You are on page 1of 8


A. Action is intrinsically undecidable. The power of reason

circumscribes political decisions, and this premise is totalizing because

in spite of our developed calculative tools, absolute foresight is a

fantasy. Regardless of our best intentions and planning, choice is

always madness, because it instantiates an inconclusive hope that

those we engage will respond in kind. The aff tries to escape the logic

of undecidability.

We have three links

First is inverting the ethico-political relationship. The 1AC tries to

orchestrate a knowable narrative of human and state based

interaction which presupposes absolute rationality and choice.

Specifically, a change in our transportation programs are supposed to

induce particular reactions and it is on the basis of these reactions that

the affirmative calls for your ballot. By basing decisions on the

reactions of individuals, the aff creates a rule-based conception of

ethics which evacuates ethics of undecidability.


Is a politics founded in an ethics of radical otherness possible given

the often violent realities on the ground? It is extremely difficult to

separate the "universalism" implied by religious social law." To work

against stories that construct actors as one type of person and provide

the foundations for historical and contemporary forms of antagonism,

violence, and interpretive contention over the meaning of actions"

both political and ethical is to engage in discourse that doesn't

anticipate concepts in which alterity is denied,: lest we form a name

for ourselves, a "we," that becomes insurmountable, leads to politics

for itself, and raises the specter of totalitarianism.

(Insert Specific Link)

Third is that competent calculationin asking you to make decisions

with appeal to the policy paradigm of schematic knowledge of

Otherness, the 1AC replicates the technocratic logic of expert

decision-making in which responsibility is replaced by calculated rule-

followingit is through reclaiming our incompetence by refusing the

affirmatives call to think like policy makers that we can inaugurate

the impossibility of a democratic politics

Mansfield 2006

Yet to save its ethics, it must preserve an aura of incompetence, of the

possibility of its own (political) failure. It is in fact in-competence, that

makes us not only fit to deal with the nuclear issue, but that makes it

our responsibility, in as much as we are representatives of the

incompetent humanities which have to think through as rigorously as

possible the problem of competence Between the military and the

political, the technical and the scientific it is undertaken competently,

this purported decision is un-reflexive. Someone is making decisions,

but because of the undefined nature of their position in a complex that

cannot picture, understand or map itself, they cannot know their

role. It is this invisibility and incommensurability, this over-

determined, under-self-conscious space that needs to be spoken.

B. There are two implications to the monolithic nature of their ethics

of decidability. One is that in an attempt to legitimize and guarantee

that their ethic is correct they choose to strip agency away from the

populations in terms of mobility. They decide to impose certain

rhythms on society to induce the reactions they assumed would occur

and try scapegoat some subject in an attempt to justify the deviation

from the competence that they assumed. Two is that they trap any

discussion on mobility to one static epistemology and they destroy all

forms of knowledge production that don't fit their ethics of

decidability. This means if we win that epistemology comes first then a

risk of the kritik means you vote negative.

Butler 08

It is necessary to recognise the ways in which the city is an assemblage

of rhythms some generated by relations of domination and others

cycling to an alternative tempo. The repetitions associated with linear

time mirror the fractured and homogeneous nature of abstract space:

[Q]uantified time subjects itself to a very general law of this society: it

becomes both uniform and monotonous while also breaking apart and

becoming fragmented. Abstract space generates an abstract social

time, which is imposed on the users of space. The rhythms of the

living body are subordinated to those repetitive gestures that

contribute instrumentally to productive labour. Automobility

coerces people into an intense flexibility. It forces people to juggle tiny

fragments of time so as to deal with the temporal and spatial

constraints that it itself generates [It] structur[es] and constrain[s]

the users of cars to live their lives in particular spatially stretched

and time-compressed ways. By actively supporting the role of the

private car in the overall system of urban mobility, the freeway

invisibly but effectively marginalises other transport options. As

Lefebvre states: [E]veryday life remains shot through and traversed

by great cosmic and vital rhythms: day and night, the months and the

seasons, and still more precisely biological rhythms [T]his results in

the perpetual interaction of these rhythms with repetitive processes

linked to homogeneous time. Marginalised means of travel, such as

walking, cycling and the various mixes of public transport, may well

be subject to the demands of linear time if simply integrated into the

daily routine of commuting. But they have the advantage of removing

the mobile body from the obligation to keep to the freeway speed limit

in order to remain merged with the general flow of traffic.

C. Our argument engages the Affirmative at the level of its

justification for ethical decision-making. You should vote negative to

refuse their call for their calculated rule-following in favor of a mode

of decision-making which locates justice as always to-come in its

unconditional openness to alterity.

Our alternative competes by critiquing their decision to link the

justification of the plan to a claim to knowledge, theory, or rule. By

repositioning ethics at the intersection of urgency and undecidability,

our leap of faith for the plan text creates an ethical foundation for


Zlomislic 2005

The notion of conflict resolution that has been practised thus far

implies that we can have a clear and distinct picture of all the drives

and desires within us and that these conflicting drives and desires can

be mended through an exchange of bombs We must make an absolute

risk in every singular instant as if it were being made for the first

time. Such assured knowledge is calculated and calculating. It is like a

machine without responsibility and without ethics. Without asking for

a document, a name, a context or a passport. I have to open myself to

the Other. My culture, my nation, my state and myself.