Why should we assume there are other factors at play in prisons if you don't provide them or any prison-specific evidence?
Because even if neither of us can provide all the other factors in the system, we know that systems are not linear.
Further, why should we care about the other factors if they cannot cause our impacts once prisons are banned?
Because that's one level of the system. Your looking at that dense group of intersections, while ignoring it's interconnections inside a higher system. The prison system is inside larger social system around it, like the municipalities, and that's is the bigger nation system, and that's inside the global system. You can keep looking deeper into the web, and find dense interconnections, but they still have many interconnections to the rest of the system. (one way you could imagine it is like a circle inside another circle, except the lines the circles are made of are blurred, because it intersects with the other circle. Also think about this. An atom is a system, and that atom is in a system. On one level, the atom is made of electrons and protons that interact. On a higher level, those atoms and their subatomic particles interact will other atoms and their subatomic particles. A level lower is looking at the system of like the proton. And we know protons are made up of even more subatomic particles. We would never understand chemistry as well as we do know if we only looked at one atom, and it's interactions with a few other atoms. And chemistry is a sort of system, governed by simple rules like all systems, that atoms and other things are factors it.)
In another case, if we look at witnesses as a sort of system or as a "rule" of the larger system, we see that you only remove an avenue of it. Your action doesn't change how whiteness exist, it just removes one of its relations in a system
You continually say things like "Aff creates net-worse surveillance through the triggering of their impacts, and/or the SQ" or that we make "proliferating systemic crisis inevitable." How is that not a linear impact?
It's not linear because we don't outline a single linear line that transmission follows. What we do know is that, even empirically, crisis are used as justification for surveillance. Systems do have waves of patterns and feedback loops, and we can reasonably come to the conclusion that it is going to happen again.
How can anything be changed if we have to examine and change the entirety of society every time we need to make decisions?
We don't need to uproot society and radically change the institutions and relations that govern them. In fact, small actions can create radical change to a system. Change doesn't have to happen after examination, but we argue it should. What we say is that we need to look before we jump. If we don't use complexity to get a view of the whole systems interconnections to the lower system, then we can't possibly imagine how there will be meaningful change. Systems are adaptive, so if we don't fundamentally change how whiteness operates, then it will just adapt to the change. Complexity is the first step to addressing all levels of the problem you present in the round. The prisoner-prisoner relationship might play a larger role in psychology, so maybe the problem isn't just the prison, it could be the system of the prion intensifying it. The prisoner-guard relationships and the advent of rapes are highly likely to not be as simple as you have outlined them. And all of those combined might give us different insight to how necropolitics as a whole works.
Let me give a really good scenario that articulates the point I might have been missing to articulate well enough. There are different dimensions, similar to how there are different systems. If we were 2D, that means we are only able to see that dimension down. I can see the single points - thats the 0-dimension. Next, I can look at how two points can interact, to create a line between them. Now I have an understanding of small understanding of the first dimension down. Now we know that the first dimension isn't that simple; two lines can interact. So now we can have an understanding of how single points (0 dimensions) have relationships to make lines (1st dimensions) and how two lines can interact via two points to create intersections, and work in new ways, like up and down and not left and right (2nd dimension). However, we know that the whole is greater than the sum of those parts. There's a third dimension of relationships, and all other dimensions operate with rules under that dimension.
Your plan takes a two dimensional approach. We don't argue that the lines themselves are wrong, we argue that there is more than just those lines, and we need to look at more than that to solve the problem. The problem could be "above" the problem. As I said before, linearity only looks great because you're only looking at it through a linear 'lense'. It is possibly right, but it's not the whole story. It's one part of it.
How is "Aff solvency mechanism and internal links ignore the complexities and interconnections" not a link of omission?
That's our critique of linearity. Linearity ignores the way systems work, and the best models for systems we have is complexity.
Where in the Mangalagiu card does it discuss complexity theory at all? All it seems to be saying "every society has a different response to crisis."
Fair enough, it doesn't explicitly state complexity theory. However, the card directly talks about organizational methods of systems and describes the pillars of them with them with the same principals of complexity.
Why vote neg if you refuse to defend an impact?
I don't outline a specific definitive impact because that's not the point of the argument. It's like a double bind. Either you do one thing, or you do the other. If you really want me to defend a specific stance, then I'll give you the one I've been articulating the whole round. I'll defend that you have a good change of solving the problem on the single level, the prison. Abolishing the prison will technically work, that said it's like a DA. You divert the problem, and you create crisis inevitable.
Can you define "utopian fiat"? What makes this plan different than fiating "the NSA should stop mandating backdoors"?
Utopia fiat is a fiat where you overcome the link two an argument, no matter how strong it is, or overcome an argument wholly or in part, solely via fiat. I argue that it's not possible, congress won't forget tomorrow. I argue that its unfair because if you can claim fiat simply because you say so, then we should lose every round. And lastly, we argue that if you sufficiently win the flow and the voters can you claim fiat.
There may be a follow up, but probably not.