Db8rox 2nc

Roadmap K proper, with overview Alt, with overview Counter-K Case and framework in the 1NR

K proper The overview: Our argument is that the affirmative attempts to manage people as a method of controlling the uncontrollable. Ultimately, this reduces humans to commodities instead of thinking beings and makes the evils of totalitarianism inevitable. Meyer '98 [Linda Ross Meyer (Professor of Law, Quinnipiac Law School; J.D., Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley), “Is Practical Reason Mindless,” Georgetown Law Journal, January, 1998]

Both Nietzsche and Heidegger foresaw the emergence of this mode of thinking/being that Heidegger calls technology, though the term is easily misunderstood. We usually think of technology as a set of tools or machines that enable us to reach our goals more efficiently and completely. But the mindset that thinks in terms of means and ends, causes and effects, is not itself a mere tool. Its way of looking at nature, the world, and even human talent as raw material for achieving human goals is itself what opens the possibility of building and using machines. As Heidegger says, "our age is not a technological age because it is the age of the machine; it is an age

Technology, he says, is the way of being in the world in which everything appears as a stockpile of fungible stuff to be ordered and used, managed and regulated, as we will. All matter (the effect of a cause) is transformable to energy (the cause of an effect). All is either cause or effect; our physics and metaphysics are inhabited only by fungible energy/matter shifting and moving. Our role in this monochromatic universe is to predict, and ultimately harness, the patterns of cause and effect. We ask not, "what is it?" but only "what is it for?" or "what can we do with it?" But eventually, as the human sciences turn humans into objects of study, we even see ourselves as "human resources" to be predicted, controlled, ordered, and managed. The tendency of law to dispense with of the machine because it is the technological age."

n111

n112

n113

obligations, and to talk instead in terms of regulation and incentives, shows us to ourselves as the effects of causes.

The irony is, of course, that if everything we do is due to something else, [*671] there is no one to direct all the regulation and management. The causes operating upon us predetermine even our purposes and management. No one is left to be responsible for all the managing and regulation; no one is left to choose among purposes. We are all transformed into the objects of prediction and control, creating the combination of domination and lack of responsibility that is so vivid in totalitarianism and its evil banalities. Law as norm disappears. Only power remains. But the power is itself an undirected power, an irresponsible power: in Friedrich Nietzsche's vocabulary, a will to power for its own sake. n114

n115

N116

The affirmative's reduction of people and their happiness into commodities to be evaluated economically fails because the affirmative can never manage everything – that's our McWhorter cards from the link and alternative. Additionally, attempting to manage the world necessitates treating people who resist the logic of control as pests to be eliminated – that's our Szabo evidence. It doesn't matter how you try to make people better, the attempt to make people better through managerial control will never be accepted unanimously, and the dissenters will be ruthlessly eliminated – this makes the affirmative's genocide impacts on the counter-K debate inevitable. Finally, when people are reduced to regulated "human resources," they cannot access meaningful ways of being in the world around them, and are instead reduced to clever animals – this makes it impossible for us to authentically question our methods of acting and thinking, which makes all of the above impacts perpetual – that's our Zimmermann evidence. All of these arguments are conceded by the 2AC, which will make it impossible for the affirmative to leverage any useful impact arguments later in the round.

Line-by-line: The only argument on the K proper is a bad link argument. They say the aff isn't managerial because it's voluntary, but they concede that attempting to manipulate people is fundamentally managerial. They also concede that they dismiss any individual change in behavior, absent management, as impossible and outside their concern, which proves that they are attempting to manage people into utopia. Additionally, all their arguments on the alternative amount to "managerialism good." If they didn't link before, they link now. Extend all the impact analysis from the overview. Remember that they concede the full weight of all our impacts, which means that you should vote negative if we have any defense on their impacts.

