Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

What exactly is card clipping? (I know it's some sort of alteration of evidence, but what are some examples?)

​Not reading all of the highlighted part of a card and not saying that you are skipping over some of the warrants

And what is a politics disad?

The plan's passage through Congress is contentious, and in order for Obama to get it passed he must spend political capital on it that he would have spent on another bill that would prevent extinction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What exactly is card clipping? (I know it's some sort of alteration of evidence, but what are some examples?)

​Not reading all of the highlighted part of a card and not saying that you are skipping over some of the warrants

 

I don't see how that's bad, you could easily just cut the card in such a way where you skip over some of the warrants? And if your opponent/judge asks to see the card, can't you just say that you didn't read X?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that's bad, you could easily just cut the card in such a way where you skip over some of the warrants? And if your opponent/judge asks to see the card, can't you just say that you didn't read X?

Right, so you can underline and highlight a card however you want.  The problem is when you are reading some of the highlighting, and then lets say you realize you are running out of time so in the middle of the card you stop and move on to the next card without saying anything.  It's a problem because people think you read the whole card when you didn't, so you could have read none of the actual warrants to the cards but no one would know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly a question on what something means, but I do novice LD and my aff has a US specific advocacy text. With this, can I perm pretty much any counterplan by saying do the aff in the US and do the CP everywhere else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the net benefit.  In most instances, the net benefit to the CP will be US action bad, which the perm doesn't resolve.

Edited by BobbyTables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so you can underline and highlight a card however you want.  The problem is when you are reading some of the highlighting, and then lets say you realize you are running out of time so in the middle of the card you stop and move on to the next card without saying anything.  It's a problem because people think you read the whole card when you didn't, so you could have read none of the actual warrants to the cards but no one would know

and then if that happens where you skip over more that 5-6 highlighted words for a warrant the other team might even call you for card clipping and that would be a problem but it would depend on if the judge buys it or not. Usually you will have to look on tournament rules. In example there was a tournament that i participated in that said you could call card clipping on a team but one of the consequences of doing so could be an automatic loss for the team that called it, so be careful when something like this happens, whether you are about to call it, or whether your being called on it.

Edited by MagicalBeanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then if that happens where you skip over more that 5-6 highlighted words for a warrant the other team might even call you for card clipping and that would be a problem but it would depend on if the judge buys it or not. Usually you will have to look on tournament rules. In example there was a tournament that i participated in that said you could call card clipping on a team but one of the consequences of doing so could be an automatic loss for the team that called it, so be careful when something like this happens, whether you are about to call it, or whether your being called on it.

Since we're gonna talk about clipping...

 

DO NOT CLIP. EVER.

In a lot of tournaments it's grounds for disqualification.

 

Here's how most tournaments/state rules handle clipping

 

Team says they want to have a clipping dispute or whatever

Round stops. 

Team making the allegation has to prove their case. This is usually done with a recording of the speech.

If they prove their case, then they get a win for the round and the other team instantly loses and usually gets 0 speaks or is disqualified.  

If they fail to prove their case, the alleging team takes a loss and 0 speaks.

 

Here's how you avoid clipping allegations. If you need to stop reading a card, you say clearly: "Mark the card at ___________" and then physically mark the card on the speech doc. Verbatim has a function for this, but otherwise you should put at least 2 line breaks and put a "Card marked" to denote it.

 

Don't think you can get away with clipping. Some judges might not catch it, but it's easy to spot for experienced HS or college debaters. (Especially if your partner is giving hand signals during the speech...)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as the card itself gets marked clearly, I don't think mentioning it in the speech is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does perfcon mean? I've seen the term in debate memes.....

