) The alt doesn't take one side or the other in the matter of neoliberalism. What I criticize is the way you framed this round. You framed the world from one point of view, and that is bad for xyz. The alt is to indifferently accept that there are many possible framings of the world, which solves xyz.
  6. 1. Ok, so how does the K solve for problems such as racism and genocide because when we don't view problems such as these with ethical intentions, wouldn't it allow them to continue because we don't have an ethical obligation to solve for them? First, such problems are inevitable. The link proves both that enmity is inevitable and that ethics can't solve anyways. Second, we minimize the damage done by bringing such things to the surface where they can be regulated and controlled in order to keep the escalation and frequency of such events as low as possible. This is in opposition to a humanistic viewpoint that would sweep such distinctions under the rug, and dehumanize the oponent, justifying (and commanding) mass wars and attrocities. Also, this would also have been good in the 2AC, but not the 1AR. New solvency attacks are not cool. Please don't make me have to place a voter on it in my 2NR. 2. You are saying you advocate a plurality of ethics and that this is the only way we can solve for war, and that if you vote aff it would be inhuman because we aren't embracing your way of framing. HOW IS THIS NOT THE FORM OF EXCLUSION YOUR K ATTACKS? Who am I excluding? What one point am I taking? I'm sorry, but refusing to view humanity as adherence to a singular point does not link to the K. 3. If this alt does not eliminate ethics, how can it solve? If we still make decisions in the future based on ethical incentives, then won't the level of "my ethical cause is more important then yours" remain and there's literally no reason to vote neg? Ok, you STILL are viewing this at a macro level. I am concerned with how this round should be framed. This is irrelevant. If the alternative was adopted, then such conflicts would be regulated. Already explained. Also, see above for new solvency arguments. 4. You make the create war to solve war analogy. Isn't this the exact scenario created by neoliberalism in the idea that mass murder is legitimate because it is done in the order to preserve the free market? Sure. This doesn't remedy the link. Thats already in the 2NC and the last round of cross-x.
  7. CX can continue, but I figured I'd upload the 1NR now so that you can begin your 1AR. Order is - Condo, PIK Theory, Theory Impact Calc (you can flow this wherever you want, on either theory flow or on a seperate sheet like I did), PIC. WC - 2492 - this puts me at 20 over on the 1NR so within the 50 word leeway (counting the 30 extra words from the 2NC). http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3570891/vDebate%20vs.%20NicksTieIsGay%201NR.doc
  8. 1. If realism is inevitable, and nobody fucking cares about your philosophy, which means it can never work, then why should we endorse the K? a) The kritik does not take a stance on realism, so its presence or lack thereof is irrelevant. You do aboslutely NO impacting why realism stops the alt. I can't argue that it doesn't because I: 1) don't have a point to argue against, 2) Can't prove a negative. c) Your only argument as to why this matters is that politicians won't change. Woopty doo. Remember the framework? I don't operate at a macro-levle. This doesn't indict in round solvency at all. d) If I can't change anyones mind, neither can you. This means that there is either only a risk of the K solving or the judge votes neg on presumption. I'll take either one. 2. Your Pourciau evidence says any hint at ethical framework links into the K. How does saying that we should reject ethical thinking in favor of a thinking without ethics not creating another set of ethical framework in which we ignore ethics? I don't really know how much more clear I can make it. The alternative has been the same for the entire debate: "reject the affirmative’s framing and instead view the world’s plurality indifferently, and to accept that there are both distinctions between people and set lines of power." The K doesn't criticize ethics, it criticizes singular ethics. The alt DOES NOT INSTITUTE AN ETHIC. It "views the world's plurality indifferently,". It just accepts that there are other views out there. 3.You say you allow for many epistemologies, if this is true, why can't I remove PMCs with the idea that it's a good thing to do? You do so to destroy neoliberalism. That is the opposite of "viewing the world's plurality indifferently". Besides, this might have been a great argument to make in the 2AC, but that time has come and gone. A new no link argument in the 1AR is not cool. 4. If we live in the world of the K in which we don't acknowledge actions from an ethical pov, wouldn't this either be nihilistic because we don't have any ethical attachment to the action, or be ethical in which case the K can't solve? The kritik DOES NOT ELIMINATE ETHICS. It eliminates this humanist notion that there is a supreme way to be ethical. So no. 5. In the world of neoliberalism, we are forced with one ideology, market preservation. Anything opposing that is evil. Isn't this exactly what your K is attacking? Yes. However, replacing a system where there is one ideology and anything opposing it is evil, with a system where there is one ideology and anything opposing it is evil, doesn't solve the kritik. Actually, its exactly what the kritik is saying your doing wrong. Think of it this way: its kind of like trying to stop a nuclear war with a nuclear war. Where have you gotten? 6. Just to clarify on the condo flow, wouldn't we be handling three advocacies, because you have the K, the CP, and the squo? The squo isn't an advocacy. I'm not pushing for any plan of action, and you already have 8 minutes of offense against it anyways, so its not like its 'undercovered'.
  9. 2NC - Order is Kritik, Condo WC - 2580 I'll take thirty out of the 1NR to conform with a 50 word leeway. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3570891/vDebate%20vs.%20NicksTieIsGay%202NC.doc
  10. Ok. 2NC will be up tonight, then CX. I'll have the 1NR up some time tommorrow.
  11. 1. What is the significance of the realism arguments? Your K attempts to engage in an ontological way of ethics that is ultimately overcome by realism. Even if we focus on your ethical terms for this debate, elites of power will never conform to your way of thinking which means the K is inherent in the squo rather you vote aff or not. So the way politicians think is permanantly locked in? Won't the kritik always win a risk of changing this? 2. Please explain your Schiwy 02 card. Schiwy says that when when we create a definite form of knowledge production, e.g. your K, we separate those who apply and understand this form of thinking and thus create the Other represented by a geopolitical way of being. So if we only use the Ks one form of epistemology, then we inherently will seperate them out? If we win that we are the right form, wouldn't this not matter? 3. When do I engage in ontology in my 1NC? Your entire 1NC is saying, even if the plan ideally solves, if we do not understand the ethical framework then the plan is doomed to fail, and replicate its harms. Simply, we need to look at the ontological background of the plan instead of the policy section of it. Isn't there a difference between the ontology of ethics and the ethics themselves? If not, then discussing ethics at all kills the K's solvency?
  12. The Humanism Kritik 1. What is the significance of the realism arguments? 2. Please explain your Schiwy 02 card. 3. When do I engage in ontology in my 1NC? 4. Please explain your Rasch three card. The PIC 1. Your #1 is worded rather confusingly. Can you please elaborate? Theory 1. What is the significance of the Plan Inclusive Kritik theory when I don't actually read a plan inclusive Kritik?
  13. SO one final question on the K, we are basically supposed to do all actions based off of selfish greed, correct? Several things to address here: 1) You are inherently asking this question from the pedestal of your morality. 2) This is horribly, horribly, wrong. The alt would have us not act based off of any one moral code, because to do so limits out all other views of humanity. Instead, we should understand that the world has a plurality of visions and we should accept this accordingly and with indifference to one or the other. If you want to say that that is selfish greed, then go ahead. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.
×
×
  • Create New...