Jump to content

ARGogate

Member
  • Content Count

    1355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Everything posted by ARGogate

  1. ARGogate

    Hegemony Backfile Update

    Version 2.0

    121 downloads

    Hey everyone, as a policy-oriented debater, I've noticed a huge problem with heg debaters in the community. They. Are. Lazy. Most take the traditional stance of a single, monolithic concept of "hegemony" and assert that claim as if it solves everything when they read those recent cards. These are (usually) the same debaters who read offensive realism as a reason war is inevitable and argue that perception of US power solves. What? Perception solves structural incentives for aggression? Trouble is, nobody rises to beat down bad heg debaters anymore so they get away with a lot of crazy arguments. The solution? A whole new hegemony file that's ready for these silly "heg solves because Kagan/Brooks/Thayer/etc says so" debaters Here's a comprehensive hegemony backfile featuring some of the most recent cards on the subject. Most of these cards are from 2011-2013 and are simply fantastic. The file includes both defensive and offensive arguments and is ideal for any level debater. This update/backfile also includes answers to the Brooks article and indicts for many common authors, such as Nye, Wohlforth, Brzezinski, etc. There are lots of cool tricks and mini-disads to read/extend in the block, so it's a must have even as a supplement for people who have better things to do than cut heg updates. Yeah, I know, everyone has heg impact turns, what makes this one so special? Heg bad, multilateralism good, right? Not really, The main reason this file is different is that it includes a lot of differential analysis with regards to US dominance, primarily focused around offshore balancing, which is (in my opinion) one of the best transitions to read because it gets you out of a large part of heg good offense as well as disads to multilateralism, especially considering the fact that there aren't very good disadvantages to offshore balancing. Offshore balancing still allows for US dominance, but in a prescriptive context: instead of amassing the largest power differential imaginable, the US should focus on intelligence-gathering, naval power projection, and leaving countries to sort out some of their own problems with intervention only happening in the worst-case scenarios. The heg resilient also takes a neat spin on the traditional argument. It's not the same "we have the biggest army, suck it" argument of the past. Rather, it's centered around the concept of relative decline, where the US loses military capability but retains influence. After all, what is hegemony? It's more than just having the bigger guns, it's about global perception and influence. This argument is great because it puts you in a position where you can read a lot of aff cards (Nye, etc) back at the affirmative. Either way, as a supplement or if you want a new spin on an old argument, this file is a great buy. It's almost completely highlighted, and fully blocked out for the 2NC/1NR. TOC: Hegemony. 2 Top Shelf 2 Notes. 3 Heg Resilient 3 1NC Hegemony. 4 2NC Overview.. 5 2NC Extra. 8 AT: Competitiveness. 12 AT: Econ Kills Interdependence. 13 AT: Retrenchment Kills Heg. 14 AT: China. 16 AT: Kagan. 19 Heg Bad. 20 1NC Hegemony. 21 2NC Overview.. 24 2NC UQ.. 27 2NC Adventurism DA.. 30 2NC Militarism... 31 AT: Causes Heg Collapse. 33 AT: OSB Bad. 34 AT: Transition. 35 AT: Nye [China]. 38 AT: China. 39 AT: Kagan. 41 Liberal Order. 42 1NC Internationalism... 43 2NC Internationalism... 44 2NC Extra Cards. 46 AT: Western Leadership. 48 AT: Deudney & Ikenberry. 49 Naval Power. 49 1NC Navy Bad. 50 1NC Navy Defense. 51 2NC Navy Defense. 53 2NC Navy Bad. 56 Collective Blocks. 56 AT: Bandwagoning. 57 AT: Kagan/Lieber. 59 AT: Transition War [Herd]. 61 AT: Thayer. 62 AT: Mead. 64 AT: Khalilzad. 66 AT: Ferguson. 67 AT: BIW... 68 AT: Wohlforth. 70 AT: Brzezinski 72

