Jump to content

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

China vDebate – Outlier [A] vs NeXxet [N]


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:43 PM

2392 words, open for CX. Accepting any judges who are willing. 

Attached Files


  • 1

#2 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts
1,001
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 15 April 2017 - 07:21 PM

I'd love to judge.
  • 0

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#3 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 15 April 2017 - 08:08 PM

CX:

 

Why vote Aff? 

 

What are norms and which of them does the plan enforce?

 

Does the plan increase US attribution tech so that we can enhance our ability to figure out the source of cyberattacks on US soil, or does it only give tech to China?

 

What incentive does China have to backlash against the US for a misattributed attack?

 

What's included in the Mutual Forbearance Agreement besides sharing attribution tech?

 

Why is nuclear war bad?

 

What is pragmatism?


  • 0

#4 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 15 April 2017 - 08:31 PM

CX:

 

Why vote Aff? 

Because we propose a good plan. 

 

What are norms and which of them does the plan enforce?

Guidelines for accepted behavior in cyberspace – e.g. what should and shouldn't be allowed. The aff has the US propose a binding, bilateral agreement to China over stopping attacks on each other's critical infrastructure. The Segal and Lan evidence says that's a good first step to build more trust and further norm-building between the US and China in cyberspace.

 

Does the plan increase US attribution tech so that we can enhance our ability to figure out the source of cyberattacks on US soil, or does it only give tech to China?

Our argument is that the US already has sufficient attribution tech – we give it to China to reduce the chances of miscalc. The Sulmeyer and Chang evidence indicates that China believes US attribution technology works, which is enough for the two sides to build trust in cyberspace.

 

What incentive does China have to backlash against the US for a misattributed attack?

Because they'd perceive a strike on their PLA command and control centers as a military strike – our Harold evidence says that without attribution technology, an act of espionage can easily be confused with a military first strike. The Littlefield and Lowther evidence says that China would retaliate because they'd see it as necessary to defend themselves. 

 

What's included in the Mutual Forbearance Agreement besides sharing attribution tech?

1) Both the US and China agree not to attack each other's critical infrastructure in cyberspace.

2) The US and China would agree not to carry out cyber espionage on critical infrastructure.

3) The US would share attribution technology with China, drawing upon improvements in private sector tech, to eliminate the possibility of accidental conflict. The two countries would also agree to prosecute intrusions. 

 

Why is nuclear war bad?

It kills a lot of people. 

 

What is pragmatism?

The Kratochwil and Belk & Noyes evidence defines it as the use of normative policy proposals to respond to a clearly defined problem – in this case, the Mutual Forbearance Agreement to respond to the potential for accidental conflict in cyberspace.   


  • 1

#5 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 15 April 2017 - 09:35 PM

2-off with 2354 words, open for CX.

 

 

Attached Files


  • 0

#6 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
314
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay

Posted 15 April 2017 - 10:50 PM

i'll judge this as well


  • 0

blue dogs are dead, moderates are dead

republicans move right, democrats move left

partisanship is 100%, compromise is a dirty word

i'm hoping for a miracle to save America from itself


#7 DarcCyber

DarcCyber

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
7
Okay

Posted 16 April 2017 - 07:32 AM

I'll be happy to judge this as well.


  • 0

#8 Dndjcmds

Dndjcmds

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 25 posts
10
Good

Posted 16 April 2017 - 02:07 PM

Would like to judge if y'all still need.


  • 0

#9 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 16 April 2017 - 03:02 PM

I welcome all feedback
  • 0

#10 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 16 April 2017 - 03:30 PM

Case –

Is scenario planning in IR impossible?

Does the Bataille evidence mean we can never act to achieve a goal? 

What's the link to the Winnubst evidence?

 

Fatal Theory K – 

Status of the advocacies? (Both of them)

What is fatal theory?

What's the impact to the K?

How does "getting out of the argument room" solve anything? What does that entail? 

What are the primary differences between the two Ks?

 

Baudrillard K –

What are the links to the aff? 

What's the alternative and what does it do?

Can the alternative solve, or result in the aff?

What's the impact to trying to render the world predictable and intelligible? 


