Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

Quick question: I know a lot of debaters use the term "always, already" and I can't figure out what it means...

It's a phrase that I believe originated with Hegel.

 

Briefly, it means a situation is automatically the case, and there's no way to change it. Think about how you were born to your parents. I won't make assumptions, but most people come into the world with some attachments and expected roles (son or daughter, brother or sister, etc.). Even if you were adopted, there's still some kind of relation to your birth parents. In the same way, your parents were always and already born into their own social roles, continuing back ad infinitum.

 

Obviously, what that social role is depends on the context (American, British, Chinese, etc.)but the important point is that some roles are inescapable, always and already given.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a phrase that I believe originated with Hegel.

 

Briefly, it means a situation is automatically the case, and there's no way to change it. Think about how you were born to your parents. I won't make assumptions, but most people come into the world with some attachments and expected roles (son or daughter, brother or sister, etc.). Even if you were adopted, there's still some kind of relation to your birth parents. In the same way, your parents were always and already born into their own social roles, continuing back ad infinitum.

 

Obviously, what that social role is depends on the context (American, British, Chinese, etc.)but the important point is that some roles are inescapable, always and already given.

Thanks this helped! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain what an "ivory tower" is?

Academics are commonly accused of being in an "ivory tower" in which they are isolated from the events that they seek to describe.  For example, there is a philosopher named Jean Baudrillard who claims that the Gulf War never occurred.  He is commonly accused of being an "ivory tower" philosopher because if he had ever actually served in the war like so many others he would realize that his abstract theorizations are a bunch of BS when it comes to real life.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Academics are commonly accused of being in an "ivory tower" in which they are isolated from the events that they seek to describe.  For example, there is a philosopher named Jean Baudrillard who claims that the Gulf War never occurred.  He is commonly accused of being an "ivory tower" philosopher because if he had ever actually served in the war like so many others he would realize that his abstract theorizations are a bunch of BS when it comes to real life.

thanks, but one more thing, a team ran  Fear of Death Kritik on me  and the judge said he would've like to see my partner and i run "Ivory tower". Could you shed some light on how that could be used as a argument? 

Edited by FlashJ596

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, but one more thing, a team ran  Fear of Death Kritik on me  and the judge said he would've like to see my partner and i run "Ivory tower". Could you shed some light on how that could be used as a argument? 

its easy to abstractly "not fear death" when you have a comfortable university job and are writing books, but telling people living in poverty and fear every day that their problems would be solved if they just "stopped fearing death" is incredibly elitist and does nothing to help those people

 

Edit: Woot Woot this comment got me to 1k rep :P

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Academics are commonly accused of being in an "ivory tower" in which they are isolated from the events that they seek to describe.  For example, there is a philosopher named Jean Baudrillard who claims that the Gulf War never occurred.  He is commonly accused of being an "ivory tower" philosopher because if he had ever actually served in the war like so many others he would realize that his abstract theorizations are a bunch of BS when it comes to real life.

Baudrillards claim that the Gulf War didn't happen operates under his theory that the symbolic exchange is missing from the world writ large. He says that we are in the fourth order of the simulacrum in which the simulation is the Real. There is no longer any Real, everything is a simulation. He explains how there are vestiges of the Real within the world, for example the Tasaday, but their "museumification" via their discovery by scientists led to their Real meaning stripped from, which placed them under the fourth order of the simulacrum - he writes how the anthropologists were watching the Tasaday die, because the simulacrum requires a constant regeneration of its power to conjure up realities (third order of the simulacrum) - he ties this to the Gulf War because we were simulating the Gulf War in the U.S. via the media, he doesn't deny the fact that people died in the gulf war, but our simulation of the War desensitized the population which stripped the death of the soldiers from their symbolic meaning.

 

I don't know if this operates under the broader framework of "Baudrillard is stupid" that most debaters engage in, and I don't know if you've read Baudrillard beforehand, but please if you're gonna indict somebody at least be sure you know both sides of the story.

 

For example, Schmitt. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy to abstractly "not fear death" when you have a comfortable university job and are writing books, but telling people living in poverty and fear every day that their problems would be solved if they just "stopped fearing death" is incredibly elitist and does nothing to help those people

I guess this assumes that said author has not experienced the death of another person. I think most philosophers would be able to tie their lived experience onto the things that they write. I think that the "Ivory Tower" argument applies more to the subject-position of the debaters. Damien ran an intralocality argument against Notre Dame last year on exactly this. We should not ignore the "I" within intellectual discourse, rather it should be a component because we must acknowledge our privileged subject-position within academic enclosures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillards claim that the Gulf War didn't happen operates under his theory that the symbolic exchange is missing from the world writ large. He says that we are in the fourth order of the simulacrum in which the simulation is the Real. There is no longer any Real, everything is a simulation. He explains how there are vestiges of the Real within the world, for example the Tasaday, but their "museumification" via their discovery by scientists led to their Real meaning stripped from, which placed them under the fourth order of the simulacrum - he writes how the anthropologists were watching the Tasaday die, because the simulacrum requires a constant regeneration of its power to conjure up realities (third order of the simulacrum) - he ties this to the Gulf War because we were simulating the Gulf War in the U.S. via the media, he doesn't deny the fact that people died in the gulf war, but our simulation of the War desensitized the population which stripped the death of the soldiers from their symbolic meaning.

 

I don't know if this operates under the broader framework of "Baudrillard is stupid" that most debaters engage in, and I don't know if you've read Baudrillard beforehand, but please if you're gonna indict somebody at least be sure you know both sides of the story.

