Jump to content

About This File

This kritik was written for use in college debates, but as I cut it I kept the high school topic in mind. Links are the most important thing, so let's review that first.


This kritik links to any case that tries to achieve any kind of stable, calculable order of its target system, whether that is a transportation policy or an energy policy. Topical affirmative cases will tend to achieve their advantages by believing to have their whole system accounted for, as when an affirmative case advances benefits that follow from an overall reordering/augmentation of existing transportation infrastructure, or when an affirmative case claims to make the world more sustainable and thus manageable. These kinds of cases conceive of what they solve for as a closed economy with calculable, standing-reserve items. There is ONE link about transportation (from where Stoekl, the main author talks about 'autonomism' and how attention to speed, movement, is just an instance of ordering our world as 'standing reserve'). There are MANY links that talk about sustainability, steady states, and energy. Thus, for HS you have one link to read but also many links you can read if the aff claims any kind of energy independence/stability/steady state as a result of plan. There are also links to the use of science, the use of social science, and things like upholding hegemony.


What is the argument? The aff thinks/operates on the scale of a closed economy. (insert link here) puts the closed system of matter and energy to work, which buys into the idea of a rational system of utility/consumption/etc. But there is another inevitable counterpart to this: insubordinate energy, excess, the accursed share. The claim that there is insubordinate energy is (for Bataille) warranted by two things 1) the scale of a general economy. When we open up our consideration more widely/broadly, out even to the stars and universe, the excess energy of the system is evident. This claim is fairly straightforward: widen up your scope of the system you consider, and the other complex and involved elements are revealed. 2) our own nature. Bataille thinks we have a drive to expend that cannot be suppressed by the asceticism of sustainability. Various psychological/cultural analyses show that we dispense with these drives in rituals, sacrifices, erotic activity, etc. (this can be healthy) or warfare/destruction. So, excess energy is inevitable, how to deal with it? With the affirmative, you drive excess back into the closed economy and this inevitably results in the 'burnoff' of warfare. This is pure (attempted) utility, no sacredness. With the negative, you embrace the general economy and deal with excess by making a sacrifice of the affirmative case. This achieves non-knowledge, heterogeneity, the sacred.


As I have mentioned, this was cut for the college topic but with hs in mind. My verbatim paperless index is set up so you can adapt the file for either kind of debate. Given that aff cases will often seek some kind of 'sustainability' under future resolutions, then this file has extended use. This kritik requires a fair amount of creativity to 'sell' a judge on the kritik. You have to make the cards work so that the judge buys the link and the closed vs general economy paradigms that are at stake. If you can establish that, the very binary "try or die" kinds of cards that set up a stark decision for the judge are fairly compelling.


I currently coach at Binghamton University and at Millburn H.S. I won the TOC my senior year in H.S. I debated in college. I went to grad school for Philosophy. This file includes cards from the two main texts that are sources for any such Bataille file: Stoekl's book on Bataille, and then the Accursed Share vol 1 by Bataille. There are also cards from secondary sources answering various things. This file is also made so that you can run it compatibly with Heidegger


Index summary:


***1NC shell

***2NC must read evidence (6 cards)


Secondary (2012 ndt or hs resolution)

- quantifying energy/having advantages

- nuclear power

- steady state energy or sustainability

Secondary - standing reserve tie-in (2012 ndt or hs resolution)

- energy production

- conservation/recycling

- energy innovations

- steady state/sustainability

- transportation/autonomy

Tertiary (any debate resolution)

- science

- solving problems/social science

- upholding Hegemony


- outweighs all

- sequences before all

- growth -> nuclear war



- geneoristy

- communication of healthy dread

- reverence

- new society

- recognition of the other

- AT sacrifice is violent

Other alternatives

- Eroticism

- Laughter

- Potlach

- Transgression

Self consciounsess net benefit

Generosity net benefit

***Permutation debate

Mutually Exclusive

- all the best cards

- the sacred

- the night of nonknowledge

AT do plan sacrifice the neg

AT do plan, our war/death advantages are the sacrifice

Add on disads to perms

- graceless sacrifice

- your tv is 50 inches mine is 27

***AT counterkritiks

- AT anthro

- AT Baudrillard, Lyotard, Postmodernism

- AT Capitalism

- AT Derrida 'gift'

- AT Habermas

- AT Hegel

- AT Nietzsche

- AT Sade

***AT indites

- AT marshall plan

- AT fascist

- AT irrational

- AT pathological

- AT perverse

- AT pornographic

- AT racist

- AT not scientific

- AT anti semite

***AT various

AT ethics

- AT general

- AT doesn't recognize other

- AT egoistic

- AT relativist

AT god/religion/mysticism

- AT you kill god

- AT you need god

- AT bad religion

AT perf con

- AT u run Heidegger

- AT talk of k violates

AT excess vs scarcity

- AT there is no excess

- AT there is no scarcity

- AT excess vs scarcity claims incompatible

- AT innovation solves

- AT 1st law thermodynamics

- AT ignores distribution

- Perspective shift

Real, not theoretical

K before psychology

Definition card - potlach


131 pages total

User Feedback

  • Create New...