Jump to content
ftswartz

Biopower good

Recommended Posts

What is humanism? I know it has a ton of different definitions, but how can I deploy it to answer foucualt? (If you use it to be synonymous with, or at least a key component of prag, I get the idea).

 

How can neg teams win our ontology is flawed without proving the thing we cause (biopower) is bad? I might be missing something in these debates, but im pretty sure judges would not vote neg if the neg just read foucault links, but no biopower / or other impact.

Well humanism is the type of framework that tries to advance one truth and devalues another. So link, the plan presents a truth sif its the only one, eliminating and destroying all others in the name of this truth

 

If you win ontology it means their framework is incoherent. That means you cant even value their case if its been built off of a bankrupt theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but why would the affirmative's ontology be bankrupt without impacting the K somehow?

 

Oh, and to whoever said rimal and deterrence dont have timeframe / defense. I agree you have to play some defense on the impact, thats obviously more important. But the timeframe to rimal is whenever the crunch comes (2050 by some predictions) and deterrence, well is the status quo, so if the alt disrupts biopower and thus hurts deterrence, the impact is immediate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but why would the affirmative's ontology be bankrupt without impacting the K somehow?

 

Oh, and to whoever said rimal and deterrence dont have timeframe / defense. I agree you have to play some defense on the impact, thats obviously more important. But the timeframe to rimal is whenever the crunch comes (2050 by some predictions) and deterrence, well is the status quo, so if the alt disrupts biopower and thus hurts deterrence, the impact is immediate.

Oh geegee, my point isnt that you shouldnt impact your kritik at all. I mean you shouldnt do it in the way you impact disads or whatever by saying the plan will lead to all this bad stuff. So you win that the aff works within a humanist mindset etc etc violence etc.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry. That is what I got from researching some of his work, and I do believe that some of what I said is true.

 

Then again I am no Foucault expert.

 

I'll clarify, because I was probably elliptical and thus bordered on being mean.

 

Foucault is primarily a historical scholar. He cites a lot of historical examples. You have probably talked about some of these examples before: prison reform, psychiatry, the treatment of sexuality. Foucault discusses these examples in the context of societies that most of us would not consider "totalitarian" - France, America, England. Samuel Tuke and Jeremy Bentham are not products of Stalinist Russia; the "repressive hypothesis" as such wouldn't even make sense in Nazi Germany.

 

Foucault is not writing primarily about "totalitarian" societies, and the Wiki should help disabuse you of this notion.

 

Indeed, Foucault and the Foucault-influenced Agamben draw their analytic force from their ability to illustrate the ways in which societies we normally do not consider totalitarian actually function in quite totalitarian ways. They would vigorously contest the applicability of your distinction.

 

The Dickinson card is really good because it redraws that distinction, contesting the apparent thrust of some Focuauldian and Agambenated (?) work in intuitive and appealing terms. (Former Wake Forest debater and comm studies stud Rufo makes some similar args too, FYI, check his blog on this.)

 

I hope I'm being helpful and not snotty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a card that can be useful for putting some defense on their extinction impacts- although admittedly it is more useful against agamben then foucault (it talks about sovereign power) but you can prolly spin the warrants to say what you need...

 

 

Biopower -/-> X-tinction

 

Hardt and Negri- 2004- Multitude

 

Sovereign political power can never really arrive at the pure production of death because it cannot afford to eliminate the life of its subjects.

Weapons of mass destruction must remain a threat or be used in very limited cases, and torture cannot be taken to the point of death, at least not in a generalized way. Sovereign power lives only by preserving the life of its subjects, at the very least their capacities of production and consumption. IF any sovereign power were to destroy that, it would necessarily destroy itself. More important than the negative technologies of annihilation and torture, then, is the constructive character of biopower. Global war must not only bring death but also produce and regulate life.

 

-G.

 

Were I affirmative, I would really hesitate to read this card as defense against their impacts. I really feel you might be giving as much as you're getting with that.

 

H&N clearly think that biopower kind of sucks. It may not intend to extinctionz us, but I think that card cedes a lot of the thesis without contesting:

 

a. the disposability of the periphery (the biop regime's pretty content to let 3w pops get sacrificed passively.)

 

b. the possibility of active extinction - biop management may shoot for sustainability, but accidental extinction - unintentional mismanagement of a genocidal system - still seems pretty possible.

 

I see what you're saying with that card, but the number of implict concessions might really haunt you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were I affirmative, I would really hesitate to read this card as defense against their impacts. I really feel you might be giving as much as you're getting with that.

 

H&N clearly think that biopower kind of sucks. It may not intend to extinctionz us, but I think that card cedes a lot of the thesis without contesting:

 

a. the disposability of the periphery (the biop regime's pretty content to let 3w pops get sacrificed passively.)

