Jump to content
policyballer

Do critiques need alternatives? (split thread)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it doesn't seem smart to do all of this criticizing...for nothing, which what it amounts to if the K doesn't have an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last post I'll make on this.

 

Have you even read any of their books? Likelyness is no, and if you have you havent read them well. Ive frikin read foucaults books about 3 times each and I've read spanos's heidegger and criticism book 2 times. I know what I'm talking about in this area and you dont. Obvisouly spanos kritiks international relations approaches while foucault talks about individual disciplines, but their logic is the same. Spanos just extends it to the foreign schema.

It's incredibly presumptuous of you to assume something like this and straight up insulting please refrain from it.

 

1st, you're misunderstanding the impact. The impact isnt that they cause violence, thats not it at all, that would make it a disad. Its that their framework is flawed.

That isn't an impact then. You would have to win a reason why their framework is a reason to vote against them. Unless you win an impact you can't do that.

 

Foucault says there is no all knowing truth. Thats what pragmatism says. So that means there isnt an alt that can solve power relations.

Pragmatism is an all knowing truth? How do you justify this claim? I can't see anyway that one could reach that conclusion. Also the alternative to Foucault can't "solve" power relations because power is inevitable. However there are ways to combat negative forms of biopolitics. There's more on this elsewhere on the site.

 

Spanos isnt just heidegger. If you read him in depth you'd realize he criticizes the approach america takes using this humanist mindset that destroys whatever isnt deemed true.

America's Shadow is like Spanos just rewrote and summarized parts of Being and Time. The only hacks out there bigger than Spanos are Hardt and Negri.

 

This is hardly nihilism.

Anti-humanism? Negation of absolute truth? Negation of knowledge production? That's pretty Nietzschean dude. And fyi Nietzsche =/= Nihilism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completly agree. But yeah, I guess some NDT teams read alts...you know, like Blake and Conner, those folks that won CEDA ( The alternative is to do nothing

Nietzsche, 1879, Human, All Too Human, Maxim #284

The means to real peace. … and from up high.)

 

Blake and Conor are smart dudes. You sound like a smart dude. At the same time, the presumption that top college teams have it right - appeals to authority - get a little bit frustrating, because there's very little opportunity for people to correct their practice if they presume it's somehow derived from up on high.

 

Winning a tournament doesn't make you infallible. This is especially true when the expectations of the judging pool dictate practice. After all, people do what they do to win, in many cases, or to communicate as clearly as possible. I don't think alts are counterplans, but teams should recognize that it's often smart to describe them as such - especially when you have a pretty policy-oriented judge who wants to stay 'open-minded' on the K but can't help porting in their conceptual categories.

 

Conclusion: Oklahoma or whoever do sweet stuff, but they aren't Jesus and their debate rounds aren't parables for uncritical absorption. Hero worship is grating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"America's Shadow is like Spanos just rewrote and summarized parts of Being and Time. The only hacks out there bigger than Spanos are Hardt and Negri."

 

i don't think 'being and time' even uses the word america -- is operating within a tradition (in this case, heidegger's ontological critique of western metaphysics) the same as being a hack?... spanos also criticizes heidegger for not adequately applying his ideas to the sociopolitical level, meaning he hardly seems the blind defender, and i found his cross-reading of foucault and heidegger quite brilliant, meaning he hardly seems untalented in his craft... or at least if he's a hack, the reason you provide is a poor one: he utilizes one of the most important books of philosophy written in the last 100 years... your characterization of hardt & negri appears equally unwarranted, though there are certaintly compelling arguments against both -- why not try one of those, instead of resorting to ad hominem?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your characterization of hardt & negri appears equally unwarranted, though there are certaintly compelling arguments against both -- why not try one of those, instead of resorting to ad hominem?

One of the problems that I have with Hardt and Negri's writing in both Empire and Multitude is that the work seems primarily synthetic and doesn't attribute some of the more path-breaking developments to the authors who really pushed them forward. Does anyone else get this sense reading these books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the problems that I have with Hardt and Negri's writing in both Empire and Multitude is that the work seems primarily synthetic and doesn't attribute some of the more path-breaking developments to the authors who really pushed them forward. Does anyone else get this sense reading these books?

