Jump to content
papajohn

Round 185: shree/papajohn vs someone on the aff.

Recommended Posts

hillside over the sea. man sitting there on a cane seat . . . he is dressed in old-fashioned puttees green sport coat of English cut he has a sandy mustache stained with tobacco pale blue eyes . . . near him we now see several convulsed forms, the closest a few feet away outstretched hand clutching a handful of grass . . . the camera pans out convulsed corpses to the sky back to the man sitting there on his cane seat . . . the man takes a chicken sandwich out of a wicker lunch basket . . . "safe at last" he says and starts eating his sandwich . . . the man you see here is Doctor Lee . . . Doctor John Lee . . . he was a sensitive man and it lacerated him to walk streets and enter restaurants where he encountered living organisms manifesting wills different from and in some cases flatly antagonistic to his own . . . "the situation is little short of intolerable" . . . Rock Ape waiter there with the wrong wine . . . he was a timid man in a way you see and not able to fix the waiter with Mandrill eyes and ugly American snarl . . . "bring me red wine you hairy assed Rock Ape or I drink it from your throat!" . . . now the doctor was a man of independent means and could usually avoid such disturbing incidents but the possibility was always there . . . this disturbed him and he was a man who did not like to be disturbed . . . he decided to end the whole distasteful thing once and for all by turning everyone into himself . . . this he proposed to do by a virus an image concentrate of himself that would spread waves of tranquility in all directions until the world was a fit place for him to live . . . he called it the "beautiful disease" . . . his first attempts to activate the image meal failed . . . he realized of course that to administer a dead or weakened strain of the beautiful Lee virus would invite the disaster of mass inoculation . . . he had to be quite sure you understand . . . some of his "canine preparations" as he called test cases died in quite unpleasant ways that disturbed him for he was a humane man and did not like to be disturbed so these unworthy vessels only increased his resolve to make a better world . . . one day it occurred to him if perhaps the image meal were radioactive . . . he painted a culture of image meal with radium paint and put it in an iron box covered on the outside with layers of human skin and now he chuckled "let it steep" and made himself a cup of tea . . . he finished his tea and opened the box . . . "ladies and gentlemen of planet earth introducing 'Johnny 23'" . . . his cat hissed made an abortive attempt to walk on its hind legs and fell in convulsions . . . in its dying eyes he read an almost human hatred . . . he attributed the death of his cat to a short circuit of overburdened synapses occasioned by a too rapid conversion to the human condition . . . "now we must find a worthy vessel" . . . remember the good doctor was a humane man who did not like to harm anyone because it disturbed him to do so and he was a man who did not like to be disturbed . . . he had convinced himself that "Johnny 23" would simply remove from the planet hostile alien forces manifesting themselves through other people that this would come about through peaceful penetration in the course of which no lives would be lost . . . "Johnny 23" would simply make friends of everyone . . . the doctor was not a man who argued with himself . . . the first public appearance of "Johnny 23" demonstrated a miscalculation . . . worthy vessels clutched at an often imaginary mustache and fell in convulsions looking at some invisible presence black hate from dying eyes . . . "Johnny 23" was one hundred percent fatal . . . the good doctor had a spot of bother a narrow escape in fact when the worthy vessels found out who "Johnny 23" is . . . fortunately the epidemic was well advanced by that time and "Johnny 23" finished the job . . . he finishes his sandwich and licks the grease off his fingers . . . he puts a cigarette in a stained bone holder . . . he sits there smoking . . . it is very peaceful there on the hillside nothing to disturb him as far as the eyes can see he gets up folds his cane seat and walks down a path toward the sea . . . his boat is moored by the pier . . . it is a small boat and he can handle it alone . . . last awning flaps on the pier . . . last man here now.

 

_

 

We quote this full chapter from William S. Burroughs' novel, Exterminator! (1977. p52-4.) not as another debate card, but as a story for us to consider in relation to our lives and our participation in debate. While we don't wish to mock our interlocutors' advocacy, we're trying to recognize how we all engage in risky utopian discourse that ignores the disturbing implications of our own thoughts and actions. The above tale teaches us that sometimes our resolve to make a better world comes attached with a refusal to question ourselves. This may propagate the image concentrate which Doctor Lee called the 'beautiful disease'.