 

b. the possibility of active extinction - biop management may shoot for sustainability, but accidental extinction - unintentional mismanagement of a genocidal system - still seems pretty possible.

 

I see what you're saying with that card, but the number of implict concessions might really haunt you.

For sure. If you want to make the "biopower intends to sustain not destroy life" arg, then read ojakangas, he makes this arg pretty well.

 

Also to whomever said read humanism, it's not the only way of impact turning it... and humanism for sure has a wide meaning. It's not just prag authors like Rorty. If you really want to go full on humanism, check out rasch and milbank cards. They're responsive to agamben, but they write from a religious-humanist perspective (not so much prag), which is for sure possible to win depending on your aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes it necessary for going for an ACTUAL impact? Going for ontology is more effective and what a kritik is actually about. You shyouldnt be trying to turn a kritik into a disad saying that they are going to lead to a war or whatever, thats the problem so many k debaters fall into.

 

K's aren't necessarily or even normally about ontology. Why do you think this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were I affirmative, I would really hesitate to read this card as defense against their impacts. I really feel you might be giving as much as you're getting with that.

 

H&N clearly think that biopower kind of sucks. It may not intend to extinctionz us, but I think that card cedes a lot of the thesis without contesting:

 

a. the disposability of the periphery (the biop regime's pretty content to let 3w pops get sacrificed passively.)

 

b. the possibility of active extinction - biop management may shoot for sustainability, but accidental extinction - unintentional mismanagement of a genocidal system - still seems pretty possible.

 

I see what you're saying with that card, but the number of implict concessions might really haunt you.

 

Yes, you are right here, but the idea is that this is great defense for a malthus turn... it says that biopower wont kill us all, instead, it will keep killing little bits of the population... that totally jives with a debate version of malthus. The card is basically for you to be able to win the impact debate in that you can claim xtinction, and they can't.

 

I dont think that the neg will be able to claim "accidental Extinction" because the chance is rather slight... i mean, if you win biopower prefers to have its toy subjects to discipline, then you can very much mitigate any good chance of their extinction impacts from taking place. Add that to some solid analysis on how like those in control wont kill themselves, and the crunch will outweigh.

 

I am just throwing this out because i thought someone might like it... it may concede a lot of the thesis, but it contradicts that bernauer stuff that says biopow --> Xtinct, and if you go for malthus or hege, or basically anything util, you can find a place for this sort of claim.

 

-G.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh geegee, my point isnt that you shouldnt impact your kritik at all. I mean you shouldnt do it in the way you impact disads or whatever by saying the plan will lead to all this bad stuff. So you win that the aff works within a humanist mindset etc etc violence etc.

 

sure, but then it is a K of humanism, not a biopower K, which is what this thread is about.

 

Yes, you are right here, but the idea is that this is great defense for a malthus turn... it says that biopower wont kill us all, instead, it will keep killing little bits of the population... that totally jives with a debate version of malthus. The card is basically for you to be able to win the impact debate in that you can claim xtinction, and they can't.

 

I dont think that the neg will be able to claim "accidental Extinction" because the chance is rather slight... i mean, if you win biopower prefers to have its toy subjects to discipline, then you can very much mitigate any good chance of their extinction impacts from taking place. Add that to some solid analysis on how like those in control wont kill themselves, and the crunch will outweigh.

 

I am just throwing this out because i thought someone might like it... it may concede a lot of the thesis, but it contradicts that bernauer stuff that says biopow --> Xtinct, and if you go for malthus or hege, or basically anything util, you can find a place for this sort of claim.

 

-G.

 

Hmm, yea its better than nothing, but antonucci is right that good K teams will win those are pretty big impacts, and may interact with the case in a way you dont want (a democracy advantage perhaps) and K teams also will be pretty good about why even if the state wants to keep people alive, biopower makes survival still hard for whatever reason (nuclear warfare, accidental / management problems). It seems like a dickenson card is a better call here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biopower -/-> X-tinction

 

Hardt and Negri- 2004- Multitude

 

Sovereign political power can never really arrive at the pure production of death because it cannot afford to eliminate the life of its subjects.

Weapons of mass destruction must remain a threat or be used in very limited cases, and torture cannot be taken to the point of death, at least not in a generalized way. Sovereign power lives only by preserving the life of its subjects, at the very least their capacities of production and consumption. IF any sovereign power were to destroy that, it would necessarily destroy itself. More important than the negative technologies of annihilation and torture, then, is the constructive character of biopower. Global war must not only bring death but also produce and regulate life.

 

-G.

