8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

1/6

The Framework

The K

The Alt

The Counter K

The on Case

8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

2/6

The framework:

We didnt 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 weve

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 Kis 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 King us on.

3. The K doesnt 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 dont 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 heres a breakdown of how the Framework and the Criterion work. His Framework

and My Criterion work side by side heres 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 its been cold

conceded. Ive won EVERY single stock issue the only real argument he has brought up

on case is a really tiny disadvantage without any impacts.

8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

3/6

The K The K wasnt conceded.

We addressed the K as a whole, even though we didnt evidencially respond to every single

argument doesnt mean we agreed with them it just means they were lumped in as awhole with the K

Point by point refutation:

1. Aff ontology isnt that managerial actions are great its that sometimes theyre

necessary. in fact wed agree that lots of managerial actions arent good. So if you put the

arguments into a logical statement, the negative teams arguments go like this:

1. Aff makes a managerial action therefore they are conceding that allmanagerial

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 advocateevery 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 isnt there.

3. It is really important to note that there are more than two possible positions on the K.

You dont have to say all managerial actions rock or all of them stink. There is middle

ground.

The alt:

8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

4/6

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 thats what is being advocated by the negative

team.

Defense: Our Madison card doesnt support Manifest Destiny in fact that theory wasnt

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: Id agree with the alt in a perfect world. However, weve seen that some

governmental controls are necessary in maintaining a free society. And since we arent 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.

8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

5/6

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 dont cause genocide. That oversimplifies the issue. Genocide is

created by a mindset thats generally created through propaganda. Read on the Rwandan

genocide the government was complicit but the people carried it out with machetes

thats 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 Heideggers 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 doesnt 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."

Heideggers Nazism came from his philosophy and never claimed Nazism was wrong in

fact, he still supported it.

On Case.

8/14/2019 DB8R0X 1AR

6/6

If the Ks 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.