Jump to content
Shuffy

Beat up on my aff thread.

Recommended Posts

Just a question, does foucault give any alternatives, no to biopower but to his criticism?

You're going to have to clarify that question for me to try to give an answer. I suspect my answer will be no, Foucault provides no way/idea as to how to change the ruling episteme of the day, whether for better or worse. Foucault merely begins a project of mapping forms of power so that we might better challenge bad instances-he contends that biopower operates in a certain way, and the general population still treats power as if it is soviergn. Biopower has a whole different way that it must be resisted, and until we realize this, we won't be able to make change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foucault does not give any alternatives as far as I know, he is simply an historian.

 

That is not my "winning argument on the kritik flow." I am simply telling you why your arguments don't make a lot of sense. Of course Foucault doesn't advocate removal of the state - that's why it doesn't make any sense to claim to solve for his analysis, because the only way to do that is to remove the state.

 

It is like a racism argument, in that solving for "instances" of racism does nothing.

 

I would have to agree with you partially. I would however, say that foucault does give an "alternative" in the form of an ethic one might use/adopt that is set up to identify and resist biopolitics.

 

But on your claim that his is only a historian leads me to believe you dont know what your talking about or are being very simlpistic and general about his work. But unforutatly the former seems more plausible because you really seem to believe foucault gives a damn about the state.

 

You're going to have to clarify that question for me to try to give an answer. I suspect my answer will be no, Foucault provides no way/idea as to how to change the ruling episteme of the day, whether for better or worse. Foucault merely begins a project of mapping forms of power so that we might better challenge bad instances-he contends that biopower operates in a certain way, and the general population still treats power as if it is soviergn. Biopower has a whole different way that it must be resisted, and until we realize this, we won't be able to make change.

 

 

I agree with you. Foucault does beef on people who think that soveriegn power is the only power in operation. I also agree to a lesser degree with you on his mapping-of forms of power. I do think he gives us an alternative ethic and i think this really comes out in his lectures that are covered in society must be defended. I cannot remember what passage it is from. But foucault basic thesis revolves around indetifying the main danger, and problematizing it. Critiquing it, giving a hidden history of it, understand the assumptions, see it not as good or bad but danergous, and all this on the local/individual level using this problematization as an affirmation of individual agency...and through all these things forming a resistance to the "portion" of power that seeks to normalizes and kills.

 

I think his ethic reaches out even from his critique on power. Yes the base of his work was done around power, but it evolved. He went on to write about how the theories and ideas on power (The framework of power, have you) are/is fulfilled within these certain instances, the confession in history of sexuality, the prison, juridical model, the clinic, the notion of a "sexuality" rather then a pleasure to define sex, and the list goes on.

 

I really think foucault was making a debate arguement. And i think many people miss the fact that every work of foucault builds upon itself. From the generic 1nc shell that is usually just about the theories behind his critique, vs. a specific shell where others have used his framework to aritculate certain instances of power relations.

 

Now, i tihnk im finally coming around to the main point im trying to make which is. If we frame an instance of biopoltics like our evidence does and we win that our action results in the preventing stopping of the continued exploitation of and the application of a disposibilty politics towards a group of people, then we win our biopolitics advantage. Our evidence indictes three systems of though that biopolitics has used/influenced/created that cause the impacts of the 1AC. By setting sites of resistance to these things and solving the very specific impacts of our 1ac we will win that we form a resistance that isnt in the status qou (which is infinitely better than no resistance) or atleast bolster the small forms of resistance already in place.

 

Another interesting arguement that i would love comments on would be that if we win that the plan makes a hige impact in the way politics works. To a point where the majority of the population supports/endorses/ or is atleast nuetral about it. then we will win we change the imperative of biopolitics as it is concieved in the 1AC harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault does "give a damn about the state," which is, for all intents and purposes, the root source of biopower. After all, what is the state but a mass collection of biopower? In the sense that Foucault does not actually provide an alternative, and the only way to get to an alternative is to draw an assumption which he does not make, he is really only an historian.

 

Any claim that "identifying and resisting" biopolitics is something Foucault says to do is patently false. This is why I dislike claiming to solve for any of Foucault's analysis - simply because you are making an assumption which he never implies.