    Free

  2. ARGogate

    Security K Core - ARGogate

    Version

    117 downloads

    Note: File price reduced Hey everyone This is the security k. Form matches function; the file is constructed to be just as versatile as the argument itself. The two 1nc shells, long and short, are there depending on the 1nc commitment you want to make. I'll highlight a few must-read cards and then general strategies. 1nc burke - it's makes a ton of different arguments - root cause, aff impacts not real, war impact, util bad, and even a perm answer. it's referenced a bunch in the 2nc blocks, and is a great all-purpose arg. 2nc bilgin - beginning discussions at the intellectual level is a better way to approach policy. it cites empirics of grassroots movements that have been taken upstream to be successfully implemented as policy, which is a classic arg against aff framework cards. this card makes the arguments that all security k debaters have to win eventually, that our academic discourse DOES matter. the rest of the K is modular. the impacts can be read anywhere from the overview to the perm debate. whenever the aff talks about "our specific _____" you should pull lines from their evidence and incorporate those lines into the link blocks. for big Ks like aerospace, there are 1nc links in the link section, so make sure you check those out before round finally, you'll be coming across the zenko and cohen article quite a few times in this file as well as the full text of the article at the bottom. the article characterizes this version of the security K well - this is the security K you read in front of judges who don't like or don't understand the K. it's written so that the impacts are very policy-friendly (see: impact calc) and salient to a wide range of affs across many topics. despite being a generic, it can be an argument that is easy to make very aff-specific. good luck and happy debating Contents 1NC Shells. 2 1NC—Security K (Short). 3 1NC—Security K (Long). 6 Top-Level Answers. 11 Framework. 12 K Prior. 13 Impact Calc. 16 Actor-Network Tracing. 18 Alt Solvency. 19 Death is an Illusion. 24 AT—Perm: Both. 26 AT—Perm: Other Instances. 29 AT—Perm: Judge Choice. 30 AT—Perm: Cozette. 31 AT—Cede the Political 32 AT—Threats Real 34 AT—Nye: Policy Relevance. 35 AT—Rotter: Focus on Materiality. 37 AT—Schweller: No Paranoia. 38 AT—Owen: Critical Turn Bad. 39 AT—Rasch: Enmity Good. 41 AT—Wendt: Inevitability. 45 AT—Pinker: Wars Down. 49 AT—Kaufman: No Impact 51 AT—Kraus: Reception Theory. 53 AT—Coyne: Falsifiability. 56 AT—Fitzsimmons: Complexity Bad. 58 AT—Jones: No Alt Solvency. 59 AT—Gunning: Pragmatism... 60 AT—Kurasawa: Predictions. 61 AT—Non-Unique Disad. 62 AT—Alt = Transition Wars. 64 AT—Threatcon K2 Action. 65 Realism Debate. 65 R—2NC.. 66 R—Psychoanalysis. 68 R—Fails. 70 R—Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. 71 AT—Human Nature. 72 AT—History. 75 AT—Defensive Realism... 76 AT—Mearshimer. 77 AT—Waltz. 79 AT—Guzzini 80 Impact Debate. 80 I—Arms Race***. 81 I—Cooperation. 83 I—Dehum***. 84 I—Ethnocentric Thinking***. 85 I—Interventionism***. 87 I—Racist Scholarship***. 88 I—Social Militarism... 89 I—Social Progress***. 90 Link Debate. 91 L—Agriculture. 92 L—All Purpose. 94 L—Arctic. 96 L—Aerospace—1NC.. 104 Morrissey 2011. 108 L—Biosecurity. 110 L—China—1NC.. 111 L—China—XTN.. 112 L—China—Epistemology. 115 L—Competitiveness—1NC.. 117 L—Competitiveness—XTN.. 118 L—Competitiveness—F/W... 122 L—Competitiveness—Epistemology. 125 L—Cybersecurity. 128 L—Death Impacts. 129 L—Democratization. 132 L—Deterrence. 133 L—Drones. 135 L—Economy. 138 L—Environment—1NC.. 142 L—Environment—XTN.. 144 L—Environment—Epistemology. 151 L—Environment—Scapegoating. 152 L—Environment—AT—Mobilization. 154 Apocalypticism... 154 Buell 3. 154 L—Environment—Alt Solves. 161 L—Hegemony. 162 L—Iran—1NC.. 166 L—Iran—XTN.. 168 L—India. 175 L—Infrastructure. 177 L—Infrastructure Terrorism... 181 L—Japan. 183 L—Korea. 186 L—Latin America. 192 L—Linearity. 194 L—Nanotech. 198 L—Nuke War. 199 L—Prolif—1NC.. 200 L—Prolif—XTN.. 207 L—Prolif—AT—Universal Opposition. 209 L—Prolif—AT—Perm... 210 L—Prolif—Epistemology. 214 L—Resolve. 216 L—Russia. 220 L—Space Mil 221 L—Trade. 227 Bottom-Level Answers. 229 Utopianism Good. 230 K Debate Good. 231 AIK.. 232 AIKs Good. 233 Vagueness Good. 234 Important—2013. 234 Must Read. 235 2NR Materials. 243 2NR—Impact Overview.. 244 2NR—Ethics Impact 245 2NR—Framework. 246 2NR XT—Bruce/Dean*** (H.A.M. Version). 247 2NR—AT Specificity/Solvency. 248 2NC—Psychoanalysis. 249 2NR—Cede the Political 250 2NR—Competitiveness K—Link. 251