The alternative – overview: It's game over when they concede both the McWhorter and the Meyer evidence from the 1NC. McWhorter indicates that technological thinkers can't solve and that the affirmative's "quick fix" is bound to fail – conceded and guts solvency. McWhorter also indicates that refusing to pursue managerial action opens new methods of acting and recognizing individual responsibility, without the pitfalls of trying to enframe and control the world around us – conceded and proves K solvency. Meyer takes the alternative further by giving us an account of the new responsibility that we can access by refusing to act managerially – we can develop authentic relationships with the people who exist in the world with us, and with the world in which we exist. Meyer also indicates that no truly effective action can be done without reforming our thinking first, which the 2AC concedes. The bottom line is that you shouldn't concede the biggest impacts in the round, then concede cards giving the negative 100% solvency. This is especially hazardous if you make a bunch of arguments that amount to "if we didn't link before, we link now!" The affirmative makes all of these crucial strategic errors, so they will lose. The line-by-line: 1) They say management is needed, and Llanos proves. But I don't concede that people won't solve by themselves, I argue that the Llanos evidence demonstrates that technological thinkers assume people won't solve and resort to management. The conceded 1NC McWhorter and Meyer evidence indicate that people only fail to solve when enslaved in the logic of Enframing, and can act responsibly when empowered through better thinking. 2) "It's absurd" is not a refutation of the alt. Read cards, answer warrants. 3) The Madison evidence is awful. a. The early history of the United States is a great example of our Szabo evidence – American Indian peoples who resisted the project of Manifest Destiny faced genocide because they weren't part of the "city set on a hill" utopia of white North Americans. b. The Madison evidence is a set of blanket assertions – prefer our Meyer evidence, which describes the methodology of the alternative and gives support for its claims. 4) The analyticals following the Madison evidence are weak at best. a. Our argument is that each concession of managerial control, and each expression of blind faith in the government's wisdom in incentivizing correct behavior, push us closer to losing our ability to question our own actions and thinking, reducing us to clever animals. The 2AC argument that "people in bottle states aren't animals now" doesn't answer any of this analysis. b. Non-uniques are generally a poor strategic choice in K debates. If I wanted to debate uniqueness, I'd read health care politics.

c. The affirmative continues to express their faith in a quick fix for people's behavior, which further proves the link to the K. 5) Their Burke evidence is worse than their Madison evidence. a. Prefer our warranted, explained evidence versus one-sentence assertions. b. Extend our conceded Meyer evidence – refusing managerial action lets us pursue genuine, meaningful action – this answers and solves the impact of Burke. 6) There is no contradiction between refusing to put blind faith in management and choosing to think through one's own beliefs and choices as a way of enabling authentic individual action. The affirmative's failure to see this is probably evidence of their faith in managerial thought. 7) There is no warrant or analysis for the claim that the negative treats humans as existing only for their own satisfaction. It is completely false, in light of the warrants from McWhorter and Meyer that we can best interact with the people around us by being authentic human beings rather than clever animals. 8) Look, conceding two really good alt cards probably isn't wise. The McWhorter and Meyer evidence make very clear that refusing the affirmative's call to managerial action does not equate to us wasting our talents. The conceded McWhorter evidence from the link debate, the conceded McWhorter and Zimmerman evidence from the impact debate, and the Meyer evidence above make it clear that people who engage in the affirmative's managerial project are the ones whose potential as thinking beings is being wasted, which is a straight turn to the aff's Burke argument and later analysis. 9) Alternative solves: reflection and a refusal to control make meaningful, authentic action possible. Meyer '98 [Linda Ross Meyer (Professor of Law, Quinnipiac Law School; J.D., Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley), “Is Practical Reason Mindless,” Georgetown Law Journal, January, 1998]

theoretical cognition has to lag behind practical reason in time, and because it must be satisfied with a comparatively schematized and impoverished understanding. We cannot construct theories yet for the new significances or possibilities that appear to us in our practices. Nor can we reconstitute those practices as rules without killing the very multivalence that makes new insights and connections possible. Our first experience of the world is in the course of doing -- seeing, making connections. Because we are beings in time, we work with and respond to what we did not create, do not understand, and cannot control. Openness to our world is our best thinking, at least apart from the thinking that rightly sees our need to be humble and to thank, an acknowledgment of our finitude that must precede any attempt at doing, and that makes doing itself possible. Why can we not articulate what that "justice" is? Both because

n90

10) Extend the conceded Olivier evidence from the framework – it indicates that meaningful activism is possible unless people are first ontologically grounded in the correct framework – means the affirmative call to action is meaningless.

