Kritikal Agamben Aff

[caffeineprincess 3]

Can someone explain to me what this Aff is all about? What are good answers/things to run in a round where you hit such a case. Thank you all for your help.

[King of All Cosmos 3387]

There's a lot of ways to spin this aff I would assume. I've gone against it in Gitmo form and once against a National ID case that tried to access some Kritikal Agamben implications.

[thedowned 6]

state good.

[ro0t115 208]

state good.

 

why not just go biopolitics good?

 

 

it would be better to know what specifically the case does or is about. ive hit several agamben affs this year and none of them were the same...if you could just say whether its about guantanamo, borders, ID's, or even just about nothing at all that would help a lot.

 

 

there are usually some generic answers to agamben in certain K files from camps or in kritikal affs. check there first.

[The K 8]

Is the aff that says gitmo= part of the state of exeption. State of exeption and gitmo are biopolitical. Thats bad and plan would solve by using the sovereign state against itself through international norms.

[Felix Hoenikker 614]

next person to say Kritikal or talk about K debate or The K gets roundhouse kicked to the head by Chuck Norris

[ihsdebate 1035]

chuck norris=idiot

[dziegler 1548]

next person to say Kritikal or talk about K debate or The K gets roundhouse kicked to the head by Chuck Norris

Bruce Lee > Chuck Norris. Enter the Dragon proves this.

[Felix Hoenikker 614]

WHAT THE FUCK KEEPS HAPPENING TO MY POSTS HERE?!

 

mod edit: i keep deleting them because there is too much vulgarity in them and i don't like it.

-ihsdebate

[Mezriss 478]

Biopower good--> Nazism and death:D

[caffeineprincess 3]

the aff i am talking about simply does not produce a plano on the basis that the ballot should not be used as a tool

all the case presents is Agamben's viewpoint that biopower is bad

What is the best thing to do in such a round?!?

[fhqwhgads 122]

the aff i am talking about simply does not produce a plano on the basis that the ballot should not be used as a tool

all the case presents is Agamben's viewpoint that biopower is bad

What is the best thing to do in such a round?!?

 

T-USFG means you have to defend a plan/action by the United States federal government. Simply presenting viewpoints doesnt create a predictable basis for the negative to generate ground. Maybe our interpretation is biopolitical, but fairness outweighs so cry more and run agamben on the negative.

[The End 44]

Run T all day long. Nothing else. Every minute of every speach on topicality and why you win or why T is a voter.

[2leftsocks 10]

most judges dont like t so you should try other arguements and its pretty hard to spend all your time on t. maybe if thats all you have but otherwise throw some other stuff in there.

[caffeineprincess 3]

maybe if thats all you have but otherwise throw some other stuff in there.

 

Other stuff? can anyone be a little more specific about what this other stuff may entail

[Mezriss 478]

Random Answers to Agamben, BIopolitics good, No plan text bad theory etc

[Lamp 95]

Other stuff? can anyone be a little more specific about what this other stuff may entail

 

 

rights malthus.

[shreethebsmaster 616]

Random Answers to Agamben, BIopolitics good, No plan text bad theory etc

 

biopolitics good is mostly nonresponsive..

[Andromeda 137]

Claiming to solve for biopower does nothing but create more authority for the state to employ biopower by giving it a pretty mask, exacerbating the case harms and mitigating solvency.

 

Enter the statism K. Or hell, if you have the cards, straight-turn the whole aff with your own biopower stuff.

[movingonup 678]

There is a ton of ground against an Agamben aff:

 

I would run specific Agamben makes no distinction between real democracy and real totalitarianism. This is important because biopolitics is only bad in a totalitarian framework because democratic systems prevent incredible abuses.

 

If someone was running this as a Bare Life affirmative then i would answer with there being no impact to the concept of bare life.

 

If it is based on State of Exception then the neg would of course have to point out that Agamben says we are in a permanent state of exception, and it is impossible to tell when we are in or are not in the state of exception. It truely is impossible to solve for the state of exception no matter how you run it on the affirmative.

 

Other ideas include agamben breeds passivity so the we are politically paralyzed, agamben does not take into account curren political climates (he only bases his idealogy off of powers long ago), biopolitics is generally good because current post modern theories that cite it as being bad are wrong because they base their theories off of the exceptions of biopolitics, not the general rule.