    Free

  3. ARGogate

    How to Withdraw Money or Get Paid from Evazon

    How do I change evazon prices, request a payout, or do like anything?
  4. ARGogate

    Hey Everyone

    Been a while, who's still alive? Also I was thinking of cutting more security cards...
  5. ARGogate

    Hey Everyone

    Nah, I don’t really do debate anymore Fettw​eis 13 [Christopher, Associate Professor of Political Science and Badass Statistics at Tulane University, September 30, “The Pathologies of Power: Fear, Honor, Glory, and Hubris in U.S. Foreign Policy,” EBook/AKG] During debates, establishing logical connections is never as important as establishing the potential, however slim, for catastrophe. The public is meant to accept these warnings on faith alone, with the understanding that the elite have more experience and expertise in these matters. Few would oppose the defense of Quemoy and Matsu once it was explained that belligerence would prevent a “catastrophic war.” Similarly, it was difficult to argue that aid to the Contras was not in the national interest once it became linked to the survival of NATO and the safety of “our homeland.” When policy makers internalize the imperative to remain credible, logic and reason can become casualties of fear. The desire to prevent negative outcomes is prudent; the fear of triggering impossible outcomes is pathological. The credibility imperative inspires decision makers to cross the line between the two time and time again. It never seems necessary to explain precisely how the predicted string of catastrophes could occur, since the mere suggestion that inaction could lead to ruin is often sufficient to shout down those who object to demonstrations of belligerence in minor crises. Once leaders internalize the belief that threats are interdependent, it seems to follow that the loss of credibility anywhere would be disastrous for U.S. interests everywhere. Foreign policy is by necessity a worst-case-scenario business, after all, and decision makers are always wise to hedge against negative outcomes. 63 Since a loss of credibility offers an imaginable (if implausible) route to national ruin, it seems logical for policy makers to pay limited costs in the present if by doing so they can avoid unlimited disasters in the future. The costs of tomorrow’s catastrophe can always be portrayed as outweighing those of today’s resolution. George Ball stood little chance against Robert McNamara. It is tempting to doubt the sincerity of those employing hyperbole. Perhaps at times these decision makers did not really believe what they said, and were instead attempting to instill fear in the public for political purposes. While divining the ulterior motives of political leaders is a popular cottage industry, it is also necessarily speculative and tendentious. There is little reason to doubt that those under the spell of the credibility imperative mean exactly what they say. After all, it is not only leaders who are guilty – analysts and scholars with little political pressure often reach much the same conclusions. Ultimately, whether statements like these are expressions of actual belief or merely attempts to sell unpopular policies to a skeptical public is not as important as the recognition of hyperbole in debates, understanding of its origins, and minimization of its effects.
  6. ARGogate

