Jump to content

attackhelicopter

Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

attackhelicopter last won the day on February 17 2016

attackhelicopter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Good

About attackhelicopter

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    RDMIV
  • School
    NSA
  • Biography
    I am a proud member of the curly community. I stand in solidarity with gingers and anyone who is hair-disadvantaged. Please don't use language that endorses hair-privilege.
  • Location
    Mackinac
  • Occupation
    Pastry-Chef
  1. i'd search for topical version of the aff blocks in a framework backfile. tvas are a similar idea to what you're talking about––they could have been topical and not violated our perfectly reasonable framework without loosing any ground, that proves the thesis of the fw and takes out reasonability, so long as you win the voters. you could even think of fairness/education as the net benefits to your fw and tva. otherwise just find a solvency advocate for some sweeping anti-racism bill and go hard on state action k2 solve racism etc.
  2. Apparently groups France and the Netherlands are pushing to leave the EU as well.
  3. Mann is the man, put him on the list. He says that rebellion and any kind of radical discourse is not actually radical, but instead is the new bland. He also says that it functions in the same way the capitalist system does, by searching for newer, better, and more radical theories to be sold and commodified; any discourse of the subaltern just gets monetized by the machine. A good example is seeing Che Guevara t-shirts being sold on the street - instead of a revolution, they have turned into a method of profit that strips the revolution of all its meaning. For things that are less about radical action and more about radical ideas, the K is similar - basically, your theories will be reduced to a book on the shelf of academia, coopted by the status quo and stripped of it's value. Instead, Mann says that we need to hide our revolutions and make sure that the system doesn't find out. Instead of a public manifesto of revolution, we need secrecy and anonymity. Sometimes this is run as do the aff in secret. Add some Badiou. Badiou says a ton of stuff, ethics are bad, identity politics are bad, emphasis on free speech is bad, and statist politics are bad. I'm no expert on Badiou, but I'll try to explain: First of all, he makes a distinction between universalizing ethics and totalizing ethics. Universal ethics are good - they are egalitarian and personal, and are based on things that are true of everyone, without imposing themselves on people. Totalizing ethics are what you get when you try to impose the ethics on other people, and Badiou considers them evil. Totalizing ethics otherize the unethical and dehumanize the victims of ethics violations. Totalizing ethics are also ineffective because they are inherently conservative, preventing progress, and ignore the multitude of circumstances which might recall for different ethical views. Finally, totalizing ethics are nihilist - instead of seeking good things, they focus what is Evil and how to kill it. Identity politics are also criticized by Badiou. Basically, Badiou says that we are all obviously different in an infinite number of ways, and fetishizing that prevents a depth of political discussion. He also has a little bit of Mann in his warrants here, by saying that capitalism will commodify difference and identity politics and thus remove their ability to solve. His biggest reason why identity politics are bad returns to his ethics theories: politics is the process of seizing the universal, that is, what is true for everyone. This means that starting from a particular identity claim, the aff destroys the radical egalitarian vision of universal ethics. Badiou doesn't like the emphasis on free speech because it forces a consensus based discussion - we talk so that the market place of ideas can function and find the best ones, but individual grappling with universal ethics requires breaking the consensus. He doesn't like the state because the state naturally opposes radical change, and more importantly because ethics should be situational and individual, which obviously doesn't work for the law. The alt is a compromise between postmodern deconstruction type stuff (which he sees as weak and denialist) and fundamentalist / absolutist ideas (which he sees as totalizing). Basically, you have to strive for universal ethics, but use political action. It needs an "event", some kind of militant political action (not armchair philosophy), and involves the risk that the person's universal ethics are changed by that event - differentiating the alt from absolute, totalizing ethics. The result would be an infinite multitude of subjects grasping for universals—so, there is no totalizing truth but we are at least obliged to search for universalism/egalitarianism in our own quests.
  4. Yeah, and you can call it "infinitely regressive" to sound fancy. Basically, the argument is that allowing the neg to establish any kind of arbitrary number or percentage that the aff must meet is problematic because the neg can always go more and more limiting to exclude even the most topical affs.
