Jump to content

CRusso

Member
  • Content Count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CRusso

  1. What's the difference between systemic violence and normal violence? (in other words: If I don't claim a single impact related to traditional violence (war, etc) in the 1AC, how do I link?) When Zizek is talking about systemic violence he's including environmental damage, etc. All those harms are the immediate result of capital which is the objective nature of your harms. Explain to me as if I was 5 years old your Zizek '99 evidence. Zizek 99 is saying we tolerate other cultures such as these natives in 2 different ways - the way your add-onn treats the Other is good, only as long as it isn't allowed to become the true Other in so far as they accept western values , which compares the USfg to someone just studying the natives in an elitist position. The other is your over-identify with the violence of the Other because of fear what the Other's identity truly is, both leading to failure to help them. If co-opts are inevitable, how does the alt solve? Co-opts are inevitable when taking action. Even if capitalists are the ones who produce the most research, how does that preclude non-capitalists from doing research? If it doesn't, why aren't they making research right now? The Schiwy evidence is saying the scientific process your impacts go through is produced on a backdrop which defends capital - even if you have non-capitalists writing, they still use capitalist epistemology which changes the direction of knowledge. Do we get to weigh our case against the K? No. Why is synthesis through the perms bad? Zizek says strategies of synthesis inherently have contradictions in them that end up furthering capitalism by being coopted. The only way to solve is to do nothing and allow for a space of synthesis to develop over time. Which perm is severance (or is it both)? How is it severance? Just perm do the plan than the alt - our alternative calls for a rejection of capitalism by doing nothing - you can't take action and then do something. How does the alt solve the aff? We allow for a new epistemology which breaks down cap and we can solve the root cause of your harms. Assuming I did no work on it from here on out, Is framework alone (minus the cap k) a reason to vote negative? If so, why? Yes. The Abraham evidence says your framework is what justifies military interventions in the name of defending the state, and the Bruns evidence says your form of policymaking makes debaters mere spectators in comparison to people who just accepted the media's words that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
  2. Idk why it did that. Here's a good one. http://www.mediafire...tcxd9hoeuxev4pq
  3. Sorry about the long delay on the block. Here's the 1NR. http://www.mediafire.com/?jhga5w8rrs33c48 Order is framework.
  4. Nah you're good. I'm finishing up a lot of homework this weekend too, so I'm good whenever on the block cross-x.
  5. Ah well. Here's the block. I included the 1NR in there. I'm assuming rebuttals are 1300, so word count is at 3638. http://www.mediafire.com/?m2ks2a5fu75a1ub Order is framework, an overview, perm, impact debate, alt debate, and the natives add-on. Cross-x whenever.
  6. Contingent Tech CP 1. How does the CP capture the same essence of being when using the backdrop of science and technology that causes the technological understanding of being? The CP is saying that technological thought isn't bad in all aspects, but when we focus on it strictly and lose sight of ontology, that's bad. The counterplan allows for a combination of technological thought with contingency of being. It also allows us to continue political process but with an ontological method. 2. Can you "capture" the essence of being? How? Through the 1AC solvency evidence. The Zimmerman evidence is just an example of showing how we don't need to capture essence of being the same way your aff does. Yes. The CP also uses the ontological method for capturing being. We're just picing out of increasing domestic transportation. 3. How do the 2 radically different modes of thought between metaphysical (the CP) and the ontological (the Aff) intersect successfully without coming to control the revealing of dasein? There's nothing that says they can't. 4. Where does Zimmerman say they can coexist? See my answer to number 2. Also Zimmerman says we can come to accept being but it doesn't say we need to reject technological thought entirely. PTX/MPX Calc- 1. So the judge should vote neg is because the aff that rejects scientific and metaphysical evaluations and truths hasnt been proven by the scientific method? Yes. If we win the framework debate, your affirmative's framing of impacts as "threat construction" rejects scientific claims that are necessary for solving real threats. 2. How would this ever allow for ontological discussion in debate? You can still read scientific evidence backed with ontological arguments. 3. What wars has capitalism solved or prevented? Since the globalization age, even going back as far as post-ww2 expansionism, major superpowers haven't gone to war. Also third world conflicts haven't spilled out into any major conflicts. 4. Has capitalism caused any wars? No. Case 1. What is Being-in-Death mean? Basically your method for examining being which doesn't acknowledge the death drive and desire's effect on ontology and metaphysics. 2. How is being-in-death incompatible with Heideggerian thought? being-in-death is what Heidegger's thought is. Zizek's argument is that heidegger strives for an essence of being, but his methodology for approaching that is what results in being in death. This lacking of desires role in the subject makes it impossible to understand being and makes your politics fail.