 

Likewise, current debating practices concentrate argument into commodity forms, such as pre-packaged cards and timed speeches, which neurotically fixate on the goal of winning to the detriment of debate's revolutionary potential. Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari discuss this in relation to literature in their book, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1972. p132-4.) :

 

Strange Anglo-American literature: from Thomas Hardy, from D.H. Lawrence to Malcolm Lowry, from Henry Miller to Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, men who know how to leave, to scramble the codes, to cause flows to circulate, to traverse the desert of the body without organs. They overcome a limit, they shatter a wall, the capitalist barrier. And of course they fail to complete the process, they never cease failing to do so. The neurotic impasse again closes - the daddy-mommy of oedipalization, America, the return to the native land - or else the perversion of the exotic territorialities, then drugs, alcohol - or worse still, an old fascist dream. Never has delirium oscillated more between its two poles. But through the impasses and the triangles a schizophrenic flow moves, irresistibly; sperm, river, drainage, inflamed genital mucus, or a stream of words that do not let themselves be coded, a libido that is too fluid, too viscous: a violence against syntax, a concerted destruction of the signifier, non-sense erected as a flow, polyvocality that returns to haunt all relations. How poorly the problem of literature is put, starting from the ideology that it bears, or from the co-option of it by a social order. People are co-opted, not works, which will always come to awake a sleeping youth, and which never cease extending their flame. As for ideology, it is the most confused notion because it keeps us from seizing the relationship to the literary machine with a field of production, and the moment when the emitted sign breaks though this "form of content" that was attempting to maintain the sign within the order of the signifier. Yet it has been a long time since Engels demonstrated, already apropos of Balzac, how an author is great because he cannot prevent himself from tracing flows and causing them to circulate, flows that split asunder the catholic and despotic signifiers of his work, and that necessarily nourish a revolutionary machine on the horizon. That is what style is, or rather the absence of style - asyntactic, agrammatical: the moment when language is no longer defined by what it says, even less by what makes it a signifying thing, but by what causes it to move, to flow, and to explode - desire. For literature is like schizophrenia: a process and not a goal, a production and not an expression.

 

Here again, oedipalization is one of the most important factors in the reduction of literature to an object of consumption conforming to the established order, and incapable of causing anyone harm. It is not a question here of the personal oedipalization of the author and his readers, but of the Oedipal form to which one attempts to enslave the work itself, to make of it this minor expressive activity that secretes ideology according to the dominant codes. The work of art is supposed to inscribe itself in this fashion between the two poles of Oedipus, problem and solution, neurosis and sublimation, desire and truth - the one regressive, where the work hashes out and redistributes the nonresolved conflicts of childhood, and the other progressive, by which the work invents the paths leading toward a new solution concerning the future of man. It is said that the work is constituted by a conversion interior to itself as "cultural object." From this point of view, there is no longer even any need for applying psychoanalysis to the work of art, since the work itself constitutes a successful psychoanalysis, a sublime "transference" with exemplary collective virtualities. The hypocritical warning resounds: a little neurosis is good for the work of art, good material, but not psychosis, especially not psychosis; we draw a line between the eventually creative neurotic aspect, and the psychotic aspect, alienating and destructive. As if the great voices, which were capable of performing a breakthrough in grammar and syntax, and of making all language a desire, were not speaking from the depths of psychosis, and as if they were not demonstrating for our benefit an eminently psychotic and revolutionary means of escape.

 

It is correct to measure established literature against an Oedipal psychoanalysis, for this literature deploys a form of superego proper to it, even more noxious than the nonwritten superego. Oedipus is in fact literary before being psychoanalytic. There will always be a Breton against Artaud, a Goethe against Lenz, a Schiller against Holderlin, in order to superegoize literature and tell us: Careful, go no further! No "errors for lack of tact"! Werther yes, Lenz no! The Oedipal form of literature is its commodity form. We are free to think that there is finally even less dishonesty in psychoanalysis than in established literature, since the neurotic pure and simple produces a solitary work, irresponsible, illegible, and nonmarketable, which on the contrary must pay not only to be read, but to be translated and reduced. He makes at least an economic error, an error in tact, and does not spread his values. Artaud puts it well: all writing is so much pig shit - that is to say, any literature that takes itself as an end or sets ends for itself, instead of being a process that "ploughs the crap of being and its language," transports the weak, the aphasiacs, the illiterate. At least spare us sublimation. Every writer is a sellout. The only literature is that which places an explosive device in its package, fabricating a counterfeit currency, causing the superego and its form of expression to explode, as well as the market value of its form of content.