Yeah I did when reading Hardt and Negri. That's what I meant by calling them hacks. As for the Spanos comment that was probably unwarranted. I just said that because I've had some past partners that made that comment about Spanos. I myself have only read him tangentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without an alt, the aff can just say, "well, that's the way it's always been (non-U), and we're not set out to change that (link), so unless if the negative team tells us a better way to do it (non-competitive), then we don't really have anything to debate about (fair grounds). All they're doing is name-calling(k of k), which is childish and should not be allowed in the debate room. Vote affirmative because we solve for our harms.(solvency)"

 

The end. Why is there so much discussion on this? I don't understand...

no comments on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"America's Shadow is like Spanos just rewrote and summarized parts of Being and Time. The only hacks out there bigger than Spanos are Hardt and Negri."

 

i don't think 'being and time' even uses the word america -- is operating within a tradition (in this case, heidegger's ontological critique of western metaphysics) the same as being a hack?... spanos also criticizes heidegger for not adequately applying his ideas to the sociopolitical level, meaning he hardly seems the blind defender, and i found his cross-reading of foucault and heidegger quite brilliant, meaning he hardly seems untalented in his craft... or at least if he's a hack, the reason you provide is a poor one: he utilizes one of the most important books of philosophy written in the last 100 years... your characterization of hardt & negri appears equally unwarranted, though there are certaintly compelling arguments against both -- why not try one of those, instead of resorting to ad hominem?

 

thanks for the love

 

FelixHoenikker: spanos and heidegger are not the same, read his books before you say that, and if you have, re evaluate them, if you look further than that they both critique similar things, and that spanos analyzes heidegeer many times, you would realize that the core of each of their criticisms are not the same. Obviously, Spanos takes a much more modern approach, and at times in his novels, after he sites "B and T," he criticizes it and adds his own concepts to it

 

Yeah I did when reading Hardt and Negri. That's what I meant by calling them hacks. As for the Spanos comment that was probably unwarranted. I just said that because I've had some past partners that made that comment about Spanos. I myself have only read him tangentially.

 

 

 

ok, well im not going to get on your case anymore for this, maybe your partners didnt ;look deep enough into it

 

Without an alt, the aff can just say, "well, that's the way it's always been (non-U),...

 

 

 

that argument is likle saying that since people have always been murdered, or war has always happened, that it is alright to engage in these things again. The point of the K is that the methodology behind the plan, or your discourse, is flawed, or bad, or immoral, whatever.

 

 

 

also, a specific link story can help get rid of this, if the link is specific enough, that exact endoremtn of the bankrupt mindset is not going on everywhere.

 

 

 

also, proving it is non-unique requires you to do more than say it has always been like that, it requires the aff to pove that even if their plan wasnt being passed, this mindset would be endorsed anyuways, in the same quantity and same way somewhere else, with 100% probability

 

 

 

and we're not set out to change that (link),

 

link, or no link? it seems that you not being out t cahnge it is a harder link, obivously

 

so unless if the negative team tells us a better way to do it (non-competitive)

 

not neg burden, and, to be not competitive, it requires an alt, the alt is the thing that is not competitive, cant perm something that doesnt exist

 

 

 

, then we don't really have anything to debate about (fair grounds)

 

no links, outweighing arguments, turns (this mindset good), framework, prag, perms...there is tons to argue about

 

 

 

. All they're doing is name-calling(k of k)

 

namecalling would be without warrants, also, name calling would be the link evidence only, the impacts mean that it is more than "name calling" also

 

 

 

 

 

, which is childish and should not be allowed in the debate room. Vote affirmative because we solve for our harms.(solvency)"

 

dont vote aff becuz they endorse a mindset that kills solvency, or turns case, or outweighs, or, dont vote aff, their framework is bad, or dont vote aff, their plan is fundamentally gflawed, criticism prives

 

 

 

 

 

The end. Why is there so much discussion on this? I don't understand

 

there is so much discussion because of the reasons above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally divergent from the point I was making. I conceded the above and regardless my point is still made. Spanos has an alternative.