 

Much of Foucault's work centers on the reason why the state has the power it does. Like it or not, the only way to eliminate statist biopolitical control is to either eliminate the state or somehow radically alter the state so that it has no biopolitical control (which is not really possible without eradicating it). Identifying and resisting biopolitical control does not affect whether the state is attempting to control you - the state doesn't really care, because you cannot alter the way the state works from the outside like that.

 

Even if I grant you that you "win" your biopolitics advantage, what is the "advantage" in solving for a specific instance of biopolitical control?

 

Although, this comes back to the fact that you cannot eliminate it in any sense of the word. Passing a law or making a policy simply alters the type of biopolitical control being used, it does not eliminate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yall are having a good debate on the wrong topic. the affirmative's giroux evidence talks about bush's specific type of biopolitics that he uses to get people to be simple jingoistic consumers. we don't claim to solve for biopoltics or even claim that that is possible. all we argue is that bush's politics are bad and we have a way to change them, which brings me to my next point.

 

im am under the assumption that einstein you are either debate in fairly uncritical areas or that you yourself don't run critical arguements a lot. this is not meant to be offensive, i simply noticed that your arguements about discourse seem to make an unrealistic desticntion between policy and critical discourse.

 

1) we don't make the kind of ultimate discourse arguements you assume. we define discourse as discourse and nothing else. we like the idea of being able to talk about what is a good or bad idea and wieghing the pros and cons. our plan not really passing would just mean the judge should vote aff becuase he or she isnt allowed to vote for a good idea.

 

2) any framework arguements you make that try and exclude us are actually what we meet best. the reason i love this aff is because it lives in policy but debate in critical. i think your reasons why are k of T is stupid is answered back by us being topical and also a real policy option. your discourse framework assumes we are simply ciritcal and un-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then I simply drew the wrong conclusion from what I thought Shuffy was implying.

 

I understand now what he means when he says the case is critical - but that does not change this. You cannot solve for Bush's specific type of biopolitics just by making a law that removes the ban on political activity. It's the same thing - you're letting the state tell you what you can and cannot do. Identifying and resisting his "jingoistic" type of biopolitical control really does nothing to it.

 

I do run critical arguments a lot. I just don't think that you can solve for them - just because a lot of people run Foucault and claim that they can solve for him, doesn't mean it is automatically true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say that you would be true in most other instances but what i like about our affirmative is that giroux writes specifically on this point. he is pretty enthusiastic about people being politically engaged and says that can solve for that type of biopolitics. Giroux might also talk about specifically national service and political engagement but if not there is some zizek arguements to be made about acting in the state to break it down.

 

also i checked the aff and giroux does talk about bush's push for de-politicized national being bad and stuff. if this doesnt answer your solvency claims im not sure anything does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Giroux probably is correct, in the abstract. However, applying theories to real life is easier said than done, and no one law can individually break down the system of power he talks about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would have to agree almost to the point of being too cynical. but thats the beuaty of debate, we can say stuff is a good idea but don't techinically have to prove its possible, especially in critical debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then I simply drew the wrong conclusion from what I thought Shuffy was implying.

 

I understand now what he means when he says the case is critical - but that does not change this. You cannot solve for Bush's specific type of biopolitics just by making a law that removes the ban on political activity. It's the same thing - you're letting the state tell you what you can and cannot do. Identifying and resisting his "jingoistic" type of biopolitical control really does nothing to it.

 

I do run critical arguments a lot. I just don't think that you can solve for them - just because a lot of people run Foucault and claim that they can solve for him, doesn't mean it is automatically true.

 

Foucault does "give a damn about the state," which is, for all intents and purposes, the root source of biopower. After all, what is the state but a mass collection of biopower? In the sense that Foucault does not actually provide an alternative, and the only way to get to an alternative is to draw an assumption which he does not make, he is really only an historian.

 

Ok, im ceasing this whole arguements on power and fourcualt in general, even on other thread you refuse to tak ayones adive on biopower, even when its clear they know what they are talking about.

 

Im the one at fault for continuing this OT arguement that is stupid becaise youve already made your mind up about everything and nothing i say or suggests matters. Im sorry but ive been taught and read otherwise than what you suggest.