  5. Well apparently the best advice is to not treat unresponded arguments / questions as true outside of the debate round. You know, cause the whole "silence = consent" thing can get a little problematic.
  6. Well for something to be explicitly a severance perm, it would have to be something along the lines of perm - do the CP, that is, blatantly severing from the aff. Not only is this not theoretically legitimate, but it means the perm looses it's main advantage, which is proving that the CP isn't a reason to vote against the plan. This is because severing from the aff to do the CP is basically conceding that the CP is a better idea. If you hear a perm like this, tell the judge to flow it for the neg team. A more practical severance perm severs out of just one part of the plan - for example, if the aff curtailed two different types of surveillance and the DA with the CP linked only to one of them, he off could say perm - do the plan minus _____. Also a little abusive. Other types of common perms include perm - do the cp then the plan, for example, if the neg read courts / tpp ptx a good perm might be to wait until the TPP passes, then do the plan - thus avoiding the impx to the DA and still passing the plan.
  7. Most people sum it up by saying that a perm is a test of competition. Basically, a perm says that it is possible to do both the neg advocacy and the aff advocacy, which is a reason that the judge cannot vote for the CP / alt. An example would be perm - criticize historical materialism and pass the original freedom act. This is saying that the judge should not vote on the cap K because it isn't competitive; the aff can simply pass their plan and throw in the alt to the K as well. So the perm is saying that even if the CP / alt is a good idea, the CP / alt is NOT a reason to vote against the plan. To defeat a perm, the key is to reinforce the competition, for example, if the aff read an econ advantage then you can explain that the perm is impossible because the aff cannot claim economic growth and at the same time criticize the capitalist system. Also, make sure you win the link to the net benefit if its a CP - if the plan links to something that the CP does not link to, then doing both would still cause the DA and that means the perm would be worse than just doing the CP, causing the neg to still be winning the cp / da. Severance is an neg answer to the perm. Basically its saying that saying it is possible to do the aff and neg advocacies is severing from the original aff advocacy. Usual it isn't legit, but in my example it probably is: if the aff say the perm of criticizing historical materialism and passing the original freedom act is legit by dropping the econ adv - thus avoiding the answer that you can't claim econ growth and criticize it - the neg would say that the aff is severing from their original warrants for passing the FA, and also say that is abusive.
  8. Quote from a debate textbook: "Dropping" an argument: it's important in every speech to address each and every one of your own arguments, as well as your opponents' arguments. If you don't say anything about a given contention, you've "dropped" the argument. The principle we often use in debate is "silence is compliance," which means that ignoring an argument implies you agree with it. Please note that the idea that silence = consent is only ever true in a debate round; it's a really bad piece of advice outside of that context.
  9. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/ESCAIDE/programme/presentations/Documents/7.2%20VonDobschuetz.pdf I guess this is actually Europe but it still might be useful.
  10. Something like "the DOJ should ban broken windows policing and replace it with community oriented police strategies."
  11. Was disappointed to find that he is a ginger in real life.

  12. My partner and I hit a tricky aff at Berkeley; we won, but the judge started his RFD by saying, quote, "I reluctantly and apologetically vote neg". The team ran a broken windows case talking about all sorts of police violence and and how terrible broken windows policing is. They had a queer black female and an asian female, and my partner and I are both white guys, so it was pretty difficult to argue. We tried to run a human trafficking DA and take back a little moral high ground, but then they started talking about their personal experience involving sex trafficking, which probably wasn't relevant, but obviously dismissing it only made things worse. Instead, we went for states/federalism and won on the flow. How are you supposed to handle that kind of case? Has anybody had a good strategy in that kind of situation? Especially in front of a lay judge, it seems like there really isn't a good way out.
  13. Yeah this is true, and if you guys can get LDers or PoFoers on your team to just make a bunch of args against it you can brainstorm 2AC blocks to back it up really easily.
  14. Also y'all should try one on one debates against each other and get really good at thinking up analytics. Again, the goal is to get the other team off their blocks to level the playing field.
  15. The impact turn stuff is a good point. There are lots of weirdos with war good, climate change good, etc. stuff. Read it and they will just get completely off their blocks and confused. Also rights Malthus
×
×
  • Create New...