Performative contradiction. Saying cap bad on a Mac. Saying anthro bad and eating a McDouble. Saying death good and being alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performative contradiction. Saying cap bad on a Mac. Saying anthro bad and eating a McDouble. Saying death good and being alive.

lol

Heidegger and laptops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

Heidegger and laptops

Heidegger doesn't say tech is bad

Edit:

Great explanation

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology

 

In his later writings on technology, which mainly concern us in this essay, Heidegger draws attention to technology’s place in bringing about our decline by constricting our experience of things as they are. He argues that we now view nature, and increasingly human beings too, only technologically — that is, we see nature and people only as raw material for technical operations. Heidegger seeks to illuminate this phenomenon and to find a way of thinking by which we might be saved from its controlling power, to which, he believes, modern civilization both in the communist East and the democratic West has been shackled. We might escape this bondage, Heidegger argues, not by rejecting technology, but by perceiving its danger.

Edited by BobbyS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger doesn't say tech is bad

Edit:

Great explanation

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology

 

You're 100% right, and yet... most people who argue Heidegger (1) do present it as 'reject technology', even though that's not what he says, and (2) don't behave in any way as if they've recognized the 'danger' of the technology in the laptop that they use as a matter of course in debating.

 

(No, seriously, my 1st go-to strategy against Heidegger is to quote Heidegger back at them and explain why they don't get it).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're 100% right, and yet... most people who argue Heidegger (1) do present it as 'reject technology', even though that's not what he says, and (2) don't behave in any way as if they've recognized the 'danger' of the technology in the laptop that they use as a matter of course in debating.

 

(No, seriously, my 1st go-to strategy against Heidegger is to quote Heidegger back at them and explain why they don't get it).

Tried it against Neoliberalism, worked, lost the round; but you bet your ass those kids left the round knowing what Neoliberalism was #Giroux 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're 100% right, and yet... most people who argue Heidegger (1) do present it as 'reject technology', even though that's not what he says, and (2) don't behave in any way as if they've recognized the 'danger' of the technology in the laptop that they use as a matter of course in debating.

 

(No, seriously, my 1st go-to strategy against Heidegger is to quote Heidegger back at them and explain why they don't get it).

Does that argument really work though? Because of that as long as they actually do find an article that says tech is bad or something like that. Regardless of perf con, they can just argue that although it's based on Heidegger, they don't support everything Heidegger says, kind of like the way how one might answer the incredibly stupid Nazi argument.

 

Also, outside of Wilderson, is it really possible to legitamately win on perf con?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that argument really work though? Because of that as long as they actually do find an article that says tech is bad or something like that. Regardless of perf con, they can just argue that although it's based on Heidegger, they don't support everything Heidegger says, kind of like the way how one might answer the incredibly stupid Nazi argument.

 

Also, outside of Wilderson, is it really possible to legitamately win on perf con?

 

Well, part of that explanation of Heidegger is explaining how technology can be good, and how your plan's use of technology meets those requirements.  Then they have to deal with Heidegger's reasons why tech is good, not just have a card that says tech is bad.  (And whatever their 'tech bad' evidence is, if explaining Heidegger doesn't refute it outright, you can do that work separately, although usually it's just something about managerialism or turning nature into a standing reserve, which means that explaining Heidegger really does refute it outright).

 

The Nazi argument isn't stupid, but it has no impact against Heidegger on technology, because that work is post-Naziism and has no proximal connection to Naziism or Heidegger's choice of Naziism.  (It may even be a reaction against and repudiation of his Naziism).  A more unusual (in debate) Heidegger position that requires Being and Time is vulnerable to it - you can use it to impact turn the authenticity stuff especially.

 

Although, as an answer to a Heidegger K, using Heidegger's work on authenticity to impact the perfcon argument on laptop + running Heidegger is always fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, part of that explanation of Heidegger is explaining how technology can be good, and how your plan's use of technology meets those requirements.  Then they have to deal with Heidegger's reasons why tech is good, not just have a card that says tech is bad.  (And whatever their 'tech bad' evidence is, if explaining Heidegger doesn't refute it outright, you can do that work separately, although usually it's just something about managerialism or turning nature into a standing reserve, which means that explaining Heidegger really does refute it outright).