 

_

 

Notice that the critical issue here is not the misinterpretation of content, but the reduction of all content to a restrictive format. No one in debate has pointed this out more relevantly than Gordon Mitchell. In his Fall 1998 article for Argumentation and Advocacy ('Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate'. v35. p43-4.), he explains how the sterile laboratory model of debate desensitizes participants to human suffering and enslaves our activity within a spectator-mentality :

 

While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998).

 

The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

 

_

 

He goes on to connect this lack of argumentative agency to the danger that corporate or statist institutions may recruit debaters to legitimate insidious forms of social control (ibid. p44-5) :

 

The undercultivation of student agency in the academic field of argumentation is a particularly pressing problem, since social theorists such as Foucault, Habermas and Touraine have proposed that information and communication have emerged as significant media of domination and exploitation in contemporary society. These scholars argue, in different ways, that new and particularly insidious means of social control have developed in recent times. These methods of control are insidious in the sense that they suffuse apparently open public spheres and structure opportunities for dialogue in subtle and often nefarious ways. Who has authority to speak in public forums? How does socioeconomic status determine access to information and close off spaces for public deliberation? Who determines what issues are placed on the agenda for public discussion? It is impossible to seriously consider these questions and still hew closely to the idea that a single, monolithic, essentialized "public sphere" even exists. Instead, multiple public spheres exist in diverse cultural and political milieu, and communicative practices work to transform and reweave continuously the normative fabric that holds them together. Some public spaces are vibrant and full of emancipatory potential, while others are colonized by restrictive institutional logics. Argumentation skills can be practiced in both contexts, but how can the utilization of such skills transform positively the nature of the public spaces where dialogue takes place?

 

For students and teachers of argumentation, the heightened salience of this question should signal the danger that critical thinking and oral advocacy skills alone may not be sufficient for citizens to assert their voices in public deliberation. Institutional interests bent on shutting down dialogue and discussion may recruit new graduates skilled in argumentation and deploy them in information campaigns designed to neutralize public competence and short-circuit democratic decision-making (one variant of Habermas' "colonization of the lifeworld" thesis; see Habermas 1981, p. 376-373). Habermas sees the emergent capacity of capitalist institutions to sustain themselves by manufacturing legitimacy through strategic communication as a development that profoundly transforms the Marxist political dynamic.

 

By colonizing terms and spaces of public dialogue with instrumental, strategically-motivated reasoning, institutions are said by Habermas to have engineered a "refeudalization" of the public sphere. In this distorted space for public discussion, corporations and the state forge a monopoly on argumentation and subvert critical deliberation by members of an enlightened, debating public. This colonization thesis supplements the traditional Marxist problematic of class exploitation by highlighting a new axis of domination, the way in which capitalist systems rely upon the strategic management of discourse as a mode of legitimation and exploitation. Indeed, the implicit bridge that connects argumentation skills to democratic empowerment in many argumentation textbooks crosses perilous waters, since institutions facing "legitimation crises" (see Habermas 1975) rely increasingly on recruitment and deployment of argumentative talent to manufacture public loyalty.

 

_

 

Mitchell comes close here to mentioning fascism. We define fascism as an ideal system of total power which emphasizes disciplinary regimentation and seeks to suppress all criticism. On the governmental level, this historically equates to ultra-conservative dictatorships which use left-wing propaganda, but when we focus too much on the state, it can blind us to the micro-political groups and gestures that sustain fascism in the here and now. Deleuze & Guattari again, this time from their book, A Thousand Plateaus (1980. p214-5.) :

 