    Hey Everyone

    Haha I'm really back for the time being Send me requests tho
  7. ARGogate

    Hauntology K

    Does anyone know where I can find either a file or the literature which makes this up (Derrida, etc.)?
  8. ARGogate

    Elections DA

    Elections DAs are harder to win without an incumbent
  9. ARGogate

    Free Help Week

    Week of 5/31-6/1 Email/gchat preferred, anything works though I will not cut files I can cut a few cards if it's something you can't find after 5 min on google Down to judge practices online - paradigm on the wiki Besides that more or less anything goes - no steam requests this time,I had to disable my external graphics card EDIT: my email is on my profile
  10. ARGogate

    League of Legends and Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

    AKG#1770 I'm pretty terrible
  11. ARGogate

    Baller Recent Russia Impact

    This is a better Russia impact Russia War.docx
  12. ARGogate

    Intro to Foucault

    fixed https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/forget-foucault
  13. ARGogate

    Islamophobia Articles/Books

    Nah books are chill. Case in point above.
  14. ARGogate

    How to pronounce things from Kritiks?

    https://youtu.be/gT2sQeat6J4
  15. ARGogate

    Free Help Week

    Saturday is the last day!
  16. ARGogate

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHRISTIAN

    I mean Snarf You know you love him
  17. I'll judge, my paradigm is on the wiki
  18. ARGogate

    Execution of kritiks

    http://www.cross-x.com/topic/56477-online-tournament-round-2-feldsy-aff-vs-trippy-neg/ (heg bad) http://www.cross-x.com/topic/57693-rykennedy55-aff-vs-argogate-neg-ultimate-heg-smackdown-oceans/ http://duhbait.com/Thread-Topicality-AFF-vs-ARGogate-NEG Here's my pretty bad execution of 1 off security (it's pretty meh)
  19. ARGogate

    Novice Online Policy Tournament

    This is why I'm a chemistry major
  20. ARGogate

    Question about what something means? Ask here!

    Clip and get clipped
  21. ARGogate

    Explanation on Biopolitics?