 

The Nazi argument isn't stupid, but it has no impact against Heidegger on technology, because that work is post-Naziism and has no proximal connection to Naziism or Heidegger's choice of Naziism.  (It may even be a reaction against and repudiation of his Naziism).  A more unusual (in debate) Heidegger position that requires Being and Time is vulnerable to it - you can use it to impact turn the authenticity stuff especially.

 

Although, as an answer to a Heidegger K, using Heidegger's work on authenticity to impact the perfcon argument on laptop + running Heidegger is always fun.

Doesn't the question concerning technology (no pun intended) actually include the question of authenticity within it? Is not mangagerialism an inauthentic mode of thought? I mean, if Heidegger is concerned with the way in which we relate to technology and whether or not that use can be good, then would not an inauthentic engagement with technology include that very control that Heidegger explains to be so bad? 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the question concerning technology (no pun intended) actually include the question of authenticity within it? Is not mangagerialism an inauthentic mode of thought? I mean, if Heidegger is concerned with the way in which we relate to technology and whether or not that use can be good, then would not an inauthentic engagement with technology include that very control that Heidegger explains to be so bad? 

 

He's pretty vague about what an 'authentic' relationship to technology is. I don't remember ever reading him phrasing it in those terms, come to think of it. I'd try to stay away from questions about authenticity when debating Heidegger, that seems to be pretty nebulous, unless your alt cards are pretty good about it (but then, I'm not much of a Heidegger debater; discussed The Question Concerning Technology at length in a political philosophy seminar, but that's no expertise). Focusing on the dangerous aspects of technological thinking, modernity, and the like would yield a more fruitful discussion.

 

I'd say that it's not so much about "the way in which we relate to technology" but the way that we relate to the world and others around us. Technological thinking is one popular way of doing so that Heidegger critically analyzes. I don't even think it's "control" that Heidegger warns against, but rather the arrogance or hubris behind a multitude of the ways we attempt to control things (as in, not all control is bad for Heidegger, but rather the instrumentalization of the natural world and others via the Enlightenment-associated perception that all the world is fully knowable and tameable by humans and their inventions--this seems to be what's often confused with mere technology).

 

For more on this distinction, I'll quote Paul Nadal on Heidegger's The Question. The etymological information and explanation of bringing-forth, en/framing, revealing, and worlding are particularly helpful background info for the Heidegger kritik:

 

So let us begin with the question that Heidegger begins with, “What is technology?”  The word “technology” stems from the Greek word techné, which designates “skill,” “art,” and “craft,” a mode of doing or making.  It is in this spirit that Plato understood politics as fundamentally belonging to the domain of techné, politics as first and foremost a political skill to be learned, an art or, better yet, a kind of technology of the polis (city).  Techné in the original Greek usage referred to both the skill or power of doing/making as well as that which is performed, produced, or fabricated—in other words, techné as designating both art and artifice.[1] (In Filipino, gawa/gamit, approximates this sense of techné as both art and art-object.)  Now, crucially, techné (art/artifice) is opposed to physis(nature), most fundamentally in terms of causality.  On the one hand, the organic forms of nature are self-developing in the sense that they exhibit the principle of change within themselves (physis as the “arising out of something from itself,” a natural self-genesis).  Techné, on the other hand, implies a mediation by an external agent (Reason) to an object in order to bring about change in it, which means that the principle of change is here foreign to the object.  The opposition between physis and techné has generated the traditional divisions we have in Western philosophy of nature/culture and organic/inorganic, or that which is engendered “by nature” or that “by culture/art.”