 

The earlier part of that text:

 

War really become absolute only with the technological development of weapons that made possible for the first time mass and even global destruction. Weapons of global destruction break the modern dialectic of war. War has always involved the destruction of life, but in the twentieth century this destructive power reached the limits of the pure production of death, represented symbolically by Auschwitz and Hiroshima. The capacity of genocide and nuclear destruction touches directly on the very structure of life, corrupting it, perverting it. The sovereign power that controls such means of destruction is a form of biopower in this most negative and horrible sense of the term, a power that rules directly over death - the death not simply of an individual or group but of humanity itself and perhaps indeed of all being. When genocide and atomic weapons put life itself on center stage, then war becomes properly ontological. War thus seems to be heading at once in two opposite directions: it is, on one hand, reduced to police action and, on the other, raised up to an absolute, ontological level by technologies of global destruction. These two movements, however, are not contradictory: the reduction of war to police action does not take away but actually confirms its ontological dimension. The thinning of the war function and the thickening of the police function maintain the ontological stigmata of absolute annihiliation: the war police maintain the threat of genocide and nuclear destruction as their ultimate foundation. Biopower wields not just the power of the mass destruction of life (such as that threatened by nuclear weapons) but also individualized violence. When individualized in its extreme form, biopower becomes torture. Such an individualized exercise of power is a central element in the society of control of George Orwell's 1984. "'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?' Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said. 'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough.'" Torture is today becoming an ever more generalized technique of control, and at the same time it is becoming increasingly banalized. Methods for obtaining confessions and information through physical and psychological torments, techniques to disorient prisoners (such as sleep deprivation), and simple means of humiliation (such as strip searches) are all common weapons in the contemporary arsenal of torture. Torture is one central point of contact between police action and war; the torture techniques used in the name of police prevention take on all the characteristics of military action. This is another face of the state of exception and the tendency for political power to free itself from the rule of law. In fact, there are increasing numbers of cases in which the international conventions against torture and the domestic laws against cruel and unusual punishment have little effect. Both dictatorships and liberal democracies use torture, the one by vocation and the other by so-called necessity. According to the logic of the state of exception, torture is an essential, unavoidable, and justifiable technique of power. [insert quoted evidence]

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the part you use is taken out of context pretty badly. Everything that Antonucci said earlier is pretty much dead on, and the entirety of this piece of evidence seems to prove that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that hardt and negri card is defense against the aff's impacts. probably a bad idea to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seriously believe that anyone who knows what biopower is will kick your ass if you say that biopower is good, using your statement as evidence.

 

In all reality though, biopower is good. Just maybe various degrees of it are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hardt and Negri card is to be used when impact turning with malthus... as i said before, you win that you do not lead to extinction, you concede that you cause perpetual war, and then you win the crunch.

 

I am not saying that this card will win you the debate... only that it is useful when you are going for those util turns...

 

And the reason it may be preferable to, say, the others, is that H & N agree biopower is bad... but they admit it is highly unlikely that it will cause extinction. The card is not taken out of context, i never said in the tag that biopower is good, just that it wont kill us all. The part before it is about how biopower is bad because it kills lots of people... when you win killing groups off is good... then this becomes good...

 

Of course, it only makes sense when the turns are extinction scenarios and your aff has extinction scenarios, but it is defense written by authors who understand and dislike biopower. And the argument just makes sense.

 

-G.

 

EDIT- even if the evidence is taken out of context, the argument is still there and the neg should have to prove that biopower will lead to extinction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sure, but then it is a K of humanism, not a biopower K, which is what this thread is about.

quote]

Thats not true. Foucault is NEVER EVER saying power is bad. He says that the way we frame the problem, and the way we interpret power relations may lead to dangerous situations. These situations are rooted in humanism. Thus if you want to say "biopower good" you need to win that you're acting within a pragmatic framework and its the only reliable thing to work within

 

I seriously believe that anyone who knows what biopower is will kick your ass if you say that biopower is good, using your statement as evidence.

completely agree, good teams will just use it as another link and to their advantage.

 

all these authors saying "biopower good" are all just linking more to foucault/spanos :s

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hardt and Negri card is to be used when impact turning with malthus... as i said before, you win that you do not lead to extinction, you concede that you cause perpetual war, and then you win the crunch.

 

I am not saying that this card will win you the debate... only that it is useful when you are going for those util turns...

 

Well then that's just retarded. First of all, it's gonna be real hard to overcome conceding that you cause perpetual war against a good biopolitics team, even with your malthus shit. I'll address this more below. But in all seriousness, there are entirely better ways to attempt to win a biopolitics round than this.

 

 

EDIT- even if the evidence is taken out of context, the argument is still there and the neg should have to prove that biopower will lead to extinction...

