Jump to content
BeanBoy4

Spanos help

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a link or the card about how spanos went to planet dabate

and said not to use his evidence in debate rounds? i've searched the planetdebate archive and i can't find it.

 

also if anyone has any good answers to spanos, please post it.

 

thanks

 

BeanBoy4@msn.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if there was a card saying that...what good would that do u in a round? So what the guy doesnt want us to use his evidence - that does not mean we still cant go against what he says and refer his arguments.

 

And no author would ever say "u cannot use the evidence in my book" - at best they would want u to so u could buy more of their books or find out the point they are trying to make by writing their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been posted on e-debate a couple of times. He really does hate debate. He has reasons.

 

But, I'd be pretty pissed if my inbox was constantly filled with e-mails from high school kids asking the same couple of questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And even if there was a card saying that...what good would that do u in a round? So what the guy doesnt want us to use his evidence - that does not mean we still cant go against what he says and refer his arguments.

 

And no author would ever say "u cannot use the evidence in my book" - at best they would want u to so u could buy more of their books or find out the point they are trying to make by writing their books.

 

 

dude, havent you ever heard of author advocacy?

using his ev in rounds violates the purpose of his Kritic.

:S: you should probably think through your reply before you post it.

 

BEAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Refer to foucault the author is dead) - and there is no impact to using his evidence in a debate round. No judge will vote the neg/aff *whoever runs spanos* down just cuz u have a card saying that the author doesnt like people using his writings. And even if the cards do exist they have to actually have reason to them like why specifically he thinks using his cards in debate is a bad thing and what that leads to....otherwise if its just a complaint....it doesnt matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and how does using his ev in the round (even if he doesnt like it) violate the purpose of the K? So, ok he doesnt like us using it, he still believes in his K'ism so if u use it spanos would just say its either "the wrong forum" or that there is some implication to doing so....altho i cannot see one unless he somehow "makes a criticism of kritiks in debate" which he didnt....So u just have to basically win 1. its the right forum and 2. that in round discourse leads to change

 

and dude- if he does have cards about how using K's in debate preposes us under traditional metaphysics (if he actually said that) then those cards would be sweet...but just saying "debate is stupid" or "i hate debaters emailing me so debate is stupid cuz the people in it are stupid" wont get u too far in a round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont like thoes cards b/c i dont know if they are valid just because they have his email on them doesnt mean jack well to me cuz everyone knows his email or whatever but hey if you want to run them whatever floats your boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bill shanahan dismantled spanos on spanos' reasons for not liking debate...if anyone wants the lecture notes, i have them somewhere. shanahan argues that debate is a prime opportunity to engage in spanos' criticism of metaphysics and a bunch of other shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i think if the neg wins that the debate round is key to breaking down traditional western metaphysics...they could probably beat the debate bad args (but i havent seen the spanos cards about debate bad yet so....) but if they do not specifically say that we can overcome metaphysics in a debate round or keep us locked in metaphysics even more- then i believe a neg team (that knows spanos well) can beat those args without any problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schoofs e-mailed him asking him for his permission to post the e-mail on a website. That's what that was intended to mean. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Although, looking at your posting history... it does explain some things.

 

And, since they're all publicly available on e-debate using a very simple search, here you go:

 

"At the Binghamton tournament in 2000 (I think), Spanos came out, at the urging of the student run debate team (Jenn Geiss, Joe and J, and a few others), learned about debate, was taught to flow and what some of the technical issues are, then judged a couple debates. He also lectured for a bried period and fielded questions during the lunch break. One question will always stand out in my mind (as best I can recall, so this is paraphrased):

 

 

Debater (maybe a Navy debater): So now that you have seen a debate, do you think policy debate is a good forum for the arguments that you write with regards to international policy?

 

 

Spanos: The issues I present are too complicated to be resolved in a two hour discussion.

 

I left the event with a couple impressions:

1. Spanos is a nice guy, giving up part of a Saturday to see debates and speak to students.

2. Spanos is a little too proud. As a colleague said when I discussed this with him (again paraphrased): I don't know, debaters are pretty smart too.

 

 

Yes, he has seen a debate.....and maybe that is what troubles him....

 

 

Daniel Overbey

Gator Debate

 

Too lazy to do much searching, but here you go: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200202/0649.html

 

Just search e-debate for Christ's sake. It's not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Spanos said:

 

 

 

Dear Matt, I have been aware of the way high school (and college) debaters

have mangled my work for quite some time now. I don't know how my books

got into that circuit. My intentions in writing them was/is not to appeal

to debate. The very idea of institutionalized debate--where it doesn't

matter at all what side one takes--is anathema to my way of thinking. In

fact, you could say that my books in a fundamental way are intended to

demolish the phony "pluralistic" thinking that kind of debating

foster. Thinking (and the language we use to make it manfifest), in other

words, should make a difference in a world, especially in the United

States, which calls itself civilized and free but in reality is

barbarically corrupt and unfree, which always invokes the language of

justice to conceal the terrible injustices it perpetrates at home and

everywhere in the world, that celebrates the individual while reducing him

her to what Foucault calls useful and docile body and Heidegger,

"disposable reserve. And this is precisely what the kind of "thinking"

debating (as practiced in debate tournaments) IS NOT.