Doubtless, fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian State, but there is no reason to define fascism by a concept of its own devising: there are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist or military dictatorship type, that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies only at the macrophysical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of totalization and centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular forces in interaction, which skip from point to point, before beginning to resonate together in the National Socialist State. Rural fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right, fascism of the couple, family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole. There is fascism when a war machine is installed in each hole, in every niche. Even after the National Socialist State had been established, microfascisms persisted that gave it unequaled ability to act upon the "masses." Daniel Guerin is correct to say that if Hitler took power, rather then taking over the German State administration, it was because from the beginning he had at his disposal microorganizations giving him "an unequaled, irreplaceable ability to penetrate every cell of society," in other words, a molecular and supple segementarity, flows capable of suffusing every kind of cell. Conversely, if capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism, which from its point of view was much more sensible and manageable, it was because the segementarity and centralization of the latter was more classical and less fluid. What makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical power, for it is a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. American film has often depicted these molecular focal points; band, gang, sect, family, town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms spare no one. Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire its own repression, how can it desire its own repression? The masses certainly do not passively submit to power; nor do they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic hysteria; nor are they tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never separable from complex assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from microformations already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and potentially gives desire a fascist determination. Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms. It's too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective.

 

_

 

Micro-fascism in debate has many facets - from paternalistic skools to unrepresentative framers to exclusionary ballots. One is right to immediately notice that we link to our own kritik. Here we are reading cards, appealing to a judge. But we're aware of these links, and we're self-critical. While we don't believe in the panacea of communication, we're adjacent to a debate machine that's continually recreated, one we hope will engender liberatory argument and experimental gaming. We offer a vision of what debate could be when we move beyond performance theater to real inorganization. Deleuze & Guattari in Anti-Oedipus (1972. p.309.) :

 

This reverse side is the "real inorganization" of the molecular elements: partial objects that enter into indirect syntheses or interactions, since they are not partial in the sense of extensive parts, but rather partial like the intensities under which a unit of matter always fills space in varying degrees (the eye, the mouth, the anus as degrees of matter); pure positive mulitiplicities where everything is possible, without exclusiveness or negation, syntheses operating without a plan, where the connections are transverse, the disjunctions included, the conjunctions polyvocal, indifferent to their underlying support, since this matter that serves them precisely as a support receives no specificity from any structural or personal unity, but appears as the body without organs that fills the space each time an intensity fills it; signs of desire that compose a signifying chain but that are not themselves signifying, and do not answer to the rules of a linguistic game of chess, but instead to the lottery drawings that sometimes cause a word to be chosen, sometimes a design, sometimes a thing or a piece of a thing, depending on one another only by the order of the random drawings, and holding together only by the absence of a link (nonlocalizable connections), having no other statutory condition than that of being dispersed elements of desiring-machines that are themselves dispersed.

 

_

 

One may ask, why are you still following the rules? Why aren't you doing a dadaist jig? Why aren't you vandalizing tournaments? Indeed, why haven't you exited debate? We wish to avoid being either generically avant-garde or generically anti-debate, and we know that one of the reasons debate rounds in 2005 look very different from rounds in 1985 is because kritiks won ballots. So we act to sneak explosive creativities through the back-door, using the appearance of a legitimate carded position in order to further illegitimate questions, to light those critical fires that may burn away some of the narrow-minded micro-fascisms of debate. Experimenting with new articulations requires a modest method of lodging oneself in collective assemblages, gently tipping them toward their own self-critique, without causing polarization, while avoiding the dis-empowering alternatives of either total rejection or pseudo-revolution. Deleuze & Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus (1980. p160-1.) :

 

