Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


zetazetadelta last won the day on October 17 2013

zetazetadelta had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

About zetazetadelta

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    qguo ebio
  • School
    NorthEastern HS
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6425 profile views
  1. Actually any research about policy debate would be cool
  2. The parameters of the argument make it impossible to provide a meaningful valuation of the philosophy unless you were to simultaneously exist in all three (or at least two) of the ontological spheres set out by Wilderson. It appears to be unfeasible to verify the existence of or the conditions which define an ontological sphere if your material experience is categorically distinct from it. No one observer can meet that qualification - even people of mixed race are thought to inhabit one of these spheres of ontology. So I don't really understand how the claim that redness, whiteness, and blackness create absolute distinctions in U.S. society came to be, and I think that there are serious methodological questions which need to be addressed by these writers. I think that the "alternative" provided in the literature is extremely difficult to discuss because the writing is highly ambiguous and lacks contextualization (yes, I understand the theoretical justifications for this style, but it is nonetheless problematic when trying to evaluate "burn it down" as a political strategy). Furthermore, because this is a rapidly developing and relatively new area of scholarship, there just isn't a whole lot to read in terms of immediate politics. Discussions of whether or not the alternative is "desirable", as opposed to actuatable, are again rendered meaningless by the absolute lack of porosity between those same ontological spheres: It becomes impossible to create either A) an epistemologically sound foundation by which we can access translatable knowledge of the conditions which characterize each sphere pre- and post-revolution, or B ) a weighing mechanism which can compare that knowledge. Anyways, these are highly analytic observations and may not be the right way to approach this sort of theory. Regardless, I feel that the field is in need of a unifying, seminal work which addresses some problematic elements of the scholarship which has emerged thus far.
  3. If you're going to run a K because it seems exotic, why stop halfway at your seemingly random list of items? For example, I cut this Negarestani K which will FUCK YOUR LIFE UP. I sadly/thankfully never got to read this. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qqsscdmvf76yewj/Nega.docx
  4. That's a huge, academic question, so keep in mind that answers you get are cheap approximations at best. You should read source materials if you want to be winning on these arguments. It's also kind of awkward. Ontology and VTL exist on dramatically different argumentative planes, and it seems pretty unlikely that there are scenarios where they should be compared. Chances are, if that's happening, one (or both) of the debaters is misinterpreting the round. Traditionally, VTL has been compared to big extinction impacts. Ontology is locked in mortal combat with epistemology (which informs which is the biggest question). The former two are evaluative questions, right, because the debaters are trying to explain the implications of their impact. The latter two are questions of evaluation, in that they are oriented (more often) towards the process of evaluation and the characteristics of the sphere in which we evaluate.
  5. While I am sure that there are cases that would work, economic engagement with Venezuela is an essentially unsound proposition right now. For policy affs - 1. "Venezuela says no" is stellar defense that really reduces the amount of solvency you can claim (and therefore the amount of unique risk of an impact you can leverage) against... 2. Politics, which, coincidentally, is fantastic against Venezuela affs because Republicans have hated Venezuela since offering Snowden asylum. 3. Because Venezuela is one of the most productive anti-imperialist states in Latin America, it has very healthy relationships with a lot of neighboring states which would probably be better actors for the plan that the United States federal government. These CPs probably solve almost all (of the negligible risk of) the aff, so rarely would you be able to even leverage the aff against the politics DA. 4. Kritiks like imperialism and neoliberalism are uniquely strong because A. Venezuela is the closest to the neoliberal/not-neoliberal border of any of the three topic countries, B. a plan with any magnitude could conceivably be the tipping point, or it just won't be significant enough to beat politics, and C. socialist policies are working remarkably well in Venezuela. For K affs - 1. Whatever you're doing, you should probably do it with Cuba. Nothing is uniquely beneficial about focusing on Venezuela, to my knowledge, but I invite counter-examples. 2. I think the "Venezuela says no" argument can probably be leveraged as offense in a K debate. The fact that we assume Venezuela to want our shitty condescending [whatever the plan action is] is probably independently imperialist. 3. Out-left is probably strong. I've not seen Venezuela debates because the aff is so infrequent, but there's a lot of real, left infrastructure in Venezuela that could conceivably be the object of a strong negative position against a critical Venezuela aff. For example, advocating for the improvement of existing egalitarian systems in Venezuela that produce a more desirable state of affairs WITHOUT the insertion of "daddy USFG" probably solves all of the aff with an imperialism net benefit.