 

Any claim that "identifying and resisting" biopolitics is something Foucault says to do is patently false. This is why I dislike claiming to solve for any of Foucault's analysis - simply because you are making an assumption which he never implies.

 

Again same thing, however show me in what book what peive of ev does foucault say this?

 

 

Much of Foucault's work centers on the reason why the state has the power it does. Like it or not, the only way to eliminate statist biopolitical control is to either eliminate the state or somehow radically alter the state so that it has no biopolitical control (which is not really possible without eradicating it). Identifying and resisting biopolitical control does not affect whether the state is attempting to control you - the state doesn't really care, because you cannot alter the way the state works from the outside like that.

 

Lol

 

Even if I grant you that you "win" your biopolitics advantage, what is the "advantage" in solving for a specific instance of biopolitical control?

 

neoliberalism, jingoistic(sp.) consumerism, miltaristic partiotism, privitization of the public sphere. Politics of disposabilty.

 

Although, this comes back to the fact that you cannot eliminate it in any sense of the word. Passing a law or making a policy simply alters the type of biopolitical control being used, it does not eliminate it.

 

we know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure, but then again that gets to the point of whether you are claiming your advantages to be post-fiat or pre-fiat. As long as you defend your advantages as post-fiat, then you'll have to argue why solving for some biopower is better than solving for nuclear war or something.

 

Shuffy - the point is that Foucault does not say that anywhere. He simply analyzes biopower and how it has been used in history. He does not offer an alternative or solution. That is my problem.

 

I also don't see why you think you learned it "differently." It just depends on how you apply it to modern society. While biopower may be independent of the state, the crux of the argument within the debate round is state biopower. For this reason, it does not matter whether you claim Foucault does not analyze the state. If you're talking about biopower and you're using a state policy, the only thing you're going to attempt to solve for is state biopower.

 

In the other thread, I never said the other people were wrong about Foucault, I just said that in most debate rounds, his arguments get compressed to be a debate about the state. That is exactly what is happening with your affirmative.

 

I didn't ask you to list some jargon of what you solved for, I want to know what you actually solve for. How does taking a stance against biopolitics improve anyone's life in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well sure, but then again that gets to the point of whether you are claiming your advantages to be post-fiat or pre-fiat. As long as you defend your advantages as post-fiat, then you'll have to argue why solving for some biopower is better than solving for nuclear war or something.

 

Shuffy - the point is that Foucault does not say that anywhere. He simply analyzes biopower and how it has been used in history. He does not offer an alternative or solution. That is my problem.

 

I also don't see why you think you learned it "differently." It just depends on how you apply it to modern society. While biopower may be independent of the state, the crux of the argument within the debate round is state biopower. For this reason, it does not matter whether you claim Foucault does not analyze the state. If you're talking about biopower and you're using a state policy, the only thing you're going to attempt to solve for is state biopower.

 

In the other thread, I never said the other people were wrong about Foucault, I just said that in most debate rounds, his arguments get compressed to be a debate about the state. That is exactly what is happening with your affirmative.

 

I didn't ask you to list some jargon of what you solved for, I want to know what you actually solve for. How does taking a stance against biopolitics improve anyone's life in any way?

 

Yea, foucault would hate our aff....Agamben on the other hand would love it. Giroux is talking about biopolitics in the Agamben sense and the sense that you keep re-iterating as foucualt.

 

Giroux thinks that biopolitics and power is situated within the sovereign (the state) foucault sed that no, that notion is what gives the state excess power because. foucault argues power is local and relational its not situated within anything anyone.

 

All my beef with your args is its agamben which i think is entirely different than foucault. And because i dont really like agamben that much. And so i hate when ppl think its the same. Which is like you sed what happens in many rounds.

 

So im using cross x to make up for the times i wanted to yell out in a round, "no....your wrong....thats not foucault...blah...blah.blah."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm not attempting to explain Foucault or Agamben or really try to point out what they say; I'm just pointing out how all biopower debates end up going in a round. It is simply impossible to purely apply either of those writers, simply because either they would not agree with your solution, or they would not agree with the way you take biopower and relate it to the state. I agree that people misinterpet Foucault in debate rounds - but that's probably the only way to make it an argument that is competitive.