You have to keep enough of the organism for it to reform each dawn; and you have to keep small supplies of significance and subjectification, if only to turn them against their own systems when the circumstances demand it, when things, persons, even situations force you to; and you have to keep small rations of subjectivity in sufficient quantity to enable you to respond to the dominant reality. Mimic the strata. You don't reach the BwO, and its plane of consistency, by wildly destratifying. That is why we encountered the paradox of those emptied and dreary bodies at the very beginning: they had emptied themselves of their organs instead of looking for the point which they could patiently and momentarily dismantle the organization of organs we call the organism. There are, in fact, several ways of botching the BwO: either one fails to produce it, or one produces it more or less, but nothing is produced on it, intensities do not pass or are blocked. This is because the BwO is always swinging between the surfaces that stratify it and the plane that sets it free. If you free it with too violent an action, if you blow apart the strata without taking precautions, then instead of drawing the plane you will be killed, plunged into a black hole, or even dragged toward catastrophe. Staying stratified - organized, signified, subjected - is not the worst that can happen; the worst that can happen is if you throw the strata into demented or suicidal collapse, which brings them back down on us heavier than ever. This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times. It is through a meticulous relation with the strata that one succeeds in freeing lines of flight, causing conjugated flows to pass and escape and bringing forth continuous intensities for a BwO. Connect, conjugate, continue: a whole "diagram," as opposed to still signifying and subjective programs. We are in a social formation; first see how it is stratified for us and in us and at the place where we are; then descend from the strata to the deeper assemblage within which we are held; gently tip the assemblage, making it pass over to the side of the plane of consistency. It is only there that the BwO reveals itself for what it is: connection of desires, conjunction of flows, continuum of intensities. You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines.

 

_

 

So we ask for your support not to certify that we're better debaters, but to assist us in plugging our kritik into the debate machine. You don't have to agree with us, but we hope you agree that two questions are worth discussing in this and future rounds:

 

How can we unhook ourselves from debate's micro-fascistic practices that nail us down to dominant reality? And how can problematizing the limitations inherent in the current format help mobilize support for new ideas, sowing the seeds of a people yet to come?

 

Finally, because we believe that insignificant events like debate rounds can entail life-changing experiences, even if this position becomes just another commodified kritik, perhaps it's still better to be a failed Foucault than a successful Doctor Lee. What's essential is trying to root out all forms of fascism in our everyday speech-acts as an ethical art of living. As Foucault explains in his preface to Anti-Oedipus (1972. pxiii-iv.) :

 

Last but not least, the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism (whereas Anti-Oedipus' opposition to the others is more of a tactical engagement). And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini - which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effectively - but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.

 

I would say that Anti-Oedipus (may its authors forgive me) is a book of ethics, the first book of ethics to be written in France in quite a long time (perhaps that explains why its success was not limited to a particular "readership" : being anti-oedipal has become a life style, a way of thinking and living). How does one keep from being fascist, even (especially) when one believes oneself to be a revolutionary militant? How do we rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism? How do we ferret out the fascism that is ingrained in our behavior? The Christian moralists sought out the traces of the flesh lodged deep within the soul. Deleuze and Guattari, for their part, pursue the slightest traces of fascism in the body.

 

Paying a modest tribute to Saint Francis de Sales, * {*A seventeenth-century priest and Bishop of Geneva, known for his Introduction to the Devout Life} one might say that Anti-Oedipus is an Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life.

 

This art of living counter to all forms of fascism, whether already present or impending, carries with it a certain number of essential principles which I would summarize as follows if I were to make this great book into a manual or guide to everyday life:

 

Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia.

 

Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization.

 

Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law, limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple, difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic.

 

Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable. It is the connection of desire to reality (and not its retreat into the forms of representation) that possesses revolutionary force.

 

Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth; nor political action to discredit, as mere speculation, a line of thought. Use political practice as an intensifier of thought, and analysis as a multiplier of the forms and domains for the intervention of political action.

 

Do not demand of politics that it restore the "rights" of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to "de-individualize" by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations. The group must not be the organic bond uniting hierarchized individuals, but a constant generator of de-individualization.

 

Do not become enamored of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does debate look like? (dont bullshit and be like debate doesnt have a look, you know what i mean)

 

so debate has no value?

 

Is there an alternative to your criticism?

 

should every debate be about debate?

 

how is fascism relevant in this debate?

 

should we stop debating?

 

I can post a 2ac as soon as this is answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does debate look like? (dont bullshit and be like debate doesnt have a look, you know what i mean)

 

well it doesn't so that bullshit is going to come naturally. at least rephrase your question.

 

so debate has no value?

 

false

 

Is there an alternative to your criticism?

 

yes

 

should every debate be about debate?

 

no

 

how is fascism relevant in this debate?

 

we are all constrained by facism in debate.

 

should we stop debating?

