Jump to content

NickDB8

Member
  • Content Count

    808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Everything posted by NickDB8

  1. And what this guy said - He explained the thesis better than I.
  2. Yeah, that little rant I had about ecological destruction is what's happening here. It mentions social inequality very little though, so that may be something you have to do a lot of analysis on. Not quite sure what alt you're reading, but be on the lookout for this: "There is currently no alternative to capitalism that appears to be viable, particularly given the historical loss of credibility that Marxism and socialism has suffered. As history has shown, some of the self-proclaimed socialist and communist regimes have had their own fair share of human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and the global left has thus far not been able to articulate alternatives that have managed to capture the allegiances of the mainstream population. Furthermore, given the depth, complexity, and scale of contemporary social and ecological crises, I am not sure if there are any viable alternatives or, for that matter, any guarantees that we can actually prevent and change the disastrous course of contemporary society. I certainly do not have any solutions. " Major solvency deficit to your alternative - 1. No viable alternative - Means capitalism exists because it's the best we have 2. Your K impacts (social inequality/ecocide) are inevitable in socialist/communist regimes 3. Even if socialism/communism works, it's so ingrained into society, we may not be able to shift out of it.
  3. If you could post an exact card, I could better explain the warrants. But I assume it'd say something like "Neolib leads to social inequalities because of the proletarian struggle or some other revolutionary Marx stuff". Essentially, neoliberalism keeps the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor or getting poorer, while under the impression that everything is ok. You can get into some root cause arguments that would probably say something like "Wilderson's criticism of Blackness is rooted in slavery - a neoliberal construct". If you don't know what Wilderson (or any Antiblackness author) talks about, they say that all of america is antiblack, being built upon the work of the blacks and "blackened" individuals - but that's probably a discussion for another day. In terms of ecosystem collapse - Imagine a world where the market and government were completely separate, no regulations. CO2 would skyrocket. Deforestation would be happening left and right. I remember hearing about a paper company in Africa dumping bleach (because paper isn't naturally white) into a local river. Just think of the general industrial stuff you hear about destroying the environment. Elephants being hunted for ivory, oceans being overfished to make a profit, the list of potential scenarios can go on. EDIT: Not sure why I immediately thought of Wilderson - The most real world example of social inequality would probably be the male/female wage gap.
  4. Impacts and alternatives vary, in terms of impacts, you can expect things like warming, wars, resource shortages, class struggles, poverty, and root cause of other K impacts (ie, Neolib is the root cause of racism, etc.). In terms of alternatives, you can see everything from reject the aff, to violent revolution. In terms of surveillance, you can see things like "reducing state surveillance moves surveillance to the private sector", or something of the sort. In terms of China, I'm not sure yet, but my guess is, it'll probably be something along the lines of "Doing X with China (like trading) only benefits big businesses and spreads capitalism/neoliberalism to China". EDIT: The attached document should get you started looking at what these arguments look like. Neoliberalism K - JDI 2015.docx
  5. As do I, will you also send something on the China topic?
  6. Cap/FW is typically what happens. As TyR said, it's really about the aff you're debating. Utopianism (Stravikakas is the author, I think) K wouldn't be bad, and Mark Kingwell write some stuff talking about why a lot of kritikal advocacies are authoritarian.
  7. From what I understand, neoliberalism is capitalism, plus who supports it. For instance, the WTO, ASEAN, etc. all are "supporters" of capitalism that involve the state. This will function similar to a Cap K (some say it's synonymous, I disagree). You should definitely throw neolib specific impacts on it, not just cap. Because if they break out the cap turns, you say that your argument is not cap bad, but neolib bad. Cap/Neolib is generally a good place to start for K debate. Cap just says that plan is capitalist, capitalism is bad, vote neg to do the alternative which solves for capitalism. Neolib is the same structure. It DEFINITELY links to the China topic - Economic engagement with another country in general is neoliberal. I could be completely wrong though.
  8. Will you trade anything regarding the China topic?
  9. I know for a fact there was at least one stream.
  10. I did this once. It was supposed to be a physical enactment of the Travis Scott song, "P*ss on Your Grave". We specifically highlight "This one here for the executives / F*ck you and all your relatives / P*ss on your grave", which we interpret as a method to support anti-consumerism. We then say that the exchange of ballots for knowledge is the kind of semio-cap stuff BiFo discusses, in which other debaters and the judge are nothing more than the consumers, and the ballot will also be the "grave" of a team in round (i.e., the one that loses). We proceed to urinate on the ballot, to literally "p*ss" on a metaphorical "grave".
  11. Here's the thing though. I guarantee you teams will try and pull put squirrelly affs that China just doesn't want. So yes, while there will be good affs that say China says yes, there will also be awful ones (especially where I'm from) that won't.
  12. It's an argument in theory. To be honest, I have no idea what our Chinese relations look like rn. I'm not sure if the cards exist, but this may be a potential, generic argument.
  13. Honestly, I wish you'd won the bid. Isn't the site run by username "David" at this point?
  14. Circumvention in the sense that it's a generic Solvency deficit
  15. China doesnt want to work with us. It'll be the circumvention of this year.
  16. I probably wouldn't do it, the perm would solve best and boost aff Solvency. Your only offense on it would be theory, and if they beat you on that, ggwp, aff wins.
  17. What AFF can do - Perm: this all depends on the CP - Solvency deficits: "X actor is key to solve", etc. - Theory: PICs bad, etc What NEG can do in response - Perm fails: Still links to DA, or the two are mutually exclusive - A2 Solvency Deficits: "Y actor soles better than X", etc. - Theory: Severance perms bad, PICs good, etc.
  18. Yoooooooo, I'll be at the 2 week.
  19. NickDB8

    Weird Question

    This is going in my sig
  20. My guess is it has something to do with psychoanalysis and the emotion of fear. Not too well versed in either though.
  21. It didn't, but when did this happen?
  22. Woag Too bad engaging China makes Taiwan happy - Means that nuke war is good, but you'll stop it
  23. Aren't the PROC and Taiwan in some kind of war? Maybe Taiwan gets angry towards the US? Spending is obvious. I feel like it'll be a lot of IR, though
  24. No international fiat. That justifies fiating any country. I'd definitely say that can become a neg argument - "China doesn't want to do the plan" - It'd be the equivalent to circumvention on the surveillance topic, except fiat had a chance of solving that. In terms of fiating China, lets talk about what neg should do in response to affs that do it. It probably links to American Exceptionalism to some extent - Assuming the role of a US policymaker, and assuming you can just push China around, for the sake of passing policies/helping the US? Moreover, that's probably abusive as hell, so a "No International Fiat" theory shell will likely be an essential argument to have ready (and if you have to prep answers for it, your aff is probably bad for debate). These same kinds of arguments apply to a QPQ. You can't fiat China agreeing to, for example, lift human rights abuses in return for a decrease in military presence. On the flip-side of that, let's talk about how the aff can avoid all of this. Obviously, you can take the risky route, and try to fiat China, but you'd likely be called out on it. I'd recommend an actual solvency card, saying China wants to engage with the US in this manner. In terms of a QPQ, something like "China will do anything to see a decrease in US military presence. Using evidence is probably the best way to do it, it limits the topic down to a set amount of things China will be willing to work with the US on, while keeping out ridiculous affs like "USFG should annex the PROC", or something similar. EDIT: Grammar
×
×
  • Create New...