 

As for Giroux, my argument still stands about the fact that there's no real way to solve the problem through plan, and it's hard to pinpoint any "real" advantages for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well sure, but then again that gets to the point of whether you are claiming your advantages to be post-fiat or pre-fiat. As long as you defend your advantages as post-fiat, then you'll have to argue why solving for some biopower is better than solving for nuclear war or something.

 

Shuffy - the point is that Foucault does not say that anywhere. He simply analyzes biopower and how it has been used in history. He does not offer an alternative or solution. That is my problem.

 

I also don't see why you think you learned it "differently." It just depends on how you apply it to modern society. While biopower may be independent of the state, the crux of the argument within the debate round is state biopower. For this reason, it does not matter whether you claim Foucault does not analyze the state. If you're talking about biopower and you're using a state policy, the only thing you're going to attempt to solve for is state biopower.

 

In the other thread, I never said the other people were wrong about Foucault, I just said that in most debate rounds, his arguments get compressed to be a debate about the state. That is exactly what is happening with your affirmative.

 

I didn't ask you to list some jargon of what you solved for, I want to know what you actually solve for. How does taking a stance against biopolitics improve anyone's life in any way?

 

I'm going to try and clear up the misunderstanding you are having about foucault that sheffy, while being correct, is not explaining clearly enough (in my opinion). you attempt to say that the kind of biopower argued by the neg is "state biopower" and that foucault doesn't take a stance on this. the problem is that foucault would disagree with your very notion that their are different sections of biopower such as "state" or "local". all biopower is fluid and interconnected-you can't separate it out like you try to. this should be one of the neg link args, and, in this case, a possible affirmative solvency mech.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, foucault would hate our aff....Agamben on the other hand would love it. Giroux is talking about biopolitics in the Agamben sense and the sense that you keep re-iterating as foucualt.

 

Giroux thinks that biopolitics and power is situated within the sovereign (the state) foucault sed that no, that notion is what gives the state excess power because. foucault argues power is local and relational its not situated within anything anyone.

 

All my beef with your args is its agamben which i think is entirely different than foucault. And because i dont really like agamben that much. And so i hate when ppl think its the same. Which is like you sed what happens in many rounds.

 

So im using cross x to make up for the times i wanted to yell out in a round, "no....your wrong....thats not foucault...blah...blah.blah."

 

you will loose to the foucault da

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I'm not attempting to explain Foucault or Agamben or really try to point out what they say; I'm just pointing out how all biopower debates end up going in a round. It is simply impossible to purely apply either of those writers, simply because either they would not agree with your solution, or they would not agree with the way you take biopower and relate it to the state. I agree that people misinterpet Foucault in debate rounds - but that's probably the only way to make it an argument that is competitive.

 

As for Giroux, my argument still stands about the fact that there's no real way to solve the problem through plan, and it's hard to pinpoint any "real" advantages for people.

 

Cool, we spent all the time an whittled everything down to a couple simple arguements...i feel like i accomplished something or maybe alex accomplished something by ending my fuko rants.

 

Either way, id love to see some neg evidence (just tell me the camp what seeion/week/lab it was) on the CP with coercion combo, and i would love to see how the t a=one policy action looks like.

 

Any critiques that come to mind as a good neg strat as one off agaisnt this aff. edit. besides the foucault DA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to try and clear up the misunderstanding you are having about foucault that sheffy, while being correct, is not explaining clearly enough (in my opinion). you attempt to say that the kind of biopower argued by the neg is "state biopower" and that foucault doesn't take a stance on this. the problem is that foucault would disagree with your very notion that their are different sections of biopower such as "state" or "local". all biopower is fluid and interconnected-you can't separate it out like you try to. this should be one of the neg link args, and, in this case, a possible affirmative solvency mech.

 

Using phrases like "biopower is fluid" does not get to the root of the issue - biopower is, in essence, what any form of governance will attempt to exercise over you. I'm not attempting to separate out biopower, I'm stating that such is the problem. In any debate round, the argument becomes whether biopower in relation to the federal government is a bad thing. It is simply irrelevant whether "biopower is fluid," because debaters stretch and twist Foucault's arguments until they aren't really what he advocates.

 

I mean, you can make the argument that Foucault does not advocate what the debaters are saying, and it's a good argument, I'm just stating a perception of mine.