 

no

 

I can post a 2ac as soon as this is answered.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it doesn't so that bullshit is going to come naturally. at least rephrase your question.

like what do you see in debate? the activity and shit.

false

what value does it have.

 

yes

what is it? whats the text for it? who is the agent of the alt? what happens after the alt?

 

we are all constrained by facism in debate.

how?

 

no

so then whats the point of the k? what changes happen to debate afterward?? how does this round spillover to solve the things you claim?

 

whats the framework for the debate?

Edited by papajohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
like what do you see in debate? the activity and shit.

 

Well I see flaws in debate? Explain what you're trying to get at.

 

what value does it have.

 

Why is this relevant again?

 

 

what is it? whats the text for it? who is the agent of the alt? what happens after the alt?

 

Our kritik is a way of self questioning, our kritik allows us question and figure out ways to free ourselves from debate's facist practices and allow us to gain support for new ideas.

 

how(warrent for debate = facism)?

 

Mitchel descirbes debate as having a spectator mentality where everything is in a restrictive format. This restrictive realm will drive institutions to impose social control over us.

 

so then whats the point of the k? what changes happen to debate afterward?? how does this round spillover to solve the things you claim?

 

The point is to problematize these and point out these facist practices, and to begin the process of unhooking ourselves from facism. We don't know what changes afterward, we don't know if our kritik will destroy facism, but our kritik presents a way of living, a set of ethics to counter facism. As foucault decribes it, Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia

 

whats the framework for the debate?

 

Whatever works for our critisism.

 

 

.

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should the judge vote neg? if your saying the shit your participating is bad why cant the judge say its bad and hand us the ballots.

 

 

Why is this relevant again?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. You said debate has value, what value does it have?

 

whats the text for the alt and whos the agent of the alt? stop fucking around and answer the question.

 

 

 

The point is to problematize these and point out these facist practices, and to begin the process of unhooking ourselves from facism.

please answer my questions. how does the round spill over to stop facism? debates will go on tommorrow next yr the yr after that. how does voting neg stop this?

 

Whatever works for our critisism.

you're really irritating me. this is really important, I need to know what framework you think the judges should evaluate the round. what is the framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why should the judge vote neg? if your saying the shit your participating is bad why cant the judge say its bad and hand us the ballots.

 

This is what Doctor Lee calls the 'beautiful disease'. You are such a fuckhead you refuse to question yourselves. You focus so much on fucking winning v-debates, and have this fixation on the state that makes you a blind dickhead.

 

 

ANSWER THE QUESTION. You said debate has value, what value does it have?

 

I'm not trying to say debate doesn't have value. The question isn't relevant.

 

whats the text for the alt and whos the agent of the alt? stop fucking around and answer the question.

 

Do critisisms have "text"? Is there suppose to be a plan text when I say you're an inflated shit head? Is there suppose to be an agent when I critisize you for being a facist narcistsic bitch? The point of the kritik is pretty clear in the 1NC.

 

please answer my questions. how does the round spill over to stop facism? debates will go on tommorrow next yr the yr after that. how does voting neg stop this?

 

Didn't see the rest. editied above.

 

you're really irritating me. this is really important, I need to know what framework you think the judges should evaluate the round. what is the framework?

 

Did you put tell the judge to default to competing interps or util when you read your 1AC? No, so the deault framework for your aff would be "vote for us.....sp4c3 c0l and h3g lulz........its g00d...v0t3 f0r us t0 c0l0n14l1ze th3 un1v3rs3 s0 w3 don't g0 BOOM."

 

What I'm saying is to reject these retarded facist practices of debate in favor of our critisism.

 

 

.

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New sheet, Case and the Kritik.

 

Framework

 

Interp: the judges should evaluate policy simulation and the weighted outcome of impacts resulting from imagined policies, The status Quo or a competing policy optionnot representations or in-round actions. Prefer our framework:

A. Fairness:

1. Complete Time/Strategy SkewThe evaluation of non-policy simulated impacts makes the entire 8 minutes of the 1AC irrelevantforcing the 2AC to start from scratchthis complete time-skew outweighs minor loss of negative fairness arguments and turns any side bias arguments.