  • 1

#11 aprasad202

aprasad202

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
33
Good
  • Name:Aaditya Prasad
  • School:CNEC

Posted 16 April 2017 - 04:03 PM

i'd like to judge as well if we get another person


  • 0

#12 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 16 April 2017 - 05:36 PM

Case –
Is scenario planning in IR impossible?
Not in the way the Aff does it. You don't have the basic sample sizes required by basic social science standards to test your scenarios since there's not enough empirical instances for cyberattacks escalating. You also don't have a way to verify hypotheses, etc.

Does the Bataille evidence mean we can never act to achieve a goal?
We can act, we just shouldn't define those actions by particular endpoints like passing a plan or policy education since these ends cause existence to be subjugated by utility and you become defined by your goals instead of as a Being with intrinsic value.

What's the link to the Winnubst evidence?
You attempt to preserve future value by preventing death.

Fatal Theory K –
Status of the advocacies? (Both of them)
Fatal Theory is a framework argument, not an advocacy. The Baudrillard K is unconditional.

What is fatal theory?
Fatal theory is the mode of thought that remains after every other form of critique has been reabsorbed by the system. Shapiro says that traditional forms of politics have become obsolete through the dissemination of mass amounts of information under Trump. Instead of rational, autonomous subjects who can judge what the "truth" is we need to reverse the subject/object distinction by accelerating logic itself

What's the impact to the K?
The rhetorical form of your advocacy determines its political effectiveness, so the only way to radicalize activism is to interrogate form before content

How does "getting out of the argument room" solve anything? What does that entail?
It means giving up the naive dependence on failing legal structures in favor of an interrogation of the room itself i.e. Fatal Theory.

What are the primary differences between the two Ks?
There's only one K, this is just where I do the FW debate

Baudrillard K –
What are the links to the aff?
That depends on what the 2AC is, but I think that the attempt to eliminate the threat of attacks by knowing about them in advance (ie attribution) mirrors the Powell Doctrine logic of violently exterminating "unknowns" through military invasion or assimilation into the world order.

What's the alternative and what does it do?
Interrogate the Aff's underlying militaristic assumptions by engaging in a fatal Theory which renders the world more unintelligible. The Affs model of pre-planning actions in advance should be rejected in favor of imploding the logic of planning/information

Can the alternative solve, or result in the aff?
Possibility of a PIK depends on how the 2AC explains what the Aff is, and the alt has a better understanding of how modern conflict works so yeah it solves

What's the impact to trying to render the world predictable and intelligible?
Liberal violence - our Oberg evidence is about how the attempt to impose meaning onto the world results in humanitarian warfare through the elimination of unknowns


Edited by NeXxet, 16 April 2017 - 05:38 PM.

  • 0

#13 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 16 April 2017 - 10:18 PM

Case, Fatal Theory FW, Baudrillard K. 2400 words exactly. Open for CX.

Attached Files


  • 1

#14 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
426
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:38 AM

i'd like to judge as well if we get another person


Sure ill jump in on this
  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#15 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 17 April 2017 - 12:27 PM

2AC CX

 

You have a lot of arguments about how the Aff's model of communication leads to political engagement - what forms of activism do you result in?

 

What's the internal link between voting Aff and the actual, pragmatic implications of solving for nuclear miscalculation and mistrust as per all your pragmatism arguments?

 

Will you stick with the text of your interpretation on Fatal Theory?

 

If the net benefit to gamplaying is competition, what about our interpretation undermines it?

 

If you win that communication is possible, 1) why is it good and 2) why is your form of communication better than ours?

 

Clifton says we can assess Chinese motivations - what does the Aff think their motivations are?


  • 0

#16 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 17 April 2017 - 03:02 PM

2AC CX

 

You have a lot of arguments about how the Aff's model of communication leads to political engagement - what forms of activism do you result in?

We don't necessarily need to specify a particular form of activism – our argument is simply that a model of debate in which we discuss political consequences and what the USFG should do is good pedagogy. Abstract critiques and prior questions just devolve into vacuousness. Instead, considering what the state should do is a more responsible means of political engagement, particularly when fiat allows us to imagine a world in which the plan passes and avoids nuclear war. 

 

What's the internal link between voting Aff and the actual, pragmatic implications of solving for nuclear miscalculation and mistrust as per all your pragmatism arguments?