 

I never disputed Shuffy, I was simply making the point that there is a difference between what Foucault writes and how it is applied to debate, as you would know if you read the thread on statism in the critiques forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using phrases like "biopower is fluid" does not get to the root of the issue - biopower is, in essence, what any form of governance will attempt to exercise over you. I'm not attempting to separate out biopower, I'm stating that such is the problem. In any debate round, the argument becomes whether biopower in relation to the federal government is a bad thing. It is simply irrelevant whether "biopower is fluid," because debaters stretch and twist Foucault's arguments until they aren't really what he advocates.

 

I mean, you can make the argument that Foucault does not advocate what the debaters are saying, and it's a good argument, I'm just stating a perception of mine.

 

I never disputed Shuffy, I was simply making the point that there is a difference between what Foucault writes and how it is applied to debate, as you would know if you read the thread on statism in the critiques forum.

 

I think, given that I've spent over a year in intensive studies of Foucault and that I've read Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, The Order of Things, History of Sexuality v.1-3, most of Society Must Be Defended, and The Birth of the Clinic, I'm qualified to talk about Foucault. I also think that since I've run it for 2 years in debate as a one off or two off position, that i understand how it is run.

 

You say that it is run in different ways in debate rounds-true. But I've found that the closer I get to the real thing that Foucault says, the more success I have because my arguements are better.

 

I also think that though the government uses biopower, Foucault writes a lot about how the episteme of our current society is what creates the way all power functions in our society. In the current episteme, much of the more powerful forms are the subtle ones, the ones that create the unspoken assumptions and premises on which our society is based. Things like religion, science, and the press-all of these create societal biases that we take as Truth. The link arguments the negative should be making, and that I do (when i debate well, which isn't always) is that the affirmative creates new ones that somehow leads to genocide or whatever impact they are running. This avoids all your arguements about the separation of governmental biopower and societal biopower or whatever other distinction you try to make.

 

And guess what-the phrase "biopower is fluid" is true. it means hardly anything-it basically just restates one of the basic properties of biopower; namely, that it evolves in order to capitalize on all parts of society. I'm sorry I didn't say this whole long sentence before instead of the catch phrase, but I got lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I still don't see what your point is. Whether you are "qualified" to talk about Foucault does not change the way people run it in rounds, which is all I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I still don't see what your point is. Whether you are "qualified" to talk about Foucault does not change the way people run it in rounds, which is all I am talking about.

 

My point was that you draw a distinction in biopower to try and prove Sheffy wrong that doesn't exist. The point was also that you don't have to run the argument wrong, and that it's better when you don't.

 

I still think he's wrong, but for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you will loose to the foucault da

 

did you just say foucault da? I wanna see someone winning U with foucault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was that you draw a distinction in biopower to try and prove Sheffy wrong that doesn't exist. The point was also that you don't have to run the argument wrong, and that it's better when you don't.

 

I still think he's wrong, but for different reasons.

 

The best one off teams IMHO are the ones who argue straight from the author. The good about foucault is that you can do that without taking the practicality of the arguement within debate. I believe as it seems along with xacalite further up, that foucault is so much sweeter when you dont butcher and debatatize the arguement.

 

 

Back to OT. What critiques do people suggest against this affirmative, and what does everyone agree that the strat they would run would generally be the CP/ coercion/t combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that kritiks are cheating, I think that the A strat starts with and R and ends in an ights Malthus. Although it is probably one of the sketchiest arguments in debate (behind wipeout, timecube, and spark) your aff links hard. Also, it is like a kritik, only with an inevitability claim... and impacts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering that kritiks are cheating, I think that the A strat starts with and R and ends in an ights Malthus. Although it is probably one of the sketchiest arguments in debate (behind wipeout, timecube, and spark) your aff links hard. Also, it is like a kritik, only with an inevitability claim... and impacts...

 

I want some of what yall are smoking in round rock! Besides right malthus is saying authoritainism now is better than total later...or maybe thats something else.

 

Might, as well learn form the best, outline your whole arguement of rimal within the context of this aff.

 

Oh noes, not ri-mal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and of course, we allow malthusians to discuss their ideas in the public sphere. eat the L/T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...