  6. Perfcons can be a little complex in the way they interact with other arguments in debate. It's also hard to give you a stable picture of what the argument "looks like" because there's not like a consistent set of "givens" with a perfcon insofar as everything is really up for debate with them. You should definitely make sure you're solid on conditionality and discourse first arguments before you start thinking about perfcon. At the most basic level, a perfcon is a performative contradiction, which is some clash between two or more arguments made by one team. If you say that neoliberalism is bad and then advocate for introducing neoliberalism to Cuba, then there would be a performative contradiction in your advocacy, and also a double turn. At this point, we have to deal with the distinction between a perfcon and simply double turning yourself; again, because perfcons can be taken a lot of different ways, this is a fuzzy area, but I think a good general delineation is that a perfcon doesn't necessarily deal with evaluative statements, while a double turn does. For example, a double turn is (as a rule) saying X is bad somewhere and then saying X is good elsewhere (I mean, there are also link double turns, but that's essentially identical to evaluative double turns for our purposes because probability/causation claims don't really function differently here as far as I can tell). A pefcon doesn't have to be explicitly valuative, and is very often more implicit or rhetoric based: I can say gendered language is repressive and then scream fuck when my 1AR is ending soon (as I am prone to do). As you can see from that example, a perfcon isn't necessarily a double-turn, as in that example I'm not being evaluatively inconsistent, but I am linking into my own criticism, which I think is really the situation that perfcon describes best. But can you criticize conditionally? Can you claim that gendered language is only bad if it's strategically favorable to do so? We all pretty much agree that you can conditionally advocate an action, yes, but I think it's not so easy to say that you can conditionally make an independent argument. When you kick the discourse K, unless you do it very cleanly and concede defense, I'm not super convinced that all of the arguments that go along with the advocacy are also discarded. Even if all of these arguments go in the favor of the team pointing out the perfcon, it's still not very strategically valuable. The time you need to take to adumbrate a significant impact would probably be better spent engaging substantively, unless the violation is egregious or offensive.
  7. This isn't news. Cuba has been playing international baseball for a while now. Even if this was news, I fail to see how this can form a compelling debate argument or impact an existing one.
  8. "Wipeout - a shitty kritik" "Wipeout - a shitty impact turn" functionally identitcal Question: is your question relevant
  9. The links are all awful. All your 1AR to PTX needs to be is 30s/1m on the link and an impact defense card. People in LD have NO CLUE about ptx theory, so you can also invest 5 sec in an intrinsic perm, congress won't backlash against itself, fiat solves the link, and/or voting neg does nothing. Here are the cards posted on the wiki that people are using for links (all horrendous): http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/ (Concludes in favor of CV, AND IS FROM 2012) http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout (The article is about voter ID laws and says exactly nothing about repub opinion on CV, talks about how the repub motive for ID laws is disenfranchisement, AND IS FROM 2012) Beinart 89 Peter A, Yale University,The Real American Voting Problem, Polity, Vol. 22(1), Autumn, p. 152 (FROM 1989 WHAT THE FUCK, talks about all voting reform so previous examples of voting reform that have been passed in the states prove false, and the citation is wrong... Beinart was born in 71 and published in 89????? don't think so) So... yeah., that's really all you should ever need to do, at least until someone finds a better link card. If you want to invest more time from the 1AR on PTX for whatever reason, you could also try and read the Hirsh card, which says polcap fake and winners win - here's the cite: Michael Hirsh, National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Former Newsweek senior correspondent, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2-9-13, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207] Another option is to put in some work on UQ, which I wouldn't do because the neg will just spread you out and read 5 more cards in the 2NR on UQ. If you want cites for this, look in the Thursday files. I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of your options on PTX as of 9/19. One tactic that might be successful depending on the UQ in the 1NC might be to go for "UQ overwhelms the link" in the 1AR, but this is dangerous as you have to concede all of their uniqueness evidence and they may read other link cards in the 2NR (although this is doubtful, considering the general link quality). You could read a thumper I guess, but it really just seems like wasted time to me - Syria can be an autowin for those who are using polcap I/Ls but is dubious for bipart links.
  10. Thanks. Any ideas how to make the argument better?
  11. Anyone have cites? Thanks.
  12. This is probably a smart argument to make in conjunction with "live to fight another day" impact calculus.
  13. Hmm, reading back over this thread is quite funny, I don't know why I jumped straight for the doomsday argument. The others in this thread are much more sensible: the best argument against limitations on abortion is the argument of liberty.
  14. This makes me sad because antifragility is an interesting concept, particularly when applied to macroeconomics... another example of repellent misrepresentation by soundbite philosophers
  • Create New...