Db8r0x 1ar

The Framework The K The Alt The Counter K The on Case

The framework: We didn’t concede the round and actually we come out on top. Our response was – evaluate their K and reject it on the grounds listed in the 2AC and extensions later in this speech and vote for us on that issue and then vote for us on the case debate cuz we’ve already won there – the case has been all but conceded to the affirmative team. 1. K is an attack on ontology: Of course. When the ontology is flawed and there is a viable alternative, ontological questions need to come before policy decisions. 2. The K is A Priori – Of course the K is A Priori. This was never contested. We did contest, though, that the K comes from a very flawed mindset and the alternative is worse than what they are K’ing us on. 3. The K doesn’t have to prove a link to any impact, simply proving the mindset is enough. This idea is flawed. Anything taken to an extreme can be a bad thing. I don’t think that lots of management is a good thing, but some management is essential. In its purest form, the K is advocating Anarchy… which history has shown to be a very bad thing. [Read the French Revolution, and stuff like the Lord of the Flies].

So here’s a breakdown of how the Framework and the Criterion work. His Framework and My Criterion work side by side – here’s how. Ks get evaluated first because of the Framework. – the Framework is the order in which things get evaluated. Then the case gets evaluated. However, all of this falls under the net benefits criterion of weighing tangible impacts – and this is really important in this round as the negative K has no tangible impacts while mine does. And the case is a whole ‘nother story cuz I win the case entirely – in fact it’s been cold conceded. I’ve won EVERY single stock issue – the only real argument he has brought up on case is a really tiny disadvantage without any impacts.

The K – The K wasn’t conceded. We addressed the K as a whole, even though we didn’t evidencially respond to every single argument doesn’t mean we agreed with them – it just means they were lumped in as a whole with the K Point by point refutation: 1. Aff ontology isn’t that managerial actions are great – it’s that sometimes they’re necessary. – in fact we’d agree that lots of managerial actions aren’t good. So if you put the arguments into a logical statement, the negative team’s arguments go like this: 1. Aff makes a managerial action –therefore they are conceding that all managerial actions are awesome. 2. All managerial actions devalue people no matter how necessary. Conclusion: Therefore, one specific managerial action can be linked to the impact of another. Analysis: The K commits the fallacy of linking from the general to the specific and expecting the answers to be the same thing. Because nowhere have they shown you that our plan is bad – they just say managerial actions fail therefore the plan will fail – if the plan will fail, why not read specific evidence?

What we need to see from the negative team is a concrete link between the exact policy we are adopting with their impacts of genocide. The affirmative team does not advocate every managerial action. It would be stupid of us to argue that point.

2. Apply above responses – we need a concrete link between our policy and the devaluation of human life and genocide – it isn’t there. 3. It is really important to note that there are more than two possible positions on the K. You don’t have to say all managerial actions rock or all of them stink. There is middle ground.

The alt:

Premise: sometimes managerial actions are necessary – not every managerial action is though. Example: Take away the parents in a household of 10 year olds for a week and tell them to have the house clean and their work done at the end of the week and come back and see what you find. Governments are necessary: History tells us this – you remove the government and the society turns into turmoil. MPX: Anarchy – that’s what is being advocated by the negative team. Defense: Our Madison card doesn’t support Manifest Destiny – in fact that theory wasn’t created for another sixty years – they committed an ad hominem attack by attacking Madison – they never actually got into why he said what he said. He knew rightly that governments would not be necessary if man were perfect – but since man is fallen, governments and some managerial actions become necessary. In fact: I’d agree with the alt… in a perfect world. However, we’ve seen that some governmental controls are necessary in maintaining a free society. And since we aren’t in a perfect world, the alt will never come about and the negative team is arguing utopia in a round about concrete policies. Reply: Governments – our point exactly. “A dependence on the people is the primary control on the government.” Who put the government in place? The people. We have governments full of flawed people but the people have chosen to be represented by them – which means the people in the government have a level of responsibility to the people.

The counter K.

If Nazism was a product of technological thinking, why did Heidegger advocate it since he was violently against technological thinking? 1. Their response to our counter K was that we are committing an ad hominem attack – (and then they did the same to one of our sources) 2. Governmental controls don’t cause genocide. That oversimplifies the issue. Genocide is created by a mindset that’s generally created through propaganda. Read on the Rwandan genocide – the government was complicit but the people carried it out with machetes – that’s the product of the propaganda and the view of Human life that Heidegger advocates. Cross apply the end of our Rosen card. 3. The reason Nazism links to their K is that their whole K is founded on Heidegger’s work. 4. The only response to the link between Heidegger and Nazism was a source indictment that never disproved anything – the only argument there was that Faye used unpublished lectures in his analysis – (who cares? – it doesn’t discount the work itself) 5. — HEIDEGGER CONTINUED TO BELIEVE NAZISM WAS RIGHT IN THEORY Richard Wolin, Professor of Modem European Intellectual History, Rice, THE TERMS OF CULTURAL CRITICISM, 1992, p. 126. Heidegger at first viewed National Socialism in Nietzschean terms as an authentic overcoming of European nihilism; that is, as a radical historical response to "the decline of the West." And although his disillusionment with the actual practice of the movement dates roughly from 1936, until the end of his life he continued to believe (as he avows in the concluding pages of Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik) in the "inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" - that is, when the movement is understood from the superior vantage point of "the history of Being."

Heidegger’s Nazism came from his philosophy and never claimed Nazism was wrong – in fact, he still supported it.

On Case.

If the K’s cancel each other out – you look at my case and I win because he conceded it. If I win either K, I win the round right there. And if he wins his K, I automatically win the counter K, then you weigh impacts with the case and I win. Because the negative team is advocating Anarchy at best and Genocide at worst, I strongly urge you to vote Affirmative.