2. Predictable GroundThe neg framework creates a vaccum where an infinite number discursive appeals which could be enacted by an infinte number of agents.

MEARSHEIMER 1995 (John, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, International Security, Winter 94/95)

Nevertheless, critical theorists readily acknowledge that realism has been the dominant interpretation of international politics for almost seven hundred years. “Realism is a name for a discourse of power and rule in modem global life.” Still, critical theory allows for change, and there is no reason, according to the theory anyway, why a cornunitarian discourse of peace and harmony cannot supplant the realist discourse of security competition and war. In fact, change is always possible with critical theory because it allows for an unlimited number of discourses. and it makes no judgment about the merit or staying power of any particular one. Also, critical theory makes no judgment about whether human beings are “hard-wired” to be good or bad, but instead treats people as infinitely changeable. The key to how they think and behave is the particular “software program” that individuals carry around in their heads, and those can be changed. In essence, critical theorists hope to replace the widely used realist software package with new software that emphasizes communitarian norms. Once that switch has been made, states will cooperate with each other and world politics will be more peaceful.

B. Aff should pick the framework 2 reasons:

 

1.Affirmative Flexibility: allowing the affirmative to determine the framework for the debate is important for encouraging innovation while maintaining predictability within individual debates. If the negative disagrees with our interpretation of the framework for this debate then they have the opportunity to initiate their own version when they are affirmative. However, if the affirmative is not pre-delegated the right to choose the framework for the debate then every debate turns into a question of framework discouraging affirmative innovation all together.

2. Framework Stability Creates Better Debates: if the negative argues for a different framework then the whole discussion devolves into a question about how both teams should have approached the debate ensuring that no in-depth discussion occurs on either team’s framework. If the negative truly believes that their framework would provide for the most education and best debates then they should be willing to allow the affirmative to pick the framework so that at least half of the time they are engaged in good debates instead of all of their debates being tormented by the framework question.

C. Kills topic education by distracting from the core resolution questiononly policy frameworks ensure educational debates.

Patrick Speice and Jim Lyle 2003 “traditional policy debate: now more than ever” Oceans Policy Adrift http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm

TPD is valuable in a number of respects, but the benefits can be grouped into two general categories: gaming and education (Smith, 2001). Gaming refers to the nature of debate as a competitive activity that people engage in because it is fun to play. Education simply refers to the skills that one develops as a debater, including research skills, critical thinking skills, and advocacy skills. Non-traditional debate practices, especially certain types of critique debates, operate to the detriment of these goals in a number of ways.As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants.

Switch Side Debate Good - our framework of debate forces both teams to rigorously examine a policy question proposed by the resolution from several perspectives over the course of a debate season. The path to demagoguery is littered with people who believe that there is no other view of the world but their own—debating two sides of a policy trains us to think in ways that prevent this.

Muir, Communications Professor at George Mason, 1993 (Star, “Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate", PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC, p. 288)

The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the more complications of acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility. As Frelby notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world, both within and between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In this view, the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students tovalidate their hypothetical structure through immoral actions.

D. If the framework of debate is changed to become

an aggressively activist forum for challenging societal oppression then the politicization of the activity will destroy the educational benefit gained from the laboratory of ideas. The oppressive elites will have an incentive to infiltrate and destroy the activity. Alan Coverstone, M.A. Speech Communication from Wake Forest University and Assistant Dean at Montgomery Bell Academy, 1995

(“An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn” Debater’s Research Guide,http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm)

Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn. Individuals trained in the art and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the task of entering the political world. At some unspecified point in one's training, the same motivation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of us. At that point, political action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate community will not reach that point together. A political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in two ways. It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training process. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites will not feel threatened. Yet one of Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In this world we face well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from "debate," they will begin to infiltrate our space. Ready made information will increase and debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information, young debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites. Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan space in American political society, academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants. Nowhere else are people allowed, let alone encouraged, to test all manner of political ideas. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it. In many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community. An example should help illustrate this idea.

 

Case

Extend everything - nuclear war comes before their fascist impacts and outweigh.

Kritik

 

1. Interpretation: The neg needs a written text to their advocacy.

Reasons to Prefer:

A.Predictability: pinning the neg to a stable advocacy is key to predictable debate. No ground is usable without predictability.

