Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SteveandSol

  1. Alcoff concludes Aff - Speaking for the other is key to activism Alcoff 91, Hunter College and CUNY philosophy professor, 1991 (Linda Martin, “The Problem of Speaking for Others” originally published in Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter, 1991-1992 , cut from www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html) *gender modified The major problem with such a retreat is that it significantly undercuts the possibility of political effectivity. There are numerous examples of the practice of speaking for others which have been politically efficacious in advancing the needs of those spoken for, from Rigoberta Menchu to Edward Said and Steven Biko. Menchu's efforts to speak for the 33 Indian communities facing genocide in Guatemala have helped to raise money for the revolution and bring pressure against the Guatemalan and U.S. governments who have committed the massacres in collusion. The point is not that for some speakers the danger of speaking for others does not arise, but that in some cases certain political effects can be garnered in no other way. Joyce Trebilcot's version of the retreat response, which I mentioned at the outset of this essay, raises other issues. She agrees that an absolute prohibition of speaking for would undermine political effectiveness, and therefore says that she will avoid speaking for others only within her lesbian feminist community. So it might be argued that the retreat from speaking for others can be maintained without sacrificing political effectivity if it is restricted to particular discursive spaces. Why might one advocate such a partial retreat? Given that interpretations and meanings are discursive constructions made by embodied speakers, Trebilcot worries that attempting to persuade or speak for another will cut off that person's ability or willingness to engage in the constructive act of developing meaning. Since no embodied speaker can produce more than a partial account, and since the process of producing meaning is necessarily collective, everyone's account within a specified community needs to be encouraged. I agree with a great deal of Trebilcot's argument. I certainly agree that in some instances speaking for others constitutes a violence and should be stopped. But Trebilcot's position, as well as a more general retreat position, presumes an ontological configuration of the discursive context that simply does not obtain. In particular, it assumes that one can retreat into one's discrete location and make claims entirely and singularly within that location that do not range over others, and therefore that one can disentangle oneself from the implicating networks between one's discursive practices and others' locations, situations, and practices. In other words, the claim that I can speak only for myself assumes the autonomous conception of the self in Classical Liberal theory--that I am unconnected to others in my authentic self or that I can achieve an autonomy from others given certain conditions. But there is no neutral place to stand free and clear in which one's words do not prescriptively affect or mediate the experience of others, nor is there a way to demarcate decisively a boundary between one's location and all others. Even a complete retreat from speech is of course not neutral since it allows the continued dominance of current discourses and acts by omission to reenforce their dominance.
  2. it sort of is. Usually the links are anthro/Heidegger-ish with a standing reserve impact and the alt is pretty much OOO It different from anthro because it doesn't claim that antho is specifically bad, but that making value judgements about the world based on their utility/usefulness to us is bad
  3. alright heres the 2nc Orders Framework (i flowed that seperatly), Nietzsche, and Introna 2nc v ace vdebate.docx
  4. CX: Plan Flaw 1) any RVIs Econ 1) You say new resources and tech ensure growth is stable what happens when we run out of resources? 2) You say our warrents to Mackenzie aren't empirical, but isnt the fact that every other civilization has collapsed as Mackenzie states empirically based? Poverty 1) is an acute cause not a major cause? China 1) how do we stereotype the European? Solvency 1) If you dont fear death whats the reason for the aff? 2) How did the 1ac represent confronting death 3) why is confronting death good? 4) Why is extinction bad? Nietzsche 1) If you get to weigh the plan vs the alt does that solve your framework? 2) How do we externally determine value to life? 3) who defines what extreme suffering is? 4) How does the perm function? 5) If we provide a role of the ballot does the alt fails arg go away? 6) how does the aff affirm life by running from suffering? Introna 1) what does C/A mean? 2) How does the alt recreate atrocity? 3) Derrida is in the context of reexamining law. how does that apply? 4) How can the alt not weigh consequences? 5) If we win we solve extinction does the Jonas arg go away? 6) How does Owens apply?
  5. . Sorry im on my phone so the formatting is probably off but oh well. To answer we really dont care about those other pieces of legislation because they have alreads happed, while the aff is happening now, plus the aff is just a statment, seeing as it will have no consequesnces outside this round
  6. heres the 1nc orders 3 off then case on solvency, growth, poverty, and then china. open for CX https://www.mediafire.com/?md7fgvoveovtwnu
  7. CX: 1) What exactly does the plan do? 2) What is an international Tax Regime? 3) Where does Mcintyre 09 mention ITTs/the plan? 4) What exactly does "illicit" mean? 5) So does the plan stop economic growth? 6) How do you solve Chinese IFFs as a whole 7) What exactly is "automatic exchange"? 8) Your Grinburg 13 evidence is specific to emerging/developing counties, how does that apply to the aff? 9) The plan text states "Automatic Exchange of information," what type of information is this specific to? Possibly more followup
  8. agreed Perm do both means literally do both, but like both of you just said Burke was extended which was an unaddressed solvency deficit to the perm, but i agree there wasn't a lot of work done on either The 1ar can have evidence but only if necessary to answer some block arguments, but it should definitely be a lot more analysis than cards
  9. I mean not really, i got that the perm was to do both, and the floating PIK was that the plan could happen after the alt.