    This is the mini-lecture I got on the war powers topic: Let's spend a moment or so staging agamben's argument. agamben's main theoretical innovation is to show how biopolitics and law are not two different things, because the sovereign decision (the decision in the extralegal space) is always on life (because it has to decide if the law applies, if this is an 'normal case', that is, a case consistent with 'normal life') and biopolitics always has the legal structure of the exception (even when we aren't talking about laws, anytime there is a category or something fitted to a rule. 'everyone wearing shoes leave the library'= has the trace of both biopower and sovereignty for agamben. So let's gloss biopolitics for a second. Foucault was like: hey this biopolitics stuff seems dangerous, we should be careful about it. Biopolitics is the paradoxical ability to decide on life in the name of life. It is the identification of humanity as a species, with a statistical bandwidth of normality. As in, to decide what life is AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT one speaks in the name of life. If one speaks in the name of life, in order to be rational or just, one would strictly have to know what one is speaking in the name of. But the moment of the sovereign decision (this is agamben, not foucault) is just fiat, it is just force, it has no logic or categories. But the difference between agamben and foucault is that foucault was a historicist (this is mean and a gloss, there is more to foucault, but imo he never escaped historicism), meaning he thought in principle the historical context was determinative. biopolitics was contingent, meaning it just arose.through the movement of history without any necessity. If you are a historicist, it makes a lot more sense to have faith that we could imagine law otherwise or imagine politics otherwise, without the state of exception or bare life. (i.e. the perm for most affs on this topic). For agamben instead, the whole idea of politics requires irreducibly the production of bare life. that means biopolitics is mostly aristotle's fault, whereas foucault would blame the context it arose in. Lots of jargon there, so let's unpack. The 'idea of politics.' Which idea? When aristotle says that the unique thing about humans is they have language and a voice, and can thus select right and wrong, just and unjust and that is what differentiates them from simple biological life (i.e. animals). Why is the aff tied to aristotle's 'idea' of politics? Most irreducibly (as in, you should have more specific links i.e. surrounding rights discourse, than this, but this is the capital T truth generic link to help you think about it) because the aff has inherited it. politics comes from polis, it is a greek word. more broadly, the entire world is greek, based on greek concepts and greek language. No one here chose to speak english. John Holland, for example, if it was up to him, would have probably chosen to speak Khalani. I myself am partial to Klingon. But it was not up to us. You do not choose your language. Concepts, and the political advocacies that accompany them, have baggage. Production of bare life is the originary (as in, the enabling condition, the always already) act of sovereign power. bare life= the indistinguishability between political life and biological life. Why does law always produce bare life? because it has to create dat extra legal space, and dat extra legal space has to create the 'normal', and dat normal is the regular bandwidth that legitimates annihilating anything that is irregular. The radicality of agamben is again, that getting rid of the state wouldn't even solve this problem if we still had categories. anytime you have a case that you fit to a rule, you're in biopolitics land for agamben. This sounds really reductionist but that's not a good enough argument against agamben really, because it implies historicism, as in, the historical context is more complex than the agambenian story, which agamben is arguing against. you can't purely look at historical context. history doesn't explain itself, for the simple fact that there is always stuff in the historical context that is not in the historical context. i.e., we've inherited aristotle's language, but he hasn't been around for 2000 years. Also relevant for this topic is the de facto/jure distinction The difference between de facto and de jure is the difference between practical instances of a law and the law on the books. At issue is the other within law, the possibility of suspending the law that is necessary for law to exist at all. Why is law’s suspension located within it, as a necessary possibility, rather than being simply a turning off or excluding of law? Every law must be subverted with an extralegal decision in order to be applied in response to the particular case, the de facto, the event. If a particular case coincided exactly with a law, there would be no need for judges or jurisprudence. The application to the particular case is both included and excluded by the law, it is not outside the law; it subverts it from within and in its name. Agamben: “Hence the impossibility of harmoniously constructing the relation between the two powers – an impossibility that emerges in particular not only when one attempts to understand the juridical nature of dictatorship and of the state of exception, but also when the text of constitutions themselves foresees, as it often does, the power of revision. Today, in the context of the general tendency to regulate everything by means of rules, fewer and fewer are willing to claim that constituting power is originary and irreducible, that it cannot be conditioned and constrained in any way by a determinate legal system and that it necessarily maintains itself outside every constituted power. The power from which the constitution is born is increasingly dismissed as a prejudice or a merely factual matter, and constituting power is more and more frequently reduced to the power of revision foreseen in the constitution. As early as the end of the First World War, Benjamin criticized this tendency with words that have lost none of their currency. He presented the relation between constituting power and constituted power as the relation between the violence that posits law and the violence that preserves it: If the awareness of the latent presence of violence in a legal institution disappears, the juridical institution decays. An example of this is provided today by the parliaments. They present such a well-known, sad spectacle because they have not remained aware of the revolutionary forces to which they owe their existence. . . . They lack a sense of the creative violence of law that is represented in them. One need not then be surprised that they do not arrive at decisions worthy of this violence, but instead oversee a course of political affairs that avoids violence through compromise. (Benjamin, “Zur Kritik der Gewalt,” p. 144) But the other position (that of the democratico-revolutionary tradition), which wants to maintain constituting power in its sovereign transcendence with respect to every constituted order, threatens to remain just as imprisoned within the paradox that we have tried to describe until now. For if constituting power is, as the violence that posits law, certainly more noble than the violence that preserves it, constituting power still possesses no title that might legitimate something other than law-preserving violence and even maintains an ambiguous and ineradicable relation with constituted power.”
  22. ARGogate

    Explanation on Biopolitics?

    If nobody posts an explanation by tomorrow morning I will. I'm just not in the position to type a full answer atm.
  23. ARGogate

    Flashing evidence

    As a judge, I usually require it. Especially if the evidence is not yours and has been read before. Even if you cut it, you should flash it. It's like an unwritten rule of testability that you should see the evidence backing up an argument. If the other team can't see your ev, I'm sure as hell not going to look at it in my decision if I have to call for cards.
  24. ARGogate

    Oppression Olympics

    Acronyms make everything better
×