Counter-K 1) Nazism was the product of technological thinking – it was an attempt to create the sort of managerial utopia described in the first piece of McWhorter evidence. Heidegger's criticism of technological thought based on enframing indicts every aspect of fascist philosophy. 2) Genocide is inevitable in a world controlled by managerial thought – that's our Szabo evidence, which the 2AC concedes – this means that the affirmative links harder to their impact than we do. 3) The affirmative fails to take into account the "turn" in Heidegger's philosophy which began in the late 1930s, which embodied his rejection of fascist ideology. Our criticism draws from Heidegger's later work, particularly A Question Concerning Technology, which is opposed to fascism. Thiele '95 [Leslie Paul, poli sci professor at the University of Florida, Timely Meditations, p.137-138]

Heidegger's "confrontation" with National Socialism coincides with the "turn," or Kehre, in his philosophy. His retreat from politicized philosophy finds him increasingly rejecting, and securing substitutes for, the voluntarism, decisionism and willful subjectivism rife in fascist ideology, persistent in metaphysics and more complexly intrinsic to Nietzsche's thought. Heidegger would eventually come to equate the "total state" as the height of technological dominance, while the "arbitrariness of 'dictators' and 'authoritarian states'" would be identified as "the most proximate impulse and staging ground for the realization of the metaphysical will of modern world history" (G 51:18). We thus witness his effective if not explicit acknowledgement that his earlier political adventures were symptomatic of the disease his philosophy seeks to cure. Heidegger's postwar writings on technology generally substantiate this claim. 4) Heidegger's work has no essential connection to Nazism – one can subscribe to part or all of his work and remain commited to democracy. Young '97 [Julian, professor of philosophy at the University of Auckland, Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism, p.5]

neither the early philosophy of Being and Time, nor the later post-war philosophy, nor even the philosophy of the mid-1930s – works such as the Introduction to Metaphysics with respect to which critics often feel themselves to have an open-and-shut case – stand in any essential connection to Nazism. One may accept some, or all, of this philosophy without fear of being committed to, or moved into proximity with, fascism. More precisely, my claim is that one may accept any of Heidegger's philosophy, and, though Heidegger himself was far from any such commitment, preserve, without inconsistency, a commitment to orthodox liberal democracy. This is the sense in which the book seeks to present a 'deThe argument of this book is that none of these claims about the philosophy can, in fact, be sustained; that

Nazified' Heidegger; it is, above all, 'Heidegger' as the name of a body of philosophy which I shall argue to be free of the taint of Nazism.

5) Our criticism is a lot bigger than Heidegger – we can concede that Heidegger himself was wrong and keep every card from the 1NC, all of which contain independent warrants that the 2AC cold concedes. 6) The affirmative's claim that Heidegger's own flaws invalidate his work is the essence of an ad hominem fallacy. The affirmative fails to present any actual analysis linking the kritik's philosophy to Nazism, resting instead on claims that Heidegger himself was a Nazi. Reject these claims because they don't answer the kritik.

7) Their Rosen evidence is awful – Faye's a joke, and Heidegger's ties to Nazism are not representative of his overall philosophical project. Linker '9 [Damon, The New Republic, "A Lesson In Heidegger," November 7, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120005997 ]

Faye is hardly the first to demonstrate continuities between Heidegger's thought and his political enthusiasms — or even to argue that the philosopher went out of his way in the mid-'30s to collapse the distinction between his philosophy and his public actions. Where Faye, according to Romano, goes further is in his efforts, using unpublished lectures from the Nazi period, to implicate Heidegger's entire philosophical corpus. But this is absurd. Unlike many other philosophers, Heidegger was relentlessly, obsessively interested in a single question — the question of "Being." And his interest in that question — as well as his characteristic ways of posing it — can be traced back to the period of his first lectures courses (1919 to 1923), which took place well before the rise of National Socialism as a serious political force in Germany. While there can be no denying a striking and deeply troubling convergence between Heidegger's ontological investigations and Hitler's political movement — a convergence that very much deserves to be pondered and probed — those

investigations pre-dated Hitler, just as they survived Hitler by several decades, as Heidegger's philosophical project continued on its way through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. Look, here's the bottom line – Heidegger was a weak, flawed human being with a deeply anti-Semitic spouse, and he made a series of despicable decisions throughout the 1930s. But his discussion of technological thought as Enframing, which he developed decades after the end of the Third Reich, remains deeply insightful. More importantly, the managerial thought that we indict in the kritik was a crucial part of the genocidal Nazi machine – rejecting it means that atrocities like that can be avoided. The affirmative concedes multiple pieces of evidence that provide warrants for this, they concede that we solve the mindset that creates the atrocities they identify, and they're literally conceding every big impact in this round, a better-than-100% link to them, and negative solvency on the alternative debate. That's a negative ballot.