B. Moving Target: Neg needs an alt text so they can’t change their alt to avoid arguments. The impact is time and strategy skew, which alter the nature of the entire debate. Justifies new args.

 

2. no link - they cant prove our advocacy in this vdebate leads to fascism nor that we are the problem with debate - dont go for links of omission.

 

3. Takes along time for the alternative to spillover and solve all fascism in debate and our debate good impacts would occur first.

 

4. Alt doesn't solve - this debate doesn't spillover and ends the competitive nature of debate which is what their argument assumes.

 

 

5. Focus on government policy is critical to alleviate real world suffering. Rorty 98 (Richard, Stanford Philosophy Professor, Achieving Our Country, pp. 87-94)

 

If the proles can be distracted from their own despair by media-created psuedo-events, including the occasional brief and bloody war, the super-rich will have little to fear. Contemplation of this possible world invites two responses from the Left. The first is to insist that the inequalities between nations need to be mitigatedand, in particular, that the Northern Hemisphere must share its wealth with the Southern. The second is to insist that the primary responsibility of each democratic nation-state is to its own least advantaged citizens. These two responses obviously conflict with each other. In particular, the first response suggests that the old democracies should open their borders, whereas the second suggests that they should close them.8The first response comes naturally to academic leftists, who have always been internationally minded. The second response comes naturally to members of trade unions, and to the marginally employed people who can most easily be recruited into right-wing populist movements. Union members in the United States have watched factory after factory close, only to reopen in Slovenia, Thailand, or Mexico. It is no wonder that they see the result of international free trade as prosperity for managers and stockholders, a better standard of living for workers in developing countries, and a very much worse standard of living for American workers. It would be no wonder if they saw the American leftist intelligentsia as on the same side of the managers and stockholders—as sharing the same class interests. For we intellectuals, who are mostly academics, are ourselves quite well insulated, at least in the short run, from the effects of globalization. To make things worse, we often seem more interested in the workers of the developing world than in the fate of our fellow citizens. Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone will assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salemen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once such a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic. One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out.Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. But such a renewal of sadism will not alter the effects of selfishness. For after my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly make peace with the international superrich, just as Hitler made with the German industrialists. He will invoke the glorious memory of the Gulf War to provoke military adventures which will generate short-term prosperity. He will be a disaster for the country and the world. People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left?Why was it only rightists like Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossesed? It is often said that we Americans, at the end of the twentieth century, no longer have a Left. Since nobody denies the existence of what I have called the cultural Left, this amounts to an admission that that Left is unable to engage in national politics.It is not the sort of the Left which can be asked to deal with the consequences of globalization. To get the country to deal with those consequences, the present cultural Left would have to transform itself by opening relations with the residue of the old reformist Left,and in particular with the labor unions. It would have to talk much more about money, even at the cost of talking less about stigma. I have two suggestions about how to effect this transition. The first is that the Left should put a moratorium on theory. It should try to kick its philosophy habit. The second is that the Left should try to mobilize what remains of our pride in being Americans. It should ask the public to consider how the country of Lincoln and Whitman might be achieved. In support of my first suggestion, let me cite a passage from Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy in which he expresses his exasperation with the sort of sterile debate now going on under the rubric of “individualism versus communitarianism.” Dewey thought that all discussions which took this dichotomy seriously suffer from a common defect. They are all committed to the logic of general notions under which specific situations are to be brought. What we want is light upon this or that group of individuals, this or that concrete human being, this or that special institution or social arrangement. For such a logic of inquiry, the traditionally accepted logic substitutes discussion of the meaning of concepts and their dialectical relationships with one another. Dewey was right to be exasperated by sociopolitical theory conducted at this level of abstraction. He was wrong when he went on to say that ascending to this level is typically a rightist maneuver, one which supplies “the apparatus for intellectual justifications of the established order.”9 For such ascents are now more common on the Left than on the Right. The contemporary academic Left seems to think that the higher your level of abstraction, the more subversive of the established order you can be. The more sweeping and novel your conceptual apparatus, the more radical your critique. When one of today’s academic leftists says that some topic has been “inadequately theorized,