Jump to content

BobbyTables

Member
  • Content Count

    333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by BobbyTables

  1. I really want antitopical heg good k affs to be a thing.
  2. How do the warrants for why their education doesn't help anybody not apply equally to your education?
  3. Why does uncertainty imply inaction, given that there's at least a reasonable risk of something resembling an existential threat?
  4. Most of the camps put out politics link files with plan-specific links.
  5. OOO is the argument that objective reality exists; there's not really a warrant for that claim, the impacts to the claim are questionable, and the link story generally requires severe misinterpretations of the aff. Many people don't think its a real argument.
  6. Counterplans don't have to disprove the aff as long as they compete. Advantage counterplans generally compete through the net benefit (commonly, if the aff has two advantages, you can impact turn one of them). They provide an alternative method by which to resolve the harms of the 1ac.
  7. You're right, sorry. I shouldn't have said that.
  8. http://www.cross-x.com/topic/58513-how-to-answer-perm-double-bind/ As for the second, the aff generally means they want to get fiat; it begs the question of the standards debate on framework.
  9. Natural Gas isn't actually a bad aff; it can access most advantages, has fairly coherent internal link chains (admittedly, bridge to renewables is full of shit and energy prices are nonunique in the extreme), and has more of a US key warrant than half the affs on this topic.
  10. You could read a number of alts; easiest one would be to affirm meditation or whatever the aff does absent their conception of being. You could also just read the alt to any other ecomanagerialism K. Competition would be essentially like it is with counterplan+DA - your method doesn't link to anthro, theirs does. You could probably read the Bataille nonknowledge stuff with some degree of effectiveness - also the intimacy with animality args.
  11. http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/flat-ontologyflat-ethics/
  12. What constitutes poetry and why doesn't any definition of poetry make it at least partially known? If you don't define poetry, why isn't the 1ac a poem? How does saying "the 1ac is bad because it makes a value judgement on discourse" not make a value judgement on discourse? If the debate is a wash, why doesn't a 1% risk the aff did something good outweigh? Why does the aff necessarily link harder? Why doesn't your normative description of the function of poetry link to all your arguments and turn solvency?
  13. Thanks. That clarifies a lot. Given that both OOO and correlationism claim to be descriptive, how do they get to the right to existence?
  14. If Morton agrees with correlationism that we don't have access to objective reality, how does OOO solve the correlationism impact? Also, what's the impact to correlationism? I'm also somewhat unclear how OOO accesses an anthro impact; why does recognizing that nonhuman actors exist imply that we give them equivalent ethical standing to humans?
  15. I'm not sure what that means or how it implicates the question of whether the neg has interpreted or been interpreted. Could you elaborate?
  16. What impacts do you think it accesses? Bryant specifically wrote an article saying that OOO had no ethical implications, and the most that the politics arguments get you is turns case, which doesn't get you anywhere against an aff that can defend the specificity of its solvency mechanism. Given that basically nobody defends ontological anti-realism, most of the links have to be premised on epistemological anti-realism, but there's no reason that the existence of an objective reality means that we have access to it. It's entirely possible that I'm misreading OOO, and I'd appreciate it if you could correct my misconceptions on the literature.
  17. OOO has no coherent impact, and the link isn't solved by the alt. Focus more on turns K/solves K arguments, link mitigation, alt doesn't solve aff, etc.
  18. Sure, but that requires you to interpret what it means to refuse interpretation; it also requires you to interpret the act of voting neg.
  19. It depends on the net benefit. In most instances, the net benefit to the CP will be US action bad, which the perm doesn't resolve.
  20. Am I misreading it, or does the first card say the aff gets coopted (if the image of anarchy is the basis for politics, then it seems to follow that anarchists are necessary for the state to justify its own existence)? CX: what's a pirate? Either they say the people in boats etc., and link to their own arguments about pirates being a construct of the state, or they identify the pirate as including the state, in which case I'm not sure what pirate pedagogy is anymore.
  21. There's a much stronger link than you give it credit for; first, most of the teams reading K affs argue that their education implicates policymaking in some way (Most obvious with afro-pessimism, which implicates policymaking by calling for a fundamental rejection of the state, but still generally present). Even if the education you receive in those rounds is distinct from what you expect walking into the room, the questions are still important ones to consider, especially as they directly call into question the norms of debate you're referencing to justify treating them as ridiculous.
  22. What's this "truth" thing you speak of?
×
×
  • Create New...