 

For example, Schmitt. 

You're absolutely right.  I am by no means a Baudrillard hack.  This was just the first example that popped into my head, and I figured that as overly simplistic/down right wrong as the explanation of Baudrillard itself might have been, I was just trying to find a description that would answer the question at hand.  I apologize for any misinformation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this assumes that said author has not experienced the death of another person. I think most philosophers would be able to tie their lived experience onto the things that they write. I think that the "Ivory Tower" argument applies more to the subject-position of the debaters. Damien ran an intralocality argument against Notre Dame last year on exactly this. We should not ignore the "I" within intellectual discourse, rather it should be a component because we must acknowledge our privileged subject-position within academic enclosures. 

I wasn't so much defending the position i stated, just giving advice on how it would be framed.  

 

However, as a rebuttal, i think there's a distinct difference between fearing the death of others and fearing the death of one's self.  The vast majority of debaters are not fearing death in the round, and the ballot (hopefully!) does not hold the power to determine life or death for either team.  It is therefore very easy to abstractly debate "fearing death good/bad" when people who are living in fear of repression and/or structural violence don't have that luxury. (this is applicable to both policy and K affs vs. this particular K)

 

I totally agree with the "i" part, but i feel thatK teams should be held to a higher standard in this regard because they are the ones advocating for direct action and/or personal advocacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he doesn't deny the fact that people died in the gulf war, but our simulation of the War desensitized the population which stripped the death of the soldiers from their symbolic meaning.

Sort of this, but also as important - the symbolic economy doesn't just strip events of their Real meaning, but it replaces that meaning with another meaning. That's the insidious part of the symbolic economy, and the method by which the Real becomes the Unreal.  

 

US intervention in the Gulf War was largely about economic gain and political double-dealing (April Glaspie, an authorized US rep, promised Saddam we wouldn't fuck with him even if he fucked with Kuwait - we went back on that). The death of soldiers in the Gulf War resulted from that economic greed and political double-dealing - so their deaths should have signified injustice and the evil of the West.

 

But they do not. Not only do the soldier deaths fail to signify injustice, they instead signify freedom, protection, and the importance of the military. The Real (evil, aggressive) Gulf War was engulfed (no pun intended) by an Unreal Gulf War (about freedom and justice and protection!). 

 

 

Edit: went back and read why the explanation happened in the first place. @MartyP - people who take Baudrillard's meaning literally read the title of Baudrillard's book and nothing more. The work is thorough and likely agreeable even to those who adversely cite it - it suggests, in short, that fake narratives overwhelm and supercede the truth, and that the act of accepting (and then acting on) lies complicates finding the truth. 

Edited by Snarf
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard framework- probably what you're familiar with. Hypothetical enactment of a topical policy option, etc.

 

Soft framework- asks for something less than that. A couple examples would be

1- having an advocacy statement

2- tying the aff's ethics to some sort of action, whether a topical policy or something else

 

They are less limiting than traditional framework and so are less susceptible to the framework=you hate the indigenous argument

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically soft frameworks ask the aff to be passive voice topical (e.g. to discuss the topic area but not the topic actor). This is strategic because it ensures links to topic specific kritiks but doesn't ask the aff to defend or roleplay the state, which is where most aff impact turns get offense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked this before, but I still don't exactly get it.

 

I know what a counterplan perm is, but why does running it work?  Simple terms please with lots of explanation- something I can explain easily to a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what a counterplan perm is, but why does running it work?  Simple terms please with lots of explanation- something I can explain easily to a judge.

Counterplan perm? Unless you mean a permutation on a counterplan I have no idea what you're talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perm on a counter plan is what you'd think it would be. If someone reads a privatization cp, you could say "perm have the private and public sector do the plan." Or if you're reading space elevators and someone reads a land cp, you could say "build space elevators on land and sea, because you can never have too many space elevators." Then you just have to prove that the perm doesn't link to the da, or more likely debate the degree of the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A solvency advocate is exactly what it sounds like: a piece of evidence that says something solves.  In a policy aff, all of the cards in the solvency contention are solvency advocates.  In a counterplan, all of the cards that say that the CP solves the case are solvency advocates.  The only theory about solvency advocates I've ever heard of is that you need a carded solvency advocate for counterplans because that ensures that there is actually a lit base so that there can be clash.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel behind the curve on this one but in some theory debates i hear the term solvency advocate thrown around and have no idea what it means.

A solvency advocate is somebody who says the plan/counterplan should be done.  It's necessary to guarantee the existence of a literature base on the advocacy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to get out all my questions:

 

1. Why do some frameworks talk about the affirmative getting to weigh their aff, is this not a given? I'm assuming the reason is because the k doesn't operate in the world of fiat and therefore those impacts don't apply but is there more to it?

 

2. How do advantage cp's answer the perm? I've been looking through some files and there are no a2 perms included. I can't think of a reason for mutual exclusivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to get out all my questions:

 

1. Why do some frameworks talk about the affirmative getting to weigh their aff, is this not a given? I'm assuming the reason is because the k doesn't operate in the world of fiat and therefore those impacts don't apply but is there more to it?

 

A popular thing to do with K's is to either say fiat not real or otherwise screen out the aff (particularly) with ROB arguments.

 

2. How do advantage cp's answer the perm? I've been looking through some files and there are no a2 perms included. I can't think of a reason for mutual exclusivity.

Net benefits. Pick a case specific DA.

  • Upvote 1

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...