Db8rox 1nr

Roadmap Framework Case More alt extensions Framework The 2AC may as well have conceded the round when he conceded all of the framework. First, he concedes ontology always comes first, leading to several impacts: a. The kritik is an attack on the affirmative ontology, as embodied in the 1AC discourse – not explicitly on the plan as a statement of political action. This means that he doesn't get to weigh the impacts of the plan, which never happen, as an advantage to his ontology. b. The affirmative never gets to engage in the case debate. Arguments about why the plan itself might have some level of advantage are indicted because his ontology is flawed, so his means of weighing advantages aren't reliable. c. The kritik does not have to prove that the plan itself causes genocide or any other impact. The kritik has to prove that the affirmative's mindset causes the impacts and that our alternative avoids them. Additionally, since the affirmative read a bunch of "management good" arguments in the 2AC, we have a guaranteed link to their mindset and therefore we don't even need the plan to prove the link (even though I like the plan-specific link arguments and think they're strong). Second, he concedes that the negative always gets to choose framework. This means that any 1AR arguments about why the affirmative should be able to advocate its plan instead of its ontology aren't just new, they're also wrong – I chose to debate ontology, so that's what the debate's about. Third, the claim that I'm hypocritical for following laws is both irrelevant and wrong for several reasons: a. The kritik debate isn't about "real-world" consequences, it's about comparing the affirmative ontology versus the negative ontology. Discussions of whether I personally reject managerialism are just as inappropriate as discussions of whether the affirmative personally recycles all of his bottles. b. I didn't say that I strictly follow speed limits, I said that I drive safely and responsibly because I don't want to cause harm to myself or to other people. That functions independently of the state, so there's no link to the affirmative's claim of hypocrisy.

Case I'm only going to be extending a few arguments here, mostly because they demonstrate the truth of the kritik. First, extend the #3 case argument from the 1NC about systemic failure. The affirmative blindly assumes that by vertically integrating the bureaucracy – placing more aspects of waste disposal under centralized control – fraud and inefficiency will disappear. That isn't true. Vertically integrated systems are more subject to broad systemic failures because all the eggs are in one basket – for example, combining military procurement, production, personnel, and decision-making into one integrated military-industrial complex means that procurement is controlled largely by the manufacturers, decision-making favors the supplier, and taxpayers end up paying Halliburton to cheat us and paying aircraft manufacturers 300 bucks for toilet seats. The fact that the affirmative blindly ignores the possibility of systemic failures illustrates what McWhorter is talking about in the first piece of alt evidence – technological thinkers put their trust in quick fixes that often end up creating more problems. Second, I want the add-on evidence that claims that the plan will somehow make people happy. This proves the kritik in a few different ways. a. People may be "happy" if their world is turned into a perfectly-managed utopia, but that's the kind of "happiness" described by Zimmermann as being "contented, clever animals." This state of being will make people blind to secondary costs of their actions and to harms done to dissenters, which is the Szabo evidence. b. Assuming that people can be made happy by making them do the will of the state is exactly the mindset criticized by the later Heidegger, who saw firsthand the results of a totalitarian state that promised "joy through strength" and that "work will make you free." c. Assigning an economic value to people's personal fulfillment commodifies people's Being and turns them into a standing reserve to be manipulated and used by the state, leading directly to the McWhorter, Szabo, and Zimmermann impacts. You should reject any ontology that relies on this sort of logic and prefer the alternative. Third, cross-apply the conceded framework arguments. The 2AC conceded that we get to weigh ontological impacts first, which means all of the 2AC case arguments and add-ons are meaningless except as new links explaining why the affirmative ontology is bad.

Alt extensions 1) Utopia – who's really being unrealistic here? The affirmative is probably going to make a bunch of arguments about how people are flawed and therefore the alternative is hopelessly utopian. This is a bad move of the "pull the telephone pole outta your own eye first, brother" variety. The kritik is the only advocacy in this round that combines a recognition of people's flaws with a belief that humans can act and be responsibly and authentically in the world. That's the conceded Meyer evidence from the alternative debate and the 2NC Meyer evidence as well. The affirmative will tell you that people's flaws mean that they have to be managed. This is bad for a couple reasons. a. Governments and managing bureaucracies are only collectives of lots of flawed people, subject to groupthink and other basic psychological afflictions of people who reinforce each other's errors. That means that any argument indicting flawed individuals indicts the affirmative's managers way more. b. Reliance on law and order leads to the banal, technological evil of the Holocaust – people who follow orders without questioning themselves and their alleged "superiors" will do just about anything. Szabo '2 Matt Szabo, PhD Candidate in Geography at The University of Manchester, “Managerial ecology: Zygmunt Bauman and the gardening culture of modernity,” Environments, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2002, p. proquest However, a different perspective arises in Arendt's

definition of evil as banal, which is drawn from her first hand experience at the trial of the Nazi war-criminal Adolf Eichmann. Benhabib (2000: 66) observes that Arendt was taken aback by what she later described as the sheer ordinariness of the man who had been party to such enormous

Eichmann spoke in endless cliches, gave little evidence of being motivated by a fanatical hatred of the Jews, and was most proud of being a "law-abiding citizen." It was the shock of seeing Eichmann "in the flesh" that led Arendt to the thought that great wickedness was not a necessary condition for the performance of (or complicity in) great crimes. Evil could take a "banal" form, as it had in Eichmann (Benhabib 2000: 66). Bauman provides a good deal of applied thinking regarding how such 'banal' "machinery of evil" may actually function at the mundane, everyday level (see Bauman, 1994). He argues that the Holocaust was largely enacted by regular people rather than ideologically driven, 'evil monsters'. As Bauman (1989:26) points out, many of the "'moral sleeping pills' made available by modern bureaucracy and modern technology," as harnessed by the Nazis, were not invented by the Nazis. Rather, they were -- and still remain -- structuring features of all modern societies, features that crimes:

many people utilise and are affected by every day of their lives. Beilharz highlights the everyday quality of modernity's "moral sleeping pills" by posing a moral question that such anaesthetics are intended to by-pass or quash: The Holocaust forced upon us this universal message: faced with a morally impossible question, what would / do? Fascism

did not result from chaos, from the heat of madness, but was administered through an impeccable, faultless and unchallenged rule of law and order. The good Nazis were, after all, those who like you and me, did what was expected of them, followed orders. If they did it, so could we (Beilharz 2000: 98). c. The affirmative's condemnation of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism is actually a psychological defense mechanism to avoid the suggestion that their own political project could have the same damning flaws. This is why you will prefer the negative's much more realistic account of human behavior and capabilities. 2) The affirmative has never addressed the argument that the alternative avoids the impacts we identify in the kritik. The affirmative's conceded that our ontology solves

all of the big impacts in this round and has failed to produce a convincing disadvantage to our ontology. We control every major impact and have 100% solvency on the ontological debate – vote negative.