Jump to content

Phantom707

Member
  • Content Count

    809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Phantom707 last won the day on December 12 2018

Phantom707 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1012 Excellent

About Phantom707

  • Rank
    Top Speaker

Recent Profile Visitors

11119 profile views
  1. Essentialism basically means treating all members of a category as having some common characteristic that is critical to their membership in said category. For example, it would be essentialist to say that all people of [insert race] like [insert stereotypical food] and that their liking of that food is what defines them as a member of that race. The term comes from the word essential. The belief is that some characteristic is essential for their identity. Of course, in critical race theories, essentialism is discussed heavily. There are some people who think that there are essential characteristics for a race while others thinkt that saying that leaves a lot of people behind, leaves a lot undiscussed and ignored.
  2. I feel like you're also missing topic-specific education. The topic is the only thing that changes every year; people almost inevitably get to the same extinction impacts. If a team is untopical, we don't learn about the unique processes and internal links that are tied to the topic. The other team may ask why that's important, and at that point, you can basically recite all of the reasons given in the topic paper. The topic paper is a detailed explanation of why the education inherent in that specific topic is important (such as how it relates to the real world, how it impacts people, etc.).
  3. Multilateralism is definitely one. There's also different kinds of regional stability, most prominently Middle Eastern stability (we need the credibility and cooperation of the EU to stabilize the Middle East). It would probably be smarter to get specific country relations with the US. That'll allow you to diversify your impacts and hedge back against any generic answers that the opposing side may have. For instance, US-Netherlands relations probably aren't answered by generic US-EU relations answers.
  4. Squirreloid, I'll agree with you that it's just an in-round explanation and not necessarily an objective analysis of what capitalism actually entails. We've had these discussions before, and while I do find them to be valuable, I do not think that delving into depth on these issues is the best course of action given the nature of this thread. Suffice it to say that I agree that a cap K and its components are debatable. Those are all "tricks" that are commonly used by a number of different Ks. The perm answers you outline are related to cooption arguments, which say that if you combine the strategy of the K's alt with the plan, the existing relations of power will remain intact. Social death is an argument against consequentialism. Even though it uses the language of "death", it doesn't refer to biological death (unless you're actually going to say that you're a zombie or something). It says that solving the issue of social death is more important than solving the issue of biological death. The last argument is part of a broader concept of serial policy failure. It indicts the aff's epistemology/methodology and argues that the plan will fail as a result.
  5. Oooooo. I am a ghooooooost... More of an apparition, really. A phantom if you will... I remember reading a post from years ago on the issue of how a K alt should always solve the links. I'm paraphrasing, but maybe someone knows what post I'm talking about. Imagine the K has a link to the aff that says the plan spills over a glass, and the impact is that there's spilled milk on the floor. If the alt were to get paper towels to clean up the spilled milk, that would be a case of the alt solving the impact, not the link (because there are still other instances of people knocking over glasses). Because the alt only solves the impact, the alt can always be permuted; do the plan and get paper towels to clean up the spilled milk/the bad impact of the plan. A K alt should resolve the links of the criticism, not the impact. That makes it harder/impossible for the aff to perm because the alt stops the causes of the impacts (and the aff is one cause), not the impacts themselves.
  6. Pick some specific ones, and we can explain them. Better yet, pick a specific kritik that you want to see the "trick" executed in the context of, and we'll explain it. You can't just assume that the same "trick" can be used with every single K. Each K has a different thesis and different take on issues. I'll just start with root cause in the context of cap (specifically a Marxist-style cap K). Here would a brief, in-round explanation: We've proven that the aff is capitalist. That's our [insert author] card that says ocean development is inherently tied to resource extraction for capitalistic growth. Next, extend our [insert author] card on how capitalism is the root cause of environmental destruction. Capitalism is inherently a system of economic growth, and that requires more and more natural resources. This constant need for minerals, fuel, and other things causes us to create open pit mines and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Thus, even if the aff is able to stop one proximate cause of environmental destruction (whatever their story is), they still propagate the capitalistic system of endless growth and planetary destruction. In the long-run, their impact becomes non-unique/inevitable, and the alt is the only way to solve for this. It's try or die for the neg. Root cause arguments should pretty much always be contextualized to the particular aff advantages. Root cause arguments basically make it so that the aff's impacts are not only non-unique but also are caused (in some small part) by the aff.