 

not the way that toc champ and i are talking about running it

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And to make this a reason to vote negative you have to offer an alternative framework or method of thought, otherwise voting negative is voting for the same framework just without trying to do anything good. You said in an earlier post that without an alternative the judge votes negative "because the aff plan is wrong, hence the impact," if you aren't arguing that the aff causes bad impacts by proving a unique link and brink, you have to prove what i said above was the second way the negative team can win, by proving the aff stops something good, an alternative framework etc.

 

The fact of the matter is everything you say indicates that you are arguing an alternative, you just aren't defending it as an alternative.

 

EX: you: "By voting negative, you're embracing a world that recognizes the complexity of power relations (for spanos/foucault)."

 

meaning the alternative: embrace a world that recognizes the complexity of power relations.

 

Regardless of whether you think you can win the theory debate on no text to the alt bad, you 1) dont need to get into it just for kicks, and 2) the affirmative can win that since you dont present an alternative, the judge wouldnt be voting neg to "embrace a world that recognizes the complexity of power relations" but just that the status quo is better than doing something, which means you cant capture your K as a reason to reject the affirmative without making it a disad.

My point is you need no formal alt text. By voting neg you're "By voting negative, you're embracing a world that recognizes the complexity of power relations (for spanos/foucault)."

 

and dont tell me what judges wont vote on, I've seen some pretty amazing debaters do fabulous jobs without alternatives.

 

only 1 post I'm going to answer since everything else will take about 20 minutes.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author not the argument.

 

well, ok

 

spanos over all does not require an alt card

 

how about that.

 

actually, to get back to the title. Myabe Tomak should have named it better, do kritiks need formal alternative cards or texts?

 

to which the answer is no, they are not a necessity

 

if anyone thinks they are 100% necesary, give some reasons why, the spanos/foucault debate can go on too, but lets have this one too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pragmatism rests on the idea that you can make contingent truth claims in order to create progress. it doesnt necessitate an "absolute Truth" Mr. ToC Champ.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pragmatism rests on the idea that you can make contingent truth claims in order to create progress. it doesnt necessitate an "absolute Truth" Mr. ToC Champ.

completely agree, I never said rorty advocates absolute truth, in fact he opposes that. You go to situation to situation with a different truth which works well for each situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and dont tell me what judges wont vote on, I've seen some pretty amazing debaters do fabulous jobs without alternatives.

Amazing debaters can win running jack. Evaluating an argument by who wins with it is not accurate because it depends highly on the ability of the debater and not the quality of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazing debaters can win running jack. Evaluating an argument by who wins with it is not accurate because it depends highly on the ability of the debater and not the quality of the argument.

amazing debaters cant beat other amazing debaters in outrounds of the tournament of champions with bad arguments.

 

Call the kritik whatever you want. Call it a non unique disad if you like that name. It doesnt really matter at the point where the aff cant articulate a value to life.

 

I'm sure george kouros, the best spanos debater, would differ with your fantastic approach.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, ok

 

spanos over all does not require an alt card

 

how about that.

 

The author, not the argument.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

 

spanos the author doesnt put an "alternative" before confrontin g the problem, so we shouldnt either. the way i interpret his literature, he alwaya puts the actual criticism on a much higher pedastool than any solution to the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so the people here saying that there shouldn't be alternatives have severely contradicted themselves. First, earlier sombody was talking about the Shapiro "interrogate every instance" card is an alternative. All an alternative does is show a new way of doing things or a new way of thinking that changes the way it is in the status quo. This card, and the argument itself, argues that we don't interrogate in the status quo, and then the Negative says that we should. This is an alternative to the status quo.

 

And earlier someone was talking about the difference between a CP and an alternative. A CP is really only a form of an alternative. An Alt can be an action that should be taken, like individual resistance, genaeology or revolution, but it can also be a change in mindsets, like the earlier Shapiro card or or some nonviolence alts, or many other forms. Some teams run action alternatives, like myself, others run mindset alternatives. A CP is just an alternative policy option as opposed to a micropolitical action/change.

