Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PopcornCzar last won the day on October 1 2018

PopcornCzar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

24 Good

About PopcornCzar

  • Rank
  1. Labeling oppression as dehumanization reinscribes the species divide and undermines anti-racist and anti-sexist movements. Adams (feminist and animal rights advocate; Masters of Divinity from Yale ’76) 94 (Carol J., 
Neither man nor beast : feminism and the defense of animals, pg. 76-7) It is conventionally said that oppression dehumanizes, that it reduces humans to animal status. But oppression cannot dehumanize animals. Animals exist categorically as that which is not human; they are not acknowledged as having human qualities that can then be denied. The presumption of an ontological absence of such human qualities has a priori defined animals as nonhuman. Resistance against oppression for humans involves recognizing and preserving their "humanity." But, it is a humanity established through a form of negating: just as white Americans knew they were free by the presence of enslaved blacks, so oppressed humans affirm their humanity by proclaiming their distance from the animals whom they are compared to, treated like, but never truly are. A litany of protests erupt from those struggling against oppression, proclamations that assert "we are not beasts, we are humans, not animals!" Given the anthropocentric nature of Western culture's primary conceptualizations, this response is not surprising. As I indicated in the preface, this has been an assertion upon which feminists early staked their appeal for our rights and freedom. Racist and sexist attitudes expose an elastic, mobile species definition that always advantages elite white males by positioning others as almost beasts. Will antiracist and anti-sexist theory so conclusively accept the inescapable anthropocentricity of the human/animal divide that the re- sult will be a fixed species definition that clearly demarcates once and for all humans as human beings, thus tacitly but firmly positioning all other animals as "animals"? Consider the synonyms for beast offered by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition): "brute, animal, brutish, brutal, beastly, beastial. These adjec- tives apply to what is more characteristic of lower animals than of hu- man beings." Will oppositional movements insure that these adjectives always apply only to animals, and thus inscribe as well the hierarchy that positions animals as lower?
  2. That is the argument that people are referring to. The affirmative violates "in = throughout" because the plan only occurs in certain subsets of the United States. For example, certain already existent federal programs that affs may regulate and/or fund only exist in certain states or territories.
  3. You can DM me if you have any specific questions. I have read Warren's literature on Black Nihilism as well as Hudson's criticism of Wilderson's ontologization of blackness.
  4. Sure, I think it's important that the plan isn't near the equivalent of the alternative for these purposes, but being in the general direction of the alt should be good for you to make a permutation that tests competition as well as an impact turn to a specific implication of the alt that isn't necessarily an implication of the plan.
  5. Yes, my point is that if uniqueness overwhelms the link then the 2AC's argument against the alt was 'no link' not 'link turn'. The idea of the alt is that it solves back the uniqueness of the status quo; if your alt doesn't do that at the level of capitalism then we can still affirm your policy and not face the consequences of your impact turn.
  6. If they kick the alternative then there's no reason to reject the affirmative, because your aff isn't a revolutionary action that would trigger the space colonization DA you read. We can have a socialist policy and still colonize space.
  7. Just to demonstrate the point with your example: One socialist policy doesn't prevent space colonization. A radical revolution to end capitalism as we know it does prevent space colonization. Any risk of the Space Col DA is a net benefit to the permutation as a test of competition, not as a judgement towards the ethicality of capitalism.
  8. There is an important concept that should never be abandoned, and that is that you should never read a link turn and an impact turn. For this, we need to understand what constitutes a ‘link,’ ‘no link,’ and ‘link turn’. A link establishes competition between the affirmative’s project and the alternative’s project. No link means that the negative’s links are total garbage and that you could reasonably ‘perm: do the aff and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative’ and win that your aff is probably worth pursuing along with the revolution because the opportunity cost with the alternative is virtually non-existent and your aff’s impact can’t happen in the world of the alternative. Here’s where things get muddled by some people though: ‘link turn’ means that your aff has so much k mojo that voting aff literally affirms their revolution better than the alt can. If this is actually the case then you’re probably running a critical affirmative that addresses capitalism and the 2AC should know better than to read ‘Cap Good’ when the 1NC was likely a counter-methodology about addressing agreed upon harms. If this last scenario happens then the neg can say “Cap now, aff destroys cap, cap key to space col, space col key to sustain life – that precludes case solvency – vote neg on presumption”. If the scenario that you probably intended to convey happens where you actually read ‘no link’ rather than ‘link turn’ then you can argue an impact turn as well in the fashion of “The alternative is non-mutually exclusive/the permutation is net beneficial (explain the specific perm here), but even if they win competition then the alternative still fails because of ‘x’ (space colonization is a pre-requisite to alt solvency).” I also recommend reading ‘alternative fails’ arguments rather than ‘impact turn’ arguments in this position because: A. Any good cap team is going to have a link to space col, which means that the 2NC can stand up and treat your net benefit to the perm as another link for the block, which is bad news for the 1AR if you didn’t put offense on the alt that they’re now winning a stronger link to, and B. You need to challenge them to defend something that is extremely unrealistic to actually happen (the alt) in order to win, because winning non-unique links against an aff that doesn’t take a strong stance on cap when cap is the status quo, is not a viable 2NR option. It is much more difficult to prove that your affirmative uniquely entrenches capitalism and prevents any possible effective revolution than it is to prove that ‘We win the alt, cap is bad, the 2AC read new links’.
  9. 1) Prevent the situation in the first place - if you don't ask for pronouns then don't use particularly gendered terms including s/he. 2) Problematic situations can occur outside of misgendering and if there is a problem then you should genuinely apologize and say that it won't happen again. Don't read some card; some things are more important than winning the debate. People can leave the activity after abrasive/traumatic experiences. If you accidentally trigger someone or do something offensive then you need to resolve the situation as soon as possible, because it is far more serious than many people understand. Everyone makes mistakes, but reading some card that "rejecting us doesn't solve" is not the proper way to handle that situation.
  10. Watch out for Warner-Spiers; I heard they run OOO and some argument about Guam... In all seriousness though, the only notable team from Oklahoma on the national level as of now is Heritage Hall DV.
  11. I have done PF in the past so I hope that I can help with your questions. Let me know if you need any more clarification.
  12. I apologize for the confusion. I just made that post as a joke between myself and NativeWarlock because I know him and I have debated his Guam aff. It is a K aff with a plan that pretends to be topical (even though it isn't). If you're a novice looking for a good affirmative on this topic I recommend some variation of warming.
  13. The Guam aff is perhaps the best aff on the China topic. It was written by NativeWarlock, the legend himself. 10/10 ex) "Why did you lose that bid round?" "We got beaned by the Guam aff"
  14. His name is Carl... asking about Marx... just saying
  • Create New...