  10. I think the link was good when you contextualized it biotech/bio-terror, could have done more on econ and how the K turned it. I thought a PIK was advocating the plan in the world of the alt. As a floating PIK was that plan could be done, but not specifically advocated, hence the floating part
  11. it was just something i saw in the overview, "This does not mean that the plan is a bad idea, only that the way the affirmative frames their advantages in terms of security is bad meaning the alternative can do the plan without the securitizing representations." and a floating PIK is exactly that. the plan CAN happen in the world of the alt Any specific question? Also, not that it mattered in this round to me, but i'd always recommend the path of least resistance at least in an actual tournement. I think Jared saw you were probably going for the K and therefor spent most of his time there so i think kerry/nanotech would have been that option. But you have to learn to debate it somehow
  12. alrighty, i vote neg the K outweighs and turns the aff, plus the conceded PIK means all case offense gets co-opted. Aff pretty much dropped the linear coming out of the 2NR, and i think the neg had enough analysis to garner a turn to the case. I was kind of hesitant to vote on the PIK, and Timecube, when going for these in the future there needs to be A LOT more analysis on how the PIK actually function, however this being a novice debate i was pretty lenient, as for the theory i wasn't very sympathetic because i had the PIK flowed in the block. Jared, in the future look out for phrases like, "the plan can still happen in the world of the alt," or, "we don't say the plan is bad but its how they do it." these are key phrases that usually indicate a PIK. as for the perm, same as with the PIK, it needs a lot more analysis on why it solves the K. Absent that i had to do a little judge intervention and i just didn't see a net benefit to the perm. On the no link args, they were pretty much new in the 2AR so it was a little late, although i do agree that lifting the embargo is probably an instance of de-securitization, but not when you lift it to "securitize against your impacts." Jared you also made a couple of agruments in the 2AR about how Liotta and Onau (i think that's how its spelled) turn the alt but i don't get any real analysis as to why. But overall i thought this was a good debate. i guess ill go speech by speech. 1AC Good aff, but in the future, i might try one that has more dispersed advantages, or else you risk getting bogged down like that happened in this debate. 1NC Good strat, not really a fan of the delay CP w/o a specific solvency advocate, but it wasn't a factor in this debate. if you read the nano-tech DA again, id suggest a piece of uniqueness evidence, because what i got from the card suggested that it would be inevitable anyway and the plan only speeds it up. Also if you read an impact scenario to that that was like the TV show "Revolution," i would have voted neg instantly. 2AC Okay, on the K the one thing you need defense of your representations, and maybe some link defense that come later in the debate. On the CP, theory was good, also you need reasons why delaying the aff is a bad thing, i.e. time-frame issues. On Kerry, needs a lot more work on the Link and internal Link portions of the DA, which is a lot more winnable in my mind than trying to win that "comparing Putin to Hitler is bad". On nanotech, definitely more work, i would turn the impact with a shit ton of nanotech good stuff (basically the aff). the one card you read was WAY under-highlighted, and wasn't really responsive. Case was okay, just make sure not to drop those cards on solvency. Block On the CP, really no point reading an overview if you're just kicking it. On Kerry, pretty good, but if you're serious about going for this (which you should be) then there could be more link and impact work, plus new impacts. On the Nanotech DA, you should have gone a lot harder on this, ya its was kind of stupid but it was pretty much conceded. Definitely would have been a reason to vote neg. On the K, good speech, no comments really. 1AR LESS CARDS MORE ANALYSIS!!!!!! 1ARs should use the tools present in the 2AC, and use cards ONLY if necessary. Also, check your grammar, it doesn't matter if you type it for yourself in round, but in Vdebates it needs to be clear for the judges. Overall it was okay, just more analysis on how the perm solves. 2NR Good analysis on how the K turns the aff, but more work on the PIK, ya it was totally dropped but that doesnt mean you can say "PIK WE WIN!!!!!" you need to explain HOW we can do the affirmative in the world of the alt. Also a more strategic choice might have been to go for the Kerry DA, since it was pretty much wide open coming out of the 2AC and 1AR. It didnt really matter at the end but just a thought. 2AR Okay, first: WAY TO MUCH THEORY one shell would be fine but three? really?, second: that theory should have been in the 1ar. And definitely more analysis on case as to why it outweighs, you kept saying you lead to extinction but there was literally 2 sentences in the 2AR extending the econ scenario. Also, like i said before just more work on the solvency deficits to the alt. at one point you just pasted text from a card and expected us to make the argument for you. But overall, good debate and happy to judge, and if you have any questions feel free to ask
  • Create New...