 

The K is not meant to act without an alternative. If you don't use one, you will likely lose more often than not to teams that really know what they are doing. Let's put it this way: someone runs biopower, but there is no alt. All I have to say is that there is no way to avoid biopower, period. Every action is biopolitical, including inaction. If the negative doesn't read any kind of alternative, they can't answer this argument, if they do show that something can be done without being biopolitical, that is a form of an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the people here saying that there shouldn't be alternatives have severely contradicted themselves. First, earlier sombody was talking about the Shapiro "interrogate every instance" card is an alternative. All an alternative does is show a new way of doing things or a new way of thinking that changes the way it is in the status quo. This card, and the argument itself, argues that we don't interrogate in the status quo, and then the Negative says that we should. This is an alternative to the status quo.

 

And earlier someone was talking about the difference between a CP and an alternative. A CP is really only a form of an alternative. An Alt can be an action that should be taken, like individual resistance, genaeology or revolution, but it can also be a change in mindsets, like the earlier Shapiro card or or some nonviolence alts, or many other forms. Some teams run action alternatives, like myself, others run mindset alternatives. A CP is just an alternative policy option as opposed to a micropolitical action/change.

 

The K is not meant to act without an alternative. If you don't use one, you will likely lose more often than not to teams that really know what they are doing. Let's put it this way: someone runs biopower, but there is no alt. All I have to say is that there is no way to avoid biopower, period. Every action is biopolitical, including inaction. If the negative doesn't read any kind of alternative, they can't answer this argument, if they do show that something can be done without being biopolitical, that is a form of an alternative.

 

what we are more arguoing is that a textual eviential alternative is not needed.

 

an "alt" might be vote negative to endorse a world where the Implications of the K are confronted bla bla bla

 

but it wouldnt be read in the 1nc

 

also, to the uniqueness thing, we will always argue that stoppoing one instance is better tahn not stoppng one

 

also, many teams do well without alts, they are deifinitely not a 100% necessity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the last post I'll make on this.

 

 

It's incredibly presumptuous of you to assume something like this and straight up insulting please refrain from it.

 

 

That isn't an impact then. You would have to win a reason why their framework is a reason to vote against them. Unless you win an impact you can't do that.

 

 

Pragmatism is an all knowing truth? How do you justify this claim? I can't see anyway that one could reach that conclusion. Also the alternative to Foucault can't "solve" power relations because power is inevitable. However there are ways to combat negative forms of biopolitics. There's more on this elsewhere on the site.

 

 

America's Shadow is like Spanos just rewrote and summarized parts of Being and Time. The only hacks out there bigger than Spanos are Hardt and Negri.

 

 

Anti-humanism? Negation of absolute truth? Negation of knowledge production? That's pretty Nietzschean dude. And fyi Nietzsche =/= Nihilism.

the impact is voting neg since they cant articulate a value to life. You also win on presumption. Not going to go in detail on this since this is your last post on the subject..or so you said :S

 

not nihilism, power creates action, thus meaning his advoacy of truth and power constitutes action

Totally divergent from the point I was making. I conceded the above and regardless my point is still made. Spanos has an alternative.

no he doesnt if you want to run it the right way. alternative is pointless in a world where you win theres no value to life in their ethical framework.

 

you can make any author have an alternative, whether or not they should or need to is a different question.

 

its called mother fucking uniqness
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i may be misinterpreting something...

 

but is it your understanding that every single critique boils down to no value to life? because i would tend to disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what we are more arguoing is that a textual eviential alternative is not needed.

 

an "alt" might be vote negative to endorse a world where the Implications of the K are confronted bla bla bla

 

but it wouldnt be read in the 1nc

 

also, to the uniqueness thing, we will always argue that stoppoing one instance is better tahn not stoppng one

 

also, many teams do well without alts, they are deifinitely not a 100% necessity

Not reading an alt in the 1nc is a moving target for the 2nc...

 

Stopping one instance may be better, but who the hell cares if the impacts are still going to happen. This route bares the full weight of the aff advantages as a disad to the squo...

 

Yes, we get it stop regurgitating the fact some teams do well... the fact is a lot more teams do well reading an alt too.

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...