All of the above is at play behind our common, colloquial understanding of technology, defined minimally as the human activity of furnishing means to effect a desired end.   So, a bridge can be said to be a thing of technology because, as a product and performance of man’s dealings withphysis through techné, nature by art, the bridge is the materialization or actualization of an intended, desired end: namely, the enabling of connection and transportation across discontinuous spaces.[3] “The manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the manufactured and used things themselves, and the [social] needs and ends that they serve, all belong to what technology is” (QT, 288).  So let us begin with the question that Heidegger begins with, “What is technology?”  The word “technology” stems from the Greek word techné, which designates “skill,” “art,” and “craft,” a mode of doing or making.  It is in this spirit that Plato understood politics as fundamentally belonging to the domain of techné, politics as first and foremost a political skill to be learned, an art or, better yet, a kind of technology of the polis (city).  Techné in the original Greek usage referred to both the skill or power of doing/making as well as that which is performed, produced, or fabricated—in other words, techné as designating both art and artifice.[1] (In Filipino, gawa/gamit, approximates this sense of techné as both art and art-object.)  Now, crucially, techné (art/artifice) is opposed to physis(nature), most fundamentally in terms of causality.  On the one hand, the organic forms of nature are self-developing in the sense that they exhibit the principle of change within themselves (physis as the “arising out of something from itself,” a natural self-genesis).  Techné, on the other hand, implies a mediation by an external agent (Reason) to an object in order to bring about change in it, which means that the principle of change is here foreign to the object.  The opposition betweenphysis and techné has generated the traditional divisions we have in Western philosophy of nature/culture and organic/inorganic, or that which is engendered “by nature” or that “by culture/art.”

 

All of the above is at play behind our common, colloquial understanding of technology, defined minimally as the human activity of furnishing means to effect a desired end.   So, a bridge can be said to be a thing of technology because, as a product and performance of man’s dealings with physis through techné, nature by art, the bridge is the materialization or actualization of an intended, desired end: namely, the enabling of connection and transportation across discontinuous spaces.[3] “The manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the manufactured and used things themselves, and the [social] needs and ends that they serve, all belong to what technology is” (QT, 288).  The colloquial understanding of technology as availing means for an end, of man’s transactions with nature, is what Heidegger calls the merely instrumental and anthropological definition of technology.[4]

 

This definition, however, is insufficient, even dangerous, for it leads to man’s hubris and does not allow one to get at the essence of technology.  If we restrict our understanding of technology merely in the domain of techné, technology remains moored to a means-end schema of human instrumentality against nature.  This theme is elaborated, of course, in the work of the Frankfurt School – Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and others – who viewed the culmination of Western Enlightenment in the early 20th century as precisely technology’s domination of nature, which, as they argue, ineluctably leads to the domination of man by man.  In Adorno and Horkheimer’s words: “What human beings seek to learn from nature [physis] is how to use [techné] to dominate wholly both it and human beings.  Nothing else counts.”[5] Because Western Enlightenment has become “totalitarian,” the world becomes intelligible to man only to make its multiple forms calculable, hence, “the control of internal and external nature has been made the absolute purpose of life.  Now that self-preservation [of man] has been finally automated, reason is dismissed.”[6] But not only is reason dismissed, reason itself becomes subsumed under technical or instrumental reason.  As Marcuse writes: “Rationality is being transformed from a critical force into one of adjustment and compliance.  Autonomy of reason loses its meaning in the same measure as the thoughts, feelings and actions of men are shaped by the technical requirements….Reason has found its resting place in the system of standardized control, production, and consumption.”[7] The subsumption of reason under the technical attitude leads to “the subordination of thought to pregiven external standards,” in which thinking becomes routinized, standardized, made quantifiable and predictable. The Frankfurt School’s critique of the instrumentalization or technicalization of Reason under the sign of civilizational modernity is in line with Heidegger’s critique of technology as being fixed and exploited in a means-end schema of human instrumentality. For Heidegger, this obfuscates a more originary, essential meaning of technology, namely, technology not as mere process of making, but as a fundamental mode of revealing.

