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 first-
hand 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
crimes: 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
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.