We don't claim that the aff somehow spills over outside this round to actually solve the impacts, which is why we've made framework arguments defending fiat and the hypothetical enactment of the plan. Our argument is that the judge should evaluate the plan's simulated implications. It's still pragmatic in the sense that we're making an actual demand on the USFG. 

 

Will you stick with the text of your interpretation on Fatal Theory?

Yes – if we win framework, we get to weigh the simulated consequences of the plan against the K. 

 

If the net benefit to gamplaying is competition, what about our interpretation undermines it?

The "debate is a game" arguments were a response to the fiat double-bind. You argued that the judge should vote neg on presumption because the 1AC can't alter the levers of power in time to solve the impacts. That's irrelevant because debate is a game, where we all understand that reading the 1AC can't actually solve anything, but we pretend it does for the purposes of having an equitable discussion over the resolution. 

 

If you win that communication is possible, 1) why is it good and 2) why is your form of communication better than ours?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with this question, but all of our arguments about proposing actual policies and legal reform being good is a reason why we shouldn't just reject all communication as being meaningless. You argue that we should "implode the logic of planning/information" – we directly indict that and say that planning and information is good to prevent the impacts of the 1AC. That's particularly true with Trump – the Claudio evidence says simple criticism without a viable alternative is academic nihilism, and allows the right-wing to take over. 

 

Also, a lot of the evidence we read on the K answer Baudrillard's theory of communication – for example, the Luke evidence says there's no evidence for hyperlogic and the alt isn't radical enough to subvert the social order.

 

Clifton says we can assess Chinese motivations - what does the Aff think their motivations are?

The 1AC is a compilation of political analyses on what we expect China to do – they're currently pursuing offensive capabilities due to their competitive relationship with the US, but the Harold and Thomas evidence indicate that they'll be willing to agree to cooperation with attribution technology. 


  • 0

#17 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:58 PM

 

2AC CX

 

You have a lot of arguments about how the Aff's model of communication leads to political engagement - what forms of activism do you result in?

We don't necessarily need to specify a particular form of activism – our argument is simply that a model of debate in which we discuss political consequences and what the USFG should do is good pedagogy. Abstract critiques and prior questions just devolve into vacuousness. Instead, considering what the state should do is a more responsible means of political engagement, particularly when fiat allows us to imagine a world in which the plan passes and avoids nuclear war. 

 

What's the internal link between voting Aff and the actual, pragmatic implications of solving for nuclear miscalculation and mistrust as per all your pragmatism arguments?

We don't claim that the aff somehow spills over outside this round to actually solve the impacts, which is why we've made framework arguments defending fiat and the hypothetical enactment of the plan. Our argument is that the judge should evaluate the plan's simulated implications. It's still pragmatic in the sense that we're making an actual demand on the USFG. 

 

Will you stick with the text of your interpretation on Fatal Theory?

Yes – if we win framework, we get to weigh the simulated consequences of the plan against the K. 

 

If the net benefit to gamplaying is competition, what about our interpretation undermines it?

The "debate is a game" arguments were a response to the fiat double-bind. You argued that the judge should vote neg on presumption because the 1AC can't alter the levers of power in time to solve the impacts. That's irrelevant because debate is a game, where we all understand that reading the 1AC can't actually solve anything, but we pretend it does for the purposes of having an equitable discussion over the resolution. 

 

If you win that communication is possible, 1) why is it good and 2) why is your form of communication better than ours?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with this question, but all of our arguments about proposing actual policies and legal reform being good is a reason why we shouldn't just reject all communication as being meaningless. You argue that we should "implode the logic of planning/information" – we directly indict that and say that planning and information is good to prevent the impacts of the 1AC. That's particularly true with Trump – the Claudio evidence says simple criticism without a viable alternative is academic nihilism, and allows the right-wing to take over. 

 

Also, a lot of the evidence we read on the K answer Baudrillard's theory of communication – for example, the Luke evidence says there's no evidence for hyperlogic and the alt isn't radical enough to subvert the social order.

 

Clifton says we can assess Chinese motivations - what does the Aff think their motivations are?

The 1AC is a compilation of political analyses on what we expect China to do – they're currently pursuing offensive capabilities due to their competitive relationship with the US, but the Harold and Thomas evidence indicate that they'll be willing to agree to cooperation with attribution technology. 