 

There is also a countercritique of anthropocentrism is you feel like doing the work with that (links if aff claims homo sacer means you are subhumyn and at the level of an animal...i.e. they imply that animals are subhumyn).

 

You can countercritique off of Homo Sacer too because as it is Homo Sacer means "Sacred MAN" He therefore ignores gender.

 

You can turn any "Camp" advantages because remembering the holocaust recreates the horrors and guilt of the victims.

 

An Agamben aff is FAR from unbeatable.

[movingonup 678]

Enter the statism K. Or hell, if you have the cards, straight-turn the whole aff with your own biopower stuff.

 

This is what a lot of your evidence should come from, your own answers to an Agamben kritik.

[Mezriss 478]

biopolitics good is mostly nonresponsive..

Just there to augment the topicality

Also Break up the critical affirmative with theory

[Zack 188]

There is a ton of ground against an Agamben aff:

 

1. I would run specific Agamben makes no distinction between real democracy and real totalitarianism. This is important because biopolitics is only bad in a totalitarian framework because democratic systems prevent incredible abuses.

 

2. If someone was running this as a Bare Life affirmative then i would answer with there being no impact to the concept of bare life.

 

3. If it is based on State of Exception then the neg would of course have to point out that Agamben says we are in a permanent state of exception, and it is impossible to tell when we are in or are not in the state of exception. It truely is impossible to solve for the state of exception no matter how you run it on the affirmative.

 

4. Other ideas include agamben breeds passivity so the we are politically paralyzed,

 

5. agamben does not take into account curren political climates (he only bases his idealogy off of powers long ago),

 

6. biopolitics is generally good because current post modern theories that cite it as being bad are wrong because they base their theories off of the exceptions of biopolitics, not the general rule.

 

7. There is also a countercritique of anthropocentrism is you feel like doing the work with that (links if aff claims homo sacer means you are subhumyn and at the level of an animal...i.e. they imply that animals are subhumyn).

 

8. You can countercritique off of Homo Sacer too because as it is Homo Sacer means "Sacred MAN" He therefore ignores gender.

 

9. You can turn any "Camp" advantages because remembering the holocaust recreates the horrors and guilt of the victims.

 

An Agamben aff is FAR from unbeatable.

1. There IS no distinction, that's the point. Democracy can except itself and makes a perfectly fluid transition into totalitarianism and back.

 

2. Um....what?

 

Also, bare life and the state of exception are one and the same concept. Bare life is the life that is captured in the inclusive-exclusion.

 

3. It isn't about "solving" the state of exception, it's about negating sovereign power. Sovereign power, as I understand it, does not follow a top down structure but, rather, is fluid and immanent to society. We are part of the paradigm of sovereignty and, thus, can refuse to partake in it

 

4. Blah blah blah, bad Agamben indicts. Agamben is the very opposite of passivity. There is nothing more liberating, in my eyes, than being told that we are all standing on ground waiting to be walled in. That, in all of us, is contained the undeniable potential to be excluded and destroyed in the name of some vague threat.

 

5. That just isn't true. At all.

 

6. Agamben is critical of this kind of thinking. His point is that the exception IS the rule. That those exceptional breakdowns of biopolitics are not exceptions but a paradigm that has been functioning for quite some time. One of my favorite agamben cards is the one where he describes the soccer game played at the gates of Auschwitz and compares it to modern politics in that politics has become a game where we all sing and dance along, proclaiming the joys of living in the age of democracy, and pretending that the furnaces behind the gates that we're dancing in front of are the exception, not the rule. We pretend that the game of soccer is the rule and the camp the exception when, in fact, the two are one and the same.

 

7. Meh, my alternative (or whatever you call it when you're aff) solves. Whatever life is a rejection of identity, be it human or animal...whatever. It seems to me that it'd be pretty easy to just dance your way around this argument. Also, if they concede your framework then their alternative is useless in a world where sovereignty still functions. Sovereignty is not friendly to animals either.

 

8. Same as number 7 and you're link is terrible: homo sacer is a term that comes from Roman law, not something Agamben coined.