 

Sweet warrants dude. Why does the neg HAVE to prove biopolitics will cause extinction? Why couldn't they simply argue that you cause unending wars and/or violence? Those alone seem like pretty damning things for the aff to me, regardless of your malthus arguments, which are most of the time pretty easily beaten with a few good cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, it is not strategic to say an impact turn is another link. Everytime you say that it makes judges scratch they're eyes out. I think that Stephen explained this earlier in this thread in a sensical, logical way but that didn't seem to work so think of it like this.

The K is a bomb the negative tries to attach to the affirmative. The links keep the bomb tied to the affirmative. Now, when the affirmative impact turns it's like they try and turn your bomb into a Mr. Coffee, so instead of blowing up (and you winning) they just get to walk around with a Mr. Coffee on their back (and they win).

Now, when you say that an Impact Turn is another link, your just adding another piece of rope to tie the Mr. Coffee to the Affirmative, you haven't tried to change the Mr. Coffee back into a Bomb.

And biopower is sweet. Hippie

abers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not true. Foucault is NEVER EVER saying power is bad. He says that the way we frame the problem, and the way we interpret power relations may lead to dangerous situations. These situations are rooted in humanism. Thus if you want to say "biopower good" you need to win that you're acting within a pragmatic framework and its the only reliable thing to work within

 

 

completely agree, good teams will just use it as another link and to their advantage.

 

all these authors saying "biopower good" are all just linking more to foucault/spanos :s

 

I never said this was for foucault debates, thats something you mis-interpreted. This it to impact turn biopower Ks, which includes many teams versions of foucault.

 

Good teams will say "this is a new link". But this is covered before, impact turns can link, thats fine. In fact, thats the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, it is not strategic to say an impact turn is another link. Everytime you say that it makes judges scratch they're eyes out.

 

This is all true.

 

If executed correctly, a Kritik will also indict the methodology by which an affirmative reaches their particular conclusion, and these methodological or epistemological questions may render some impact turns irrelevant. The K should subsume the impact turns.

 

This is what I think K debaters are TRYING to say when they say "the impact turn is a link." Or, who knows, maybe they're just mouth farting. Regardless, I think they certainly should be saying this.

 

So, for example, if I kritik threat construction, with a pretty detailed account of how threat construction's the necessary precondition for escalation, and you "impact turn" with a slew of popular press cards about how there's a Chinese threat and a North Korean threat and an Iranian threat, you might be screwed, because my Kritik already takes the logic of your impact turns into account and subsumes them.

 

Now - if you actually take the additional step, in either the 2AC or maybe the 1AR, of DEFENDING a particular methodology, your impact turns might mean something. For example, I think you might argue that threat construction by itself isn't falsifiable, because questions of ultimate causalty are structurally indeterminate, and the best way of falsifiably determining possible threat in the international arena is to judge according to weapons levels and military exercises...then, you know, you'd have an arg.

 

hippie

 

fascist :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, above I already mentioned you have to defend the truth claims behind these particular impact turns. That is an obvious pre-condition to their effective deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all true.

 

If executed correctly, a Kritik will also indict the methodology by which an affirmative reaches their particular conclusion, and these methodological or epistemological questions may render some impact turns irrelevant. The K should subsume the impact turns.

 

This is what I think K debaters are TRYING to say when they say "the impact turn is a link." Or, who knows, maybe they're just mouth farting. Regardless, I think they certainly should be saying this.

 

So, for example, if I kritik threat construction, with a pretty detailed account of how threat construction's the necessary precondition for escalation, and you "impact turn" with a slew of popular press cards about how there's a Chinese threat and a North Korean threat and an Iranian threat, you might be screwed, because my Kritik already takes the logic of your impact turns into account and subsumes them.

 

Now - if you actually take the additional step, in either the 2AC or maybe the 1AR, of DEFENDING a particular methodology, your impact turns might mean something. For example, I think you might argue that threat construction by itself isn't falsifiable, because questions of ultimate causalty are structurally indeterminate, and the best way of falsifiably determining possible threat in the international arena is to judge according to weapons levels and military exercises...then, you know, you'd have an arg.

 

 

 

fascist :)

yea exactly, thats what I was trying to get at. The kritik (if argued well) will subsume mere impact turns

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antonucci, impact turns like Stephen described (surveillance and biopolitics are key to public support for heg) are all defend the aff's methodology and provide reasons for why it's good. And since you've conceded in the 1NC human deaths are a bad thing, the aff just has to win that hegemony outweighs your K impact on human lives.

Kritik already takes the logic of your impact turns into account and subsumes them.

Your impact doesn't subsume case because (a) there's a specific link to your alt and (B) the specific scenario of the turn outweighs the other low-probability impacts you might have. How can your K claim Heg as an impact? Your argument is basically that even if the aff solves this one instance of securing survival, your K impacts subsume because the aff causes more violations and genocides in the future. However, what this doesn't assume is that if hegemony collapses, there is no future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...