Jump to content

bond1

Member
  • Content Count

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by bond1

  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.
  14. 1. OK, so lets go back in time for a specific scenario. The Holocaust. Jews are dieing and being slaughtered. Lets say that the USFG knew this was happening at the time. Do we, We intervene because the Nazi party of Germany is our enemy. In both expanding throughout Europe and allying with Japan who bombed us they represent an existential threat to us so we have no choice but to intervene. 2. OK, so the impact to you biopolitics scenario is it's the root cause of systemic violence, etc. You give an example of this being the Iraq war. How is this different from the attack you made on my neoliberalism impact that it's a structural impact, with a previous example being, the Iraq War? It isn't. I am structuring several even-if scenarios. I disagree with the plan (case arguments) but even if solving was good, there is still a better option. 3. How do we have no solvency though if we don't advocate for a removal of capitalism for the entire debate? All of our cards talk about how neoliberalism occurs when the military is privatized. It never says capitalism occurs because of privatized military, and there's virtually no argument on the inherent structures of capitalism. Why should we lost ground on something we're not even talking about? Neoliberalism is a political ideology that is inseperable from capitalist beliefs, by definition. Your cards assume this. Capitalism is the hand and neoliberalism the glove. If you don't solve for capitalism, how can you solve for the impacts of neoliberalism? If you can isolate an impact of neoliberalism that is not caused by a capitalist ideology, then you can access that impact outside of this solvency takeout. Outside that, you have no solvency.
  15. 1. Ok. Pause. Lets do the 1AC and not think about ethics. Would that solve back for the K? If you could 1) Defeat severance theory and 2) Find a way to make this coherent then yes. The problem is that your entire aff is based on ethics. I'm not linking to the Zizek card, your aff takes a stance on 'Neoliberalism is bad'. That is enough to link you. Now, its more nuanced than that obviously, but the point is somewhat watered down for Cross-examination. 2. So basically, if people are murdering other people, we should stop them, just not think about ethics? Not necesarily. Your scenario doesn't really give a whole lot to work with in its vagueness and I'm worried you'll take my answer out of context. The alt would have us intervene if it was in our interest in regards to both lines of power and friend/enemy distinctions. Be certain the ethical or idealistic calculations would never enter into it. 3. Ok, so if we remove PMCs- oh shit, I just said PMCs, now the state is going to kill us all, does thatoy one usage cause the entire state destroy us? No. You saying it is not equivocal to the euphamism being adopted into governmental policy. Additionally, you have several misconceptions. First, the impact is already beginning to happen. Biopolitics is the cause of the Iraq war, and as a mentality will continue to cause wars. Second, I never say the state will 'destroy us'. I don't read a nuclear war impact or anything, because the impact is systemic. Only confronting the state of exception can solve for the biopolitical mindset. 4. On your solvency number 5, you say all of our cards say cap sucks. Where in my 1AC does it say that? I'm saying that the cards are about capitalism in general. I can't show you where the cards say 'Neoliberalism is good, but capitalism is ok' because it doesn't exist. That distinction is never clarified. Your authors NEVER thought that someone would make it. All of your authors are in fact, anticapitalist. If you can show me where in your evidence this distinction is made, then this will be resolved. On the colonialism flow you outright say "The U.S. uses the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a form of neocolonialism in which violent atrocities are committed in the name of the capitalist individualism." Capitalism is what this evidence, and your tagline, links to. Just capitalism. 5. On the number 6 solvency, how does not having specific cards that say when the state privatizes the military, shit gets bad set a brightline sor solvency? Your question is confusing, but I think it means that your cards set the brightline as PMCs are bad. However, this is not the brightline for solving for Neoliberalism. You treat a symptom, not the disease. Its incoherent to argue that Neoliberalism causes us to use PMCs, so stopping them from using PMCs will cause the entire mindset to vanish. You have neither a brightline as to how much damage must be done to get rid of Neoliberalism itself, nor evidence that you can reach this non-existent brightline. 6. On number 8 on the neolib flow, Santos specifically says the war in Iraq is a product of neoliberalism, isn't this an example of war? I meant future scenarios. You have no possible scenarios for any wars that could unfold past now that is a result of neoliberalism. 7. Your Dela Cruz evidence on the colonialism flow is from a special agent, why should we care about what he has to say? He was associated with the mission that is being described. Its logically fallacious to attack the source without relating that attack to why he shouldn't be trusted. His argument cites an empirical example of how withdrawing PMCs can be used to gain further control over a country. The fact that he is a special agent does nothing to discount this argument. I would respond with why shouldn't we care about what he has to say?