  7. Contingent Tech CP 1. How does the CP capture the same essence of being when using the backdrop of science and technology that causes the technological understanding of being? The CP is saying that technological thought isn't bad in all aspects, but when we focus on it strictly and lose sight of ontology, that's bad. The counterplan allows for a combination of technological thought with contingency of being. It also allows us to continue political process but with an ontological method. 2. Can you "capture" the essence of being? How? Through the 1AC solvency evidence. The Zimmerman evidence is just an example of showing how we don't need to capture essence of being the same way your aff does. Yes. The CP also uses the ontological method for capturing being. We're just picing out of increasing domestic transportation. 3. How do the 2 radically different modes of thought between metaphysical (the CP) and the ontological (the Aff) intersect successfully without coming to control the revealing of dasein? There's nothing that says they can't. 4. Where does Zimmerman say they can coexist? See my answer to number 2. Also Zimmerman says we can come to accept being but it doesn't say we need to reject technological thought entirely. PTX/MPX Calc- 1. So the judge should vote neg is because the aff that rejects scientific and metaphysical evaluations and truths hasnt been proven by the scientific method? Yes. If we win the framework debate, your affirmative's framing of impacts as "threat construction" rejects scientific claims that are necessary for solving real threats. 2. How would this ever allow for ontological discussion in debate? You can still read scientific evidence backed with ontological arguments. 3. What wars has capitalism solved or prevented? Since the globalization age, even going back as far as post-ww2 expansionism, major superpowers haven't gone to war. Also third world conflicts haven't spilled out into any major conflicts. 4. Has capitalism caused any wars? Case 1. What is Being-in-Death mean? 2. How is being-in-death incompatible with Heideggerian thought?
  8. 1. How do we kill topic education when we run links specific to the topic? Literally anything can be germane to the topic. Ok, so what's the brightline? If both our frameworks are claiming topic education, 2. Why is policy education better than critical education? It's key to real world activism. What has policy education achieved in terms of real world activism? 3. How does perm do the aff capture any net benefit from the alt? Zizek says that the failure of the aff due to capitalism will spark an even bigger backlash against cap. So that solves your second Kovel card better, since we are less likely to see a recurrence of cap. Essentially the arg is that even if your k is completely true, the aff solves it better. Wait, so are you saying that capitalism makes the aff fail and that will end capitalism? Cap 2. So what does the plan do in developing of space? We'll argue that managing waste via space is an example of developing space. So what does the plan text do to specifically manage waste in space? Or is it just assumed it'll happen post-plan? 3. Can you name an example of a genocide US primacy has stopped? Didn't we get heg after ww2?
  9. T 1. Because the author is more relevant Why is your Alexander evidence more relevant than my Atkinson evidence when they are both in the context of NASA and mine post-dates yours? Dedev 1. I don’t see how that matters, China would love it if other countries dissolved their economies. OK, let me put it this way. Your Speth evidence is saying that environmental deterioration is driven by the economic activity of human beings. If China remains a global hegemon, they're economy will probably have to remain intact. Wouldn't this make the impacts of environmental destruction inevitable in a multipolar world? 2. 1930’s Didn't WW2 quickly follow? Heidegger 2. It address your economic impacts Yeah, the Boggs evidence says poverty, ecology, and disease will escalate if we do nothing. How does dedev solve for this or do these impacts just happen in the world of the alt? 5. We will contend that more often than not, congress doesn’t use calculable thought. Wait, what? Isn't the entire thesis of the K that we use a system of calculable thought and your alternative moves us away from that? If not, where's the direct link to the aff? 6. That’s not are argument, we are saying that a world without ontological thought isn’t worth living in Yeah I know. What I'm asking is how can we ever question being if we're all dead? 8. We propose engaging in ontological thought, which Hitler definitely didn’t engage in. But if Hitler did the exact same thing as the alternative which is do nothing, isn't there a risk the alt poses the same threat?
  10. Framework 1. How do we kill topic education when we run links specific to the topic? 2. Why is policy education better than critical education? 3. How does perm do the aff capture any net benefit from the alt? Cap 1. Your Walters evidence talks about nuclear energy ending resource competition. How does this solve for cap as a whole? 2. So what does the plan do in developing of space? 3. Can you name an example of a genocide US primacy has stopped? 4. If capitalists are going to be careful with the environment, why are we seeing the massive amount of fossil fuel consumption your aff is talking about? 5. How does capitalism give equal opportunity to people in third world countries and favelas?
  11. Sorry for the delay. Here's the 2NC. http://www.mediafire.com/?6mvw3dmxvyzb3wa Order is contingency cp, politics with impact calc, and case. Cross-x whenever.
  12. I won't hold you down to a specific advocacy of what a post-capitalist world would look like, but could you at least list off some possibilities? No. Setting specific ideas goes against our Zizek evidence of doing nothing. Doing nothing allows us to visualize the possibilities for a world post cap, which could be anything. You say that aff is an example of ecocide...if we solve the aff, where do we see the impacts happening? The fishing damage to biodiversity is an example. Also there's nothing to stop the USfg from just dumping more waste or participating in some other form of damage to the ozone. Where do I say (or imply) that space is a desired object? I am literally putting garbage in it. It doesn't have to do with do you want space or not, but your willingness to just use space for its benefits. The commodification of space for is part of what our Dickinson evidence is talking about, and the quick fix mentality our Zizek evidence talks about.
  13. Explain Zizek '08, about the subjective violence. Zizek is saying that there are two forms of violence, subjective violence and objective violence. Subjective is what is immediately visible, like your harms, and objective violence is discursive and systemic, which is the root cause of your harms that you don't solve. If capitalism makes ecocide inevitable, how come we haven't seen it yet? Your aff is an example of how we're seeing it. On Dickens, I get how normal space development can cause imperial wars, but how does sending nuclear waste specifically (something that doesn't require protection after being sent) cause them? Also, will you defend that imperialism all is bad, or just that the imperialism caused by space exploration is bad? Your aff is putting a laser in space - that will probably stir up military tensions. Also your view of space as a desired object is what allows for capitalist expansion of space. And yes, I'll defend that all imperialism is bad. What are Marko's quals? He's just an independent author with a published article, but it's the warrants and what he has to say that counts. Regarding the Marko card--these are the scenarios that lead to extinction US pre-empting a nuke war Russia miscalcing and causing a nuke war Space war Is that it? Did I miss any? It also says ecocide, Indo/Pak war and Israel. Can you name a specific person or group of people that Zizek and Daly claim I am socially excluding? A specific example would be the people in Africa who DON'T get clean drinking water with the aff, but also you allow for the continuation of a system that guarantees exclusion. Does the aff directly increase violence? If so, how? Not directly, but you support capitalism and allow it to continue which causes the impacts. How does doing nothing solve (especially for the Marko evidence)? Doing nothing allows us to take a step back and look at the system for what it is, and seeing through the idological fetish we have gives us the ability to examine the problems of capitalism. This shows us how to find a clear alternative to what allows your impacts to occur, which is also how I solve for the Marko evidence. What would a world without capitalism look like? Communism? Socialism? Anarchy? I don't have to defend exactly what the world will look like post-capitalism, but the Johnston evidence says doing nothing and observing capitalism provides us with a framework to develop a peaceful system besides cap.