 

9. Agamben writes some AMAZING answers to holocaust trivialization. In particular, there is one that compares those that would make the holocaust unspeakable to the SS who were complicit in the holocaust because they refused to speak of it. Also, he proposes a pretty good alternative which, as I understand it, is to bear witness to the unspeakable nature of those that die in the camp. We have to be witnesses the the fact that bare life is something that defies language...or something along those lines. I only ever hit that argument once and it was very poorly articulated.

 

 

 

I ran an aff that just rejected biopolitics (to put it in very simple terms) for most of last semester. We established the whole Agambenate framework, then read the resolution, then read this Foucault card about how all truth is war and we wield truth as a weapon etc etc etc. We said we re-interpreted the resolution as our own, revolutionary truth yada yada yada, you get the idea. It works out well so long as you handle framework properly. Most of the Agamben indicts are dumb, realism is a tough but very winnable debate (I think the evidence is mostly on your side) and people ususally don't even run DAs when you don't defend a 'real' plan text. The only problem with that whole thing is that I am SO TIRED of running Agamben...but that's another rant.

[caffeineprincess 3]

Zack: Is there any chance we could get a copy of that case. I will trade a whole camp for that case, I have pretty much everything except for SCFI and DDW. If you're interested email inspiredcturtle@aol.com or im inspiredcturtle

[movingonup 678]

1. There IS no distinction, that's the point. Democracy can except itself and makes a perfectly fluid transition into totalitarianism and back.

 

2. Um....what?

 

Also, bare life and the state of exception are one and the same concept. Bare life is the life that is captured in the inclusive-exclusion.

 

3. It isn't about "solving" the state of exception, it's about negating sovereign power. Sovereign power, as I understand it, does not follow a top down structure but, rather, is fluid and immanent to society. We are part of the paradigm of sovereignty and, thus, can refuse to partake in it

 

4. Blah blah blah, bad Agamben indicts. Agamben is the very opposite of passivity. There is nothing more liberating, in my eyes, than being told that we are all standing on ground waiting to be walled in. That, in all of us, is contained the undeniable potential to be excluded and destroyed in the name of some vague threat.

 

5. That just isn't true. At all.

 

6. Agamben is critical of this kind of thinking. His point is that the exception IS the rule. That those exceptional breakdowns of biopolitics are not exceptions but a paradigm that has been functioning for quite some time. One of my favorite agamben cards is the one where he describes the soccer game played at the gates of Auschwitz and compares it to modern politics in that politics has become a game where we all sing and dance along, proclaiming the joys of living in the age of democracy, and pretending that the furnaces behind the gates that we're dancing in front of are the exception, not the rule. We pretend that the game of soccer is the rule and the camp the exception when, in fact, the two are one and the same.

 

7. Meh, my alternative (or whatever you call it when you're aff) solves. Whatever life is a rejection of identity, be it human or animal...whatever. It seems to me that it'd be pretty easy to just dance your way around this argument. Also, if they concede your framework then their alternative is useless in a world where sovereignty still functions. Sovereignty is not friendly to animals either.

 

8. Same as number 7 and you're link is terrible: homo sacer is a term that comes from Roman law, not something Agamben coined.

 

9. Agamben writes some AMAZING answers to holocaust trivialization. In particular, there is one that compares those that would make the holocaust unspeakable to the SS who were complicit in the holocaust because they refused to speak of it. Also, he proposes a pretty good alternative which, as I understand it, is to bear witness to the unspeakable nature of those that die in the camp. We have to be witnesses the the fact that bare life is something that defies language...or something along those lines. I only ever hit that argument once and it was very poorly articulated.

 

 

 

I ran an aff that just rejected biopolitics (to put it in very simple terms) for most of last semester. We established the whole Agambenate framework, then read the resolution, then read this Foucault card about how all truth is war and we wield truth as a weapon etc etc etc. We said we re-interpreted the resolution as our own, revolutionary truth yada yada yada, you get the idea. It works out well so long as you handle framework properly. Most of the Agamben indicts are dumb, realism is a tough but very winnable debate (I think the evidence is mostly on your side) and people ususally don't even run DAs when you don't defend a 'real' plan text. The only problem with that whole thing is that I am SO TIRED of running Agamben...but that's another rant.

 

I was just giving some ideas of arguments to run.