  16. 1. Status of the alt? Conditional. 2. Explain story of the K. When you claim that ethics are imperative, and then set out a set of ethics to live by, you create this dichotomy of good and evil. People outside of your ethic are not allowed, because of the supreme nature of your ethic. Negation is no longer allowed. Those that dare to are cast out of the High Church of Humanity and labeled as something less than human. In order to continue your ethic of humanity as singular, war on difference, on those that disagree, must be waged; war becomes inevitable and endless. Furthermore, this war is uniquely worse than before. Wars fought in the name of morality, in the name of humanity, justify limitless attrocities in the name of 'the good'. Furthermore, liberal governance will create serial policy failure, as will be described further below. The alternative is to view the world instead as a plurality of contradicting viewpoints and indifferently view them. The alt accepts the divisions between people and set lines of power. This stops exclusion from being hidden, swept under the rug, and brings it to the light where it can be limited and regulated. 3. How does war become inevitable when we use ethics? This is covered above, but to rephrase, what ethics do is set an outline for what is and is not acceptable. However, it does this to such a commanding degree that it controls every action and demands that nothing be higher. Look at your Zizek card, it says that we must risk the impossible for your ethics. The term human becomes evaluative rather than descriptive. In such a world, those who disagree are necesarily subhuman, and a war must be fought against them in order to preserve your system of ethics. 4. If I understand the K, won't other states use ethics besides plan? If so, why is rejecting specifically the plan key? Frankly, this question is incoherent. I am not linking to plan passage, I am linking to your advantage's structure. This kritik does not operate within fiat. It is not a counterplan, nor an alternative course of action. It is a kritik of how you view the world, and so offers an alternative view of the world. How other states act is in every way completely irrelevant. 5. Explain Dillon and Reid. Your liberal governance serves to address problems with linear solutions. Problem: Neoliberalism --> Solution: Plan. However, the world is hardly this simple, there is a complex network of power and knowledge. You create a muck of this, creating problems you seek to solve. Then you reproblematize them all over again. This happens because of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of humanism that mandate such actions. 6. If we simply ignore ethics, how does that solve for violence? If a nation is massacring a people, are we not supposed to intervene because if we do, we're all fucked? First, you assume incorrectly that adopting an ethics will work. Its not like until now no ethics has ever existed. Second, we are supposed to intervene. However, the alt proposes a world wherein we are not driven by an ethics (which does not solve for war, as is abundantly described above) but because we clearly understand the divisions that exist in the world and act accordingly. 7. Status of CP. Conditional. 8. How do you access Agamben? First, PMCs are in fact mercenaries. They meet all the criterion. Second, this means that calling them PMCs is nothing more than a facade, and a state of exception in the name of perpetuating war. This state of exception is the same logic used to justify all biopolitical control. 9. On you Krahmann card, if neoliberalism ensures accountability, why are we seeing cases such as Blackwater where they murder innocent people? And what happened to Blackwater? They got pummeled into the ground. The heat was so bad they had to change their name. They cleaned up. Why? Because of profit motivation. They make no money when they get bad press, because the government will not higher a PMC with the then reputation of Blackwater. I am not arguing that neoliberalism will force all PMCs to behave always under every imaginable circumstance forever, just that it keeps the mojarity in line most of the time. 10. Explain the Sullivan card on sovereignty. Sure. Sovereignty is not actually carrying out an order, but doing it. You can be sovereign and not be doing the action of the choice you were aloud to make. In this way, PMCs are not decreasing the sovereignty of the state, because all decisions of war are securely in the hands of the state. We don't have rogue PMCs running around starting wars for no particular state; states remain in control.
  17. The judge can always not vote for it. You have obviously never had a round in front of Tim Mahoney...
  18. http://www.mediafire.com/?0ozbrowheluamr6 WC is 2450 - Order is 2 Off, Solvency, Neolib, Colonialism, Impact Calc If you aren't in the habit of reading evidence, would you at least do it for the K. I feel that it makes it much easier to explain kritiks if you read the evidence I present for you. Ok, cool, so CX whenever.
  19. Im sorry this CX is so long, but it feels a little like pulling teeth. Often the question I asked isn't answered. I'll try to be as specific as I can for these follow ups. Note, in places where I request carded evidence from the 1AC, would you please be so kind as to paste a section of the card that speaks to what you mean. Several reasons 1) judges won't go and hunt down the card 2) it saves time 3) it makes it easier to both verify your answer and to find that part in the card 4) you have to read through them anyways to find the card so you might as well. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...