 

To identify technology’s essence as revealing, Heidegger expands techné to encompass poiesis and episteme, Greek words that belong to the domain of revealing (aletheia) and, hence, have something to do with engendering and truth.  In doing so, Heidegger denies the initial meaning oftechné as making, whose social implications become the basis of the Frankfurt School’s critique of technology, insisting instead its fundamental imbrication with poiesis and episteme, in order to foreground what Heidegger describes as technology’s essential relation to a revealing (aletheia).  First, techné is related to poiesis because before it is a making, it is a bringing-forth.  Poiesis, the Greek word from which we get the word poetry, names that which brings-something-forth into presence, or that which renders the potentiality of the not-yet into explicit actuality.  Hence, any activity or action which is the cause of a thing in the sense of bringing-something into presence belongs to poiesis.  Second, techné-as-poiesis is linked to episteme (knowledge/science) not only because every rational design is enabled by a certain knowledge, but also because what is brought-forth, what is disclosed, is a truth.  So, to return to our example, a bridge is a kind of poiesisbecause it is a bringing-forth of man’s artificial fabrications of nature (physis), in which the materialization of ends embodied in the finished bridge displays the truth of man’s rational power. Thus, stitching together technépoesis and episteme, that is to say, linking the power of making (techné) as primarily a mode of bringing-forth (poiesis), in which what is revealed is truth (episteme), Heidegger takes us away from the conventional and instrumentalist definition of technology as “a means to an end” toward an idea of technology as an originary form of truth-revealing, a disclosing of worlds, hence, a form of worlding.  If we follow Heidegger’s reformulation of technology as a mode of revealing (aletheia), technology, in its essence, can be said to be poetic because it is a bringing-forth, whose causality, like poetry, “letwhat is not yet present [to] arrive into presencing,” into the order of the presence or the real (QT, 293).  This is what constitutes the original, essential meaning of technology.  For if I understand Heidegger correctly, the essence of technology, then, is the poetic process of bringing something forth into presence and, as a mode of revealing, “frames” a world that is unfolded or unconcealed in the process.

Edited by dancon25
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's pretty vague about what an 'authentic' relationship to technology is. I don't remember ever reading him phrasing it in those terms, come to think of it. I'd try to stay away from questions about authenticity when debating Heidegger, that seems to be pretty nebulous, unless your alt cards are pretty good about it (but then, I'm not much of a Heidegger debater; discussed The Question Concerning Technology at length in a political philosophy seminar, but that's no expertise). Focusing on the dangerous aspects of technological thinking, modernity, and the like would yield a more fruitful discussion.

 

I'd say that it's not so much about "the way in which we relate to technology" but the way that we relate to the world and others around us. Technological thinking is one popular way of doing so that Heidegger critically analyzes. I don't even think it's "control" that Heidegger warns against, but rather the arrogance or hubris behind a multitude of the ways we attempt to control things (as in, not all control is bad for Heidegger, but rather the instrumentalization of the natural world and others via the Enlightenment-associated perception that all the world is fully knowable and tameable by humans and their inventions--this seems to be what's often confused with mere technology).

 

For more on this distinction, I'll quote Paul Nadal on Heidegger's The Question. The etymological information and explanation of bringing-forth, en/framing, revealing, and worlding are particularly helpful background info for the Heidegger kritik:

I think the ONLY question Heidegger raises is the question of authenticity. Everything he writes about inevitably redirects back to existential authenticity; the hubris behind modes of engagement that seek tautological control, or rather mastery over the world, is something Heidegger would classify as an inauthentic Dasein; whereas a Dasein that is free from then necessity for mastery and understands and accepts being-in-the-world would be a form of authentic living, and therefore by extension, authentic Dasein. 

 

Heidegger very clearly lays out that Dasein can develop in either the One or the They; authentic and inauthentic respectively. 

 

Thanks for the review, albeit my readings into him, I've never really taken an interest into Heidegger; I find Heidegger more like the condition for possibility of Derridas philosophy, as I see Heidegger to be that "internal link" between Nietzsche and Derrida. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

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...