 

Nice, 2NC will probably be up by tomorrow


  • 0

#18 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 18 April 2017 - 11:06 AM

2401 words. It's just the kritik with an overview, then the rest of the line-by-line except for the death K stuff

Attached Files


Edited by NeXxet, 18 April 2017 - 11:13 AM.

  • 0

#19 outlier

outlier

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
20
Good

Posted 18 April 2017 - 12:38 PM

2NC CX – 

What’s the alt text from the 1NC?
How does voting neg make the world unintelligible? 
Why is the alt a better approach towards conflict? What’s the alternative to liberalism? 
What is hyperconformity? 
What about the aff’s form do you disagree with? What would be a better form?
What’s the impact to the over accumulation of knowledge? 
What does political engagement look like if we move “outside the boundaries of acceptable modes of thought?”
How is deterrence a link to the aff? 
Why is info overload uniquely a problem under Trump? 

  • 0

#20 NeXxet

NeXxet

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
16
Good

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:54 PM

 

2NC CX – 

What’s the alt text from the 1NC?
That question's a bit too cliche for me to answer. Wouldn't you rather talk about how Trump's hair looks like a Cheeto?
 
How does voting neg make the world unintelligible? 
Fatal theory functions by generating bizarre modes of thought that move so fast the system is unable to assimilate them. This kind of thought defies attempts at understanding it in order to frustrate and confuse dominant methods. For example, your first question about  my "alt text" was an attempt to pin down my strategy within language in order to leverage rational strategies of argumentation against me - I defied you with an ambiguous answer to make the world more mysterious.
 
Why is the alt a better approach towards conflict? What’s the alternative to liberalism? 
Imploding the system is key to revealing how it sustains itself through militarism and challenging the complicity of academia in legitimizing war. If conflict can only continue because it feeds off the knowledge we produce, then our alternative should be a terroristic intervention into the ways we think about violence and how policymakers engage China.
 
What is hyperconformity? 
Hyperconformity is the use of the system's tools against itself which leaves it totally unable to respond to you. This is our argument about using information to prove that information is bad - we'll outbid power at its own game in order to push it to the limits of its own logic. The reason why direct opposition fails is because it provides a foothold with which capitalist society can suppress you (ie. police cracking down on riots), but if dissent comes from WITHIN the system itself and is carried out using its own tools, the system is forced to lash out at itself. The virus of radical thought works by infiltrating information and forcing debate to destroy the informational exchanges it needs to survive.
 
What about the aff’s form do you disagree with? What would be a better form?
Your model of communication assumes a normative mode of politics with rational argumentation and "pragmatic" reform within institutions which has become impossible in the Trumpocene era of info-oversaturation. Instead, we need a more radical form of resistance which makes communication enigmatic and forces the system to lash out at itself- see above
 
What’s the impact to the over accumulation of knowledge? 
1. Instead of knowing more about the world, more information makes it more ambiguous even as we search for the "truth" because it exacerbates the problem of info-overload.
2. The search for knowledge requires the imposition of meaning in order to circumscribe the "unknown" within your own cognition, which results in the things like the Gulf War, the War on Terror, etc.
 
What does political engagement look like if we move “outside the boundaries of acceptable modes of thought?”
Thought is unacceptable if it accelerates at a faster rate than the system is able to capture it- see my response above about defying attempts to understand me.
 
How is deterrence a link to the aff? 
The threat of miscalc, offensive arms races, etc. are simulations of conflict which ignore that the actual use of nuclear weapons is always precluded by deterrence. Nukes don't have use-value, just symbolic value to justify social control and the elimination of dissent - for example, the US justified the Iraq war by constructing Saddam as a nuclear threat who needed to be eliminated through invasion.
 
Why is info overload uniquely a problem under Trump? 

Trump is the completion of a process where the distinction between true and false disappears- everything he says is true no matter how much the liberal news media insists that he's lying because Trump is a TV-celebrity president who embodies the concept of simulation. Second, he hails a shift from "subject-oriented" ontology towards "object-oriented" ontology, ie. Trump is not a racist, he is racism. Criticisms of him that assume he's a subject (ie. "saying grab'em by the pussy is sexist") don't work on him because he can just say "I love group X" and you can't disagree with him since he shifts out of all criticism.


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users