Roadmap

Case
Framework
Counter-K
K proper
Alt
Impact Calculus

Case

Extend the first argument from the 1NR – the 1AR concedes his case lacks long-
term solvency because of systemic failure, which short-circuits his arguments
about a national bill solving more.

This makes it impossible for the affirmative to claim "tangible impacts," because
they concede a massive solvency deficit to the plan.

Extend the second 1NR argument – the affirmative is now conceding two links to
the K based on advocates of the bottle bill.
Framework

Extend ontology first.

Since the debate is first and foremost about ontology, we have to win a link between
the affirmative's speech act and the ontology we're attacking, impacts to their
ontology, and an alternative. We don't need links to the plan itself, because the
debate is about ontology, not a specific political proposal.

Since the affirmative concedes neg choice on the framework debate, they're stuck
with our interpretation.

The claim that the affirmative doesn't believe all management is good is brand new
and a shift from the broad defense of management in the 2AC. Ignore it.

The 1AR claim that the alt amounts to anarchy is new (ignore it) and addressed on
the alt where it belongs.

The claim that the framework and the criterion interact in any way is brand new.
Ignore it. Also, it's odd that the affirmative says their case is conceded when the
1AR drops a solvency takeout extended in the 1NR.

The affirmative is stuck defending managerialism against the kritik, and that debate
is the most important one in this round.
Counter-K

The affirmative concedes four crucial arguments on this question.

First, their evidence sucks.

a. Their Rosen evidence is indicted by our Linker evidence – Faye doesn't

recognize the fact that Heidegger's work was going on way before Hitler and
continued way afterward, which means that his temporary involvement with
Nazism doesn't invalidate the whole of his work. They concede this crucial
warrant.

b. Their Wolin evidence relies on analysis of An Introduction to Metaphysics,

which was a reprint of Heidegger's 1930s lectures. This feeds our Thiele
evidence – see below.

Second, they concede our Thiele evidence: the "turn" in Heidegger's thought means
that his later work on technology functionally – if not explicitly – rejects his earlier
project and its ties to Nazism. Prefer this evidence to Wolin and Rosen – it gives
specific warrants based on the history of Heidegger's work, while their evidence
only addresses work during Heidegger's involvement with Nazism.

Third, they concede the internals of both pieces of Szabo evidence – the one from
the 1NC and the one from the 1NR. Genocide is only possible when people try to
create a utopia by getting each variable just right – that's the only way to create a
"scientific" program of extermination, as opposed to chasing people off of your
land. That's an impact to their ontology, not to ours.

They say genocide happens because of propaganda, but aggressive propaganda

can only happen in managerial states – that's both pieces of Szabo evidence, which
the affirmative has yet to answer.

Fourth, they concede our Young evidence that one can use Heidegger's thought
without becoming totalitarian or genocidal, which means their claim that "you're
based on Heidegger, so you're a Nazi" isn't valid. This concession is a 100% link
takeout to the counter-K. They have no internal link between our thinking and
totalitarianism or genocide.
K proper

The link debate:

The 1AR concedes two case-specific links. First, he concedes bottle bill advocates
are inherently managerial and dismiss non-managerial solutions to consumer
behavior – that's the 1NC Llanos link. Second, he concedes that his rhetoric of
"happiness" from the 2AC is an independent link to the K – that's the #2 case
argument from the 1NR.

They say they only defend some managerial actions -

a. Brand new. Ignore.

b. The affirmative ontology constructs people as objects to be manipulated

and used by the state. That's the first 1NC McWhorter card. It doesn't matter
whether they personally don't endorse some managerial actions, because
they justify them – that's 1NC Szabo.

They assert that we have to win that their policy proposal causes the impacts.
That's not the framework – we just have to win an internal link to their ontology –
but we do have case-specific links so it doesn't matter.

They say there are more than two positions on the kritik – it's okay to defend some
managerial actions. They're wrong -

a. Technological thinkers justify all forms of managerialism, even if they don't

intend to – that's 1NC McWhorter and 1NC Szabo.

b. If you start eroding people's questioning and critical thinking, it cascades

into further losses of reasoning – that's Zimmermann and 1NR Szabo.

c. They concede specific links to the worst of managerialism – that's the

dropped 1NR "happiness" argument.

Extend the impacts – they can't manage everything, but they convert everything into
standing reserve that can be disposed of at a whim – that's McWhorter.

They strip every aspect of humanity away except the raw will to power, making
totalitarianism and genocide inevitable – that's 2NC Meyer.

Their law-and-order ideology additionally makes humans cogs in a genocidal

machine – that's 1NR Szabo – and their ideology will damn dissenters to the gas
chambers – that's 1NC Szabo.

Finally, by doing so, they prevent a re-opening of the ontological clearing that lets
humans question their actions and the meaning of their existence, which
guarantees the impacts in perpetuity – that's Zimmermann.

Every impact is cold conceded, and the 1AR drops internal links from their ideology
to the impacts. That's game over.
Alt

Extend the 2NC overview – they concede that we solve enframing, which means we
solve for all the impacts articulated above. Game, set, match.

Extend the 2NC Meyer evidence from the alt – the alternative makes it possible for
people to act without participating in enframing, so the world of the negative lets
people act responsibly with none of the impacts.

They say governments are necessary, but they concede that governments
managing and manipulating people are bad, and that governments trying to create
utopia end up creating genocide, as in both Manifest Destiny and the Holocaust.

They concede the 1NR analysis that if people are flawed, then governments made
up of lots of people are even more flawed. This guts their disad to the alt.

They concede that in the world of the alt, new power configurations are opened
(that's McWhorter) and new modes of acting are possible (that's Meyer). This means
that the kritik isn't mutually exclusive with government, just with the form of
government necessitated by the affirmative's ontology.

There's no impact articulated to anarchy, while we've articulated a lot of impacts to

managerialism.
Impact calc

Even if Heidegger's linked to Nazism, the aff conceded that the K solves the
mechanism by which genocide happens. That means that the alt solves the impact
to the counter-K.

The affirmative has no way of solving the impacts to the K, and they articulate no
advantages to their ontology. Since we solve 100% of the K impacts and the aff has
a 100% conceded link to the K impacts, it's an easy vote for the negative.

The affirmative cements us into a law-and-order framework that makes us mindless

drones of the State. Sure, we might be happy that way, but we wouldn't be human,
and anyone who got in the way would be ruthlessly eliminated. A vote for the
negative is a vote for humans developing genuine relationships with each other and
the world around us – relationships that recognize our responsibilities to each other
and make meaningful political actions possible. Vote negative.