But the fact is that, like or not, my work has been appropriated to this

debate scene. And there's not much I can do about it. Who could are

people like you, who seem to be aware of the fact that there's something

rotten in the debating state Denmark, that it actually violates the very

essence of the kind of thinking I am struggling to articulate. So, I

understand your renunciation of high shcool debating. But if you really

want to make your opposition felt, you should return to the debate circuit

and make it your purpose to challenge the reductive distortions your

debater colleagues impose on my kind of thinking.

 

_________________________

 

Although Shannahan is a very smart and innovative thinker, it seems Spanos himself believes his works are distorted as currently ran in debate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when shanahan contests spanos' reasons for disliking debate, it isnt that shanahan neccessarily disagrees with spanos' comments on why his positions shouldnt be run in debate, but rather, than spanos should view the activity of debate ITSELF as a prime example of what he critiques. this occurs for a few reasons (from shanahan's lecture @ DDI):

 

1) technique--flowing reveals the fundamental bias of our activity. our attempts to understand the radical difference in time and space enacts the age of the world picture. we try to map the debate round. we attempt to bring difference into line in the flow as if the flow could ever capture the radical difference of the debate round. everytime we try to map an argument onto the flow, we do violence to its metaphysical subjectivity by attempting to freeze time and map those args onto a line-by-line format

 

2)the relationship with the topic—debate treats the topic as a field, region, or domain to be mastered, understood, and exploited. this attempt to bring diff into line is metaphysical imperialism. when it confronts an other that cannot be captured in the line by line, it silences it. when we attempt to form a topical relationship in the standard, traditional debate way, everytime we take the globe and say "here are the hotspots", we do violence to the other by pretending that its a problem that need to be solved. the reality is, there are other ways to debate and other configurations than "this vs. this. " this seperates us from reality because we arent able to see the radical difference between what goes on in a debate round and what goes on in the real world, it teaches us to be imperialist in the way that we are in the debate round, bring the violence of the debate round into the real world.

 

3) pax americana--the affirmation of united states hegemony that is prominent throughout debate and the affirmation of traditional styles of debating is exactly what spanos criticizes. in the same way that there was a roman empire, there is an american empire and a debate empire--us hege and traditional debate are the dominant ways of being that silence in their attempt to gain control

 

so basically, shanahan's arg is that the activity of debate itself is a good thing because it allows for a transformative potential in all of the areas spanos critiques (metaphysics, exploitation, imperialism, violence against the other, problem-solution models, pax americana). of course, challenging the pitfalls of debate mentioned above and engaging in a radical critique of the activity of debate in a method similar to spanos' criticism and involves abandoning the line-by-line format and engaging in a fort hayes/csuf/csulb/any other far far left wing debate program. hope this clears up a little of what i meant by refering to spanos v. shanahan

 

p.s. if any of you do debate in a non traditional style--im me--shanahan's lecture notes that i have from ddi (both on the topic lecture and his numerous lectures on critical affs) have become invaluable to me when i choose to abandon the line by line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that rolling with shannahan's radical critique of debate only works for a few teams. If you're on the national circuit and you have the right panel and you were mentored by shannahan at ddi, it may work out. however, I don't think most people in this thread have the theoretical background or the judging pool to pull it off.

 

although I understand your arguments, one thing that can make this position disadvantageous is time tradeoff. the argument is very abstract, takes a lot of time to explain, and it takes the negative a lot more time to answer the affs positions (if they read spanos indicts, talk about the context of the evidence, make realism good arguments, perm arguments, fiat theory arguments). Although teams like the Haze, WGLF, and Fullerton can pull it off, I think there are easier strategies that would work better for the vast majority of debaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this entire line of reasoning is completely absurd. Spanos is absolutely right when he suggests that we can't perform a remotely thorough interrogation of America's Shadow in 2 hours. And I don't doubt that Shanahan can come up with a thousand reasons why debate is violent, reductionist, imperialist, simplistic, racist, genocidal, etc... But who honestly believes that debate is an ideal medium for communicating anything? What is so special about Spanos and Foucault that makes it all-important not to bastardize their work, though two hours is supposedly plenty of time to sort out the correct legal interpretation of the 4th ammendment, or whether or not nuclear proliferation upsets global stability? 2 hours isn't enough time to settle *ANYTHING* of importance; people spend their ENTIRE LIVES working on issues that manifest themselves as but a single card in a debate round. Debate is not about settling anything or providing a complete picture of some issue. It is an intellectual war, unparalleled in any other medium, that tests our ability to collapse complicated ideas into discrete linguistic weapons and then use those weapons to smite our enemies in a fury of discursive chaos. I describe the activity with such high-strung language because I truly believe the beauty of debate is in its epic scale. It is a commonplace occurrence for a dispute over education policy to reduce to some subtle point about whether encircling North Korea will cause Japan to rearm. And there is no limit placed upon the productive capacity of debaters to leverage the most diverse array of ideas imaginable toward the goal of beating the other team's arguments into submission. Spanos sees this as violent and appalling; I see it as a remarkable and beautiful act of literary destruction that simultaneously affirms and annihilates the forms that constitute knowledge. Only when we have agreed that we may mercilessly destroy everything are we truly open to anything.

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...