8/6/2019 AT Johnny 23 K

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/at-johnny-23-k 1/4

2AC

JOHNNY 23 

1. “Risky utopian discourse”

1.  No link – We never state, contend, or imply that our advocacy will create a

 perfect world (utopia).

2. Link-turn – We only discuss our advocacy in relation to avoiding an unacceptablybad world (dystopia). Also, the neg stated that the link occurs when “our resolveto make a better world comes attached with a refusal to question ourselves” – their only articulation of our failure to question our debate practices was our useof fiat, our plan text was nonstandard in that it exhibited both a questioning of theanti-educational uses of fiat and explicitly individual advocacy, and we'll activelyquestion our practices in this speech.

3.  Neg links – The neg started a search for a perfect debate framework in this roundand they ask the judge to vote neg to help spread the “beautiful disease” of their ideas and questions about debate to other spectators while completely ignoring the

substance of our ideas (Dr. Lee didn't bother getting to know other people beforetrying turning them into himself). Because they feel that “the questions [they're]raising need to be asked,” they ride roughshod over our 1AC—just another innocent bystander in the way of their getting everyone to ask their questions inand improve debate.

2. “Commodified argument”

1. Modularity is not commodity – Wiktionary defines a commodity as “Anythingmovable (a good) that is bought and sold.” Numbering our arguments, havingcarded evidence, or following standards for speech length does NOT turn eachargument into a commodity—we don't “buy” the ballot with arguments or 

conversely expect the judge to “buy” arguments from us by paying with the ballot. We expect the judges evaluate the merits of our arguments and vote for theteam that made the best ones (preferably about the resolution, but we're open todebate debate-practices, too).

2. Outline format good – Midway through writing this speech, we questionedourselves—Is an outline format acceptable? We think so because it helps giveeach argument a brief name, helps us organize our thoughts, and makes the judges' job easier. As established above, modularity is not the same thing ascommodification. Furthermore, numbering will never imply the interchangeabilityessential to commodification.

3. Timed speeches are not commodities – Commercials aren't all the same length,

the judges don't “buy” X number of units (or copies) of our 2AC (for example),the speeches are not interchangeable just because they're the same length (i.e. youcan't switch the positions of the 2NC and the 1AC), and the “value” of eachspeech as a whole is never compared or even quantitatively evaluated. Settingspeech length standards makes debate manageable (think week-long speeches)and fair (each team will speak to the judges for the same amount of time).

4. Carded arguments are not commodities – Again, it's not like each quotation is atoken of some value that will be traded with the judge for the ballot and that we'll

8/6/2019 AT Johnny 23 K

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/at-johnny-23-k 2/4

8/6/2019 AT Johnny 23 K

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/at-johnny-23-k 3/4

effecting change than their radical rejection of debate practices and paralyzingsearch for a utopian debate-world.

4. Thus we think that this and all future debates should contain at least some questioning of their practices.

1. Solves the harms of a “sterile laboratory model of debate” as all debate practices

 become the subject of constant discussion and criticism.

2. Plugs their questions into the debate machine in a more broadly acceptable waythat will cause more widespread rooting out of micro-fascisms.

5. “Sterile laboratory model of debate”

1. No internal link from commodification to desensitization – Mitchell only says thatdebaters “overcome with competitive zeal” may be insensitive to suffering.

6. Desensitization to human suffering/Spectator mentality/Lack of argumentative agency

1. They mischaracterize us to win – We haven't been scouring the news for word of suffering to win the round – our most recent evidence is from three years ago. We

are deeply concerned about the potential effects of the system of neoliberalismand wanted this debate to serve as an entertaining way to test our opinion thatgovernment action would be beneficial.

2. They're the insensitive ones – The neg didn't bother to use a single word of their 1NC to talk about our case or harms.

3. Advocating governmental action isn’t mutually exclusive with engaging inmicropolitical struggles.

4. In a representative democracy, some form of knowledgeable and objective political advocacy is necessary to make responsible decisions at the polls.

7. Susceptibility to fascist recruitment

1. Decisive advocacy solves – The Mitchell quote says if you're good at convincing people the state might hire you to convince others in a “legitimation crisis.” If wehave clear political advocacies, then we won't be easily brainwashed.

2. No jurisdiction – Judges, hate to break it to you, but you're not here to disciplineus or prevent us from choosing certain paths in life.

3. Ballot becomes a manipulative tool – The moment that they win insidious socialcontrol bad, you can't use the ballot as a psychological tool to manipulate us intoavoiding a political ideology—anarchism, socialism, fascism, communism—nomatter how emotionally charged it is for you.

8. Micro-fascism

1. Voting neg proves they're fascists – Their DnG quotation says that by beingoutwardly antifascist is common in those blinded from seeing their inner fascist.

2. Their project is inwardly fascist – They want to use authority (appeal to judges) tospread and enforce their vision of better debate. The assumption key to applyingtheir criticism as a decision rule is that they're only right if you verify them.

3. Fascism inevitable – Macro-fascism historically arose independent of policydebate. Furthermore, their DnG quote never mentions debate as containing micro-

8/6/2019 AT Johnny 23 K

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/at-johnny-23-k 4/4

fascist influences, indicting instead micro-fascisms in just about every other context – “city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism,fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right, fascism of the couple, family,school, and office.”

9. Perm: give aff the ballot and talk about the issues.

1. Superior solvency – It solves better than voting neg because it's more of aspectacle and gets more spectators interested because no we've never seen anyonesacrifice the ballot.

2. Enhances their criticism (or questioning?) – Resolves an internal contradiction intheir position because it would show that the neg refuses to “neurotically fixate onthe goal of winning to the detriment of debate's revolutionary potential” in actualaction, not just theory.

The entire 1NC links to itself – it says in summary: utopian thinking's bad, so let's search for a perfect debate framework; debate's bad, we should win; desensitization's bad, so ignore

suffering; carded argument's bad, here's the evidence.

So, even if there is any link to the 1AC, the 1NC's criticisms of debate practices are just as mucha reason to vote aff as neg.