BobbyTables

How does the perm function? If the Americas were never colonized, there's no USFG to curtail surveillance (likewise, if the surveillance was never initiated, there's no surveillance to curtail).

How do those affs answer things like Counterplan: the USFG should never have surveilled the Black Panthers or Counterplan: the Americas should never have been colonized?

Real.

This video explains it really well:www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

DAs are an argument that assumes causality exists; just read your Hume 48 cards and you'll be fine.

dispo is short for dispositionality. I've been taught that it means the position can only be kicked if the other team read theory or a perm, but definitions vary (I've also heard both that it means it can only be kicked if there's offense and that it can't be kicked if there's offense, for example).

It's not problem of induction, it's anthropic bias. We can't observe worlds where we've gone extinct, so we tend to underestimate the risk of existential threats; Bostrom writes some decent stuff on this.

1. Plan passage distracts from applying pressure needed to pass the scenario 2. Theory arg - fiat means the plan happens after the politics scenario - probably not legitimate 3. Exchanging favors - agreeing to back or stop one bill in exchange for support on another 4. Nobody is pushing the thing in the status quo - a uniqueness claim

How do you make it look like a dropbox link?

Are you sure Hayek is neoliberal? Wikipedia seems to indicate otherwise: "F. A. Hayek, was an Austrian and Britisheconomist and philosopher best known for his defence of classical liberalism."

Sorry, had my history wrong.

Yes, it would work as a link to Agamben; he's one of the main critics of reformism. That said, I've heard he thinks negative state action can still be good, though I'm not sure whether that's correct. As for sources, Michigan put out a Foucault K that has some reformism links; those might be a decent starting point.

Alternatively, identify a specific program that's uniquely problematic and defend only that ending program. Personally, I think that's the better route, as it involves less general sketchiness and means you're going to have access to lit specific to the program you're talking about, instead of relying on more generic surveillance fails lit. It does mean you're slightly more vulnerable to Ks of reformism, but you'll probably link to those either way.

If you're going to troll, at least take the time to replace the url so we can't see the youtube link by hovering.

The point of the argument is mostly to take advantage of the fact that most of the reasons the pic is theoretically illegitimate double turn with the impact turns people read on framework, so it can occasionally cause trouble for teams reading nonresolutional affs. That said, most of those teams, and certainly all of the good ones, will be well-prepared to answer the argument, and you're on the wrong side of just about every truth claim if they don't mishandle it, so it's not really worth the time.