  7. I want to make clear that it was never my intention to suggest or say that it's stupid. I was trying to make that clear by clarifying that I think that it's defensible but that there is tension. That was when I made such statements as "it's defensible, but you're going to need to have good warrants for it". I was trying to offer constructive criticism.
  8. Then you link to the performative contradiction part of my argument. "Oh, it's only violent/bad to exclude when it's Westerners that are doing it". There are A LOT of problems with that line of argument. I mean, sure, it's defensible, but you're going to need to have good warrants for it. It's a double bind argument: either you're a perf con because you also exclude and that's bad, or you don't exclude so the perm works.
  9. You say your methodology is more inclusive. You then say that the perm, which would most likely be phrased as using both methods of knowledge production, is cooption. There's so much tension there that it's almost, if not actually is, a performative contradiction. You haven't answered the question of how you get to exclude the aff (to answer the perm) while they don't get to exclude you (your link). "the perm is straight severence" That's an assertion. How is it severance at all? How about this. Your link is to the justifications of the plan, not the plan itself. Thus, the plan could be justified via indigenous methodologies (in addition to the Western methodologies the aff already has presented to justify it). Thus, both methodologies [could] justify the plan. How is the perm severance then?
  10. It seems like you should also load up on case defense cards (even better if you indict their specific methodology) to make this more compelling to judges. This K begs the question of whether or not the aff is actually true. If they are, then they don't link to your offense. Or you could take the position that Truth (capitalized) doesn't exist at all. But then that severely limits your strategic options and makes your own ability to argue even harder. First, how is it "true" that minorities are marginalized by claims of truth? Even if it that is true, why is it true that we should care at all if we don't believe in Truth? Truth is often a source of value. Your "alternative" (I don't know if you actually intend to advocate this as a kritik alt) of indigenous epistemologies would need support. You almost necessarily need to exclude the Western forms of knowledge production (or else the perm probably solves). Why is your form of exclusion good while the aff's purported form of exclusion bad? The only thing I can think of is to say that your way is true, is the true way of getting to Truth, and that the aff's Western style is wrong. But that's an actual performative contradiction.
  11. What is workability? I've sincerely never heard of it. Could you give an example of an [theory, I suppose] argument where workability is a voter?
  12. [international] water supplies critical - [offshore] wind key to maintaining supplies
  13. So, this site is dying and all that, so there's no separate forum for the domestic surveillance topic. Anyways, I thought it might be a good idea to get people to start brainstorming for the domestic surveillance topic. I'm not a high schooler anymore, but here's my idea: stop surveying some organization like Green Peace that's on the terror watch list. There's probably some literature that says those organizations are not effective [at protecting the environment in this case] because they haven't been able to expand/get funding because of the pressure from the surveillance state. Then an advantage would be environmental destruction. On T substantial, you could say something like how groups on the terror watch list get a crap ton of attention from intelligence agencies and such. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I just had it the other night, but it's something to perhaps think about.
  14. Sincere question, is there a significant number of community organizations such that this is warranted? I mean, I suppose my question is what counts as a community organization. Like, if you count the KKK as one, then yeah, I suppose that would fit the description, but I don't think Habitats for Humanity would. I feel like this one comes out of nowhere. That begs the question of what it means to treat a human being like they're an animal. I'm not going to dive into the whole speciesism versus racism debate. They're both important issues that should be discussed (and yes, that still allows for, say, discussions of racism to take precedence over and above discussions of speciesism). However, it's kind of weird that you would just toss that in there. Imagine being at a women's rights lecture, and someone shouts that women shouldn't be treated like [insert any number of races]. I mean, I guess you could make the case for one form of suffering being more important than another (I'm not doing that here), but it's kind of like burning bridges when you don't need to be. My point here is that you could easily have used any number of other terms, but you chose that one. You could've easily said something like "treated another human being like they're the worst thing in the world/garbage/etc." Those terms may still have baggage associated with them, but not to the degree that your term does.
×
×
  • Create New...