  14. Sorry about the wait. Order is 1 off. http://www.mediafire...rydi4s6yns8xm7b
  15. I'm cool with both judges. 1NC should be up sometime tonight.
  16. 7. Are fossil fuels the only thing causing warming? 8. When will we run out of oil? Accidents 1. Why is the USfg just letting this nuclear waste lie around that is so dangerous? 2. Your Zhang evidence is from 03 that says waste will destroy the Ozone. Why hasn't this happened in almost a decade? 3. Your Craig evidence says instances such as overfishing and resource exploitation are destroying the oceans. How does the aff solve for this? Water 1. How does the aff solve for the millions of people in Africa and Asia that daily don't have access to clean water and haven't for centuries?
  17. Dependency 1. Why is our deficit high right now? 2. Your Stewart evidence says oil dependency has a negative effect on the economy. How does just eliminating that part of it solve for the housing crises, other forms of massive government spending, and the billions of dollars we spend on entitlement programs and defense a day? 3. Your Quinn evidence says oil prices will skyrocket by this summer. How are we going to be able to build your laser, clean up all the waste, and transition to alternative energy in that time period? 4. Your Delong evidence says growth helps everything. Is this true for people of the United States or the whole world? 5. Why are we consuming so many fossil fuels in the status quo? 6. How does the aff solve for China, who's the world's largest emitter of fossil fuels? 7.
  18. Framework 1. What do I have to do to be able to weigh the impacts of the DA against the case? 2. How does your framework not exclude forms of education when you just critique da impacts instead of answering them? 3. How can we ever have a fair or educational debate when the resolution calls for increases in infrastructure which you don't even do, nor claim advantages off of? 4. Where in your Heidegger 50 evidence does it say modernizing transportation prevents  us from moving away from technological thought? Contingent Tech 1. If it does, how does the aff solve for this by increasing it?  2. How does the cp use technological thought when it's doing the same thing as the aff but without increasing domestic transportation? 3. Where in your Wolcher evidence does it say you solve for tech thought through non aggressive means? Case. 1. If calculable thought has been around forever and caused the holocaust, war, etc, how is the aff going to do anything to stop that from happening? 2. Where in our Wolin evidence does it talk about using ontic solutions?
  19. Word. Here's the 1NC. http://www.mediafire.com/?606s870ml0ns5v6 Order is 4 off and case.
  20. Cross-x T 1. Why is .5 billion dollars a better definition than 3 million? 2. Where in your Brinton evidence does it mention DTN? Heg 1. You seem to make a big deal that your Layne card has all these warrant. What exactly are these? 2. Why should we let China become a global hegemon if they're already this hellbent on going to war with us? Dedev 1. Honestly, how does China being a global hegemon not take out any chance of a peaceful transition when they remain an industrial nation and everyone else has transitioned to localized governments? 2. When have we ever seen a total economic collapse? Heidegger 1. Isn't Chamberlains approach to Hitler in WW2 an example of how doing nothing can lead to the worst possible case violence? 2. How does Bennet and Nordstrom answer the threats of poverty, ecology, disease our Boggs evidence talks about? 3. If in the status quo there isn't any risk of extinction, how does my aff specifically push us over the brink? Doesn't this make the K empirically denied? 4. Isn't there a difference between rejecting scientific evidence on an individual level and actually rejecting it on a macro level like your alternative calls for? 5. OK question - so is your argument that congress has never used calculable thought before, but because they want to implement DTN, this suddenly triggers another holocaust? 6. How can we make ontological questions if we're all dead? 7. Explain your Ball card. 8. If Hitler was completely disengaged in calculable thought, how does the alt not cause nazism when disengagement from calculable thought is exactly what you're advocating for?
  21. 1. How does increasing investment i domestic transportation signal a break with technological thought? 2. How many grammatical errors are there in the 1AC? 3. How does the plan not link into your Weinberger by advancing domestic transportation? 4. What is the role of the ballot? 5. Do you claim fiat? 6. What does being matter if we're all dead? 7. Can you explain your Invisible Committee evidence? 8. What is the Invisible Committee? 9. With your Spanos evidence, are you advocating an end to US imperialism? 10. If so, how do you break down hegemonic structures?
  22. CRusso

    Dedev Aff Help

    Dedev affs are dumb in general. Any cp that causes economic collapse solves your entire aff.
×
×
  • Create New...