Jump to content

mstekl

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About mstekl

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    M. Stekl
  1. That would be great, although I'm in France (yes, the post structuralist haven) and won't be home for another week. I'll send you some stuff I prepared for the 1AR when I return.
  2. How did you evaluate the analysis on how any opposition to any system necessarily reaffirms its identity, even if it does succeed?
  3. I've been unable to communicate with my partner for some time now, so here's the 1AC for those who didn't have the opportunity to download it previously: http://www.mediafire.com/?dxrvxnbx5ntxza7.
  4. Here's the 2NR: http://www.mediafire.com/?si5qrwnej8cang1. Order is heteronorm, anthro, DA, case.
  5. No problem... could I have an extension on the 2NR? I won't really have much time till this weekend.
  6. OK, on the new question -- I didn't mean it like that. I just meant to ask whether you'd say you proudly present the K. Or, for that matter, whether you think it's a wise advocacy?
  7. Case 5. OK, so point to a place in the 1NC where you said ANYTHING about cap's familial commodification. DA 3. You seem to be misunderstanding the question. I want you to show me a warrant in one of your cards that specifically says paranoia is good. K 2. That's not a warrant, that's an extrapolation. Could you show me a warrant in any of your cards that specifically says that in the context of the 1AC, our movement creates exclusions and destroys them? Also, one new question: Would you say you take pride in the presentation of this K?
  8. Case 1. Stop dodging the question -- where does Foucault create blueprints & how? 3. Er... the 2NC says Nyquist claims paranoia's good... either way, could you show me a warrant in ANY of your evidence for this claim? 5. But what exactly are we spiking out of? Our argument about familial commodifcation isn't just an internal link... it's an entire 1AC impact that you conceded... DA 1. So is the State the only actor capable of creating change? 3. Again, warrant plz? K 1. So how the fuck is the K different from Nietzsche (other than the fucked-up incorporation of Schmittian politics which I hope was an accident)? 2. Again, warrant plz? 3. Then how the fuck do you solve the case? 8. Warrant? Also, plz contextualize this in terms of the aff -- I don't see how we eliminate people with whom we disagree... we've told you otherwise multiple times during this debate... 9. But then WTF is the point of resisting cap when you effectively doom the revolution to failure from the start?
  9. Sorry, one more question on the K: how can you claim to solve the case when you concede that in the world of the alt, "the world wouldn’t change"?
  10. Case: 1. Where the fuck does Foucault say anything at all about blueprints? Seriously, where? 2. "If we win that the neg stops any war that would kill anyone, you prefer that to their commodification" -- so remind me, how exactly do you stop war? 3. Could you show me a warrant in Nyquist that says paranoia is good? 4. "Make them prove that the system is that evil" -- exactly how many more impact cards do you want us to read? 5. How are we spiking out of case by pointing out that none of your turns assume our argument? DA 1. So is sparking a revolution against capitalism now considered equivalent to "admitting defeat"? 2. "Also their card says nothing about capitalism or anything else" --- which card are you referring to? 3. "Paranoia is good because it teaches us to be careful" -- any evidence, or should I just take your word for this? K 1. "This is not nietzche"-- oh, so is this basically just a K that tries to incorporate all of Nietzsche's ideas (though it does fail to do so) & READS A CARD BY NIETZSCHE... but isn't the Nietzsche K? 2. "All who will ignore or disregard the Aff would be destroyed if not directly, but indirectly because of the fact that the new world would be impossible to adapt to- dooming their survival" -- warrant please? 3. "The alt solves the case because the protests against capitalism and paranoia would occur, but without the annihilation of those who prefer the current world because the world wouldn’t change" -- could you point to any place in the debate where we say we'd annihilate dissenters? 4. How much worse are the "new exclusions"? 5. "The aff tries to include everyone" -- again, at which point in the debate did we say anything like this? 6. So what about our movement makes you think it's married to 'political aims'? 7. Your Foucault evidence talks about how we need questions, not solutions -- how do you think this interacts with the 1AC? When did we ever claim to solve cap in its entirety? 8. Remind me, how exactly do we create a "world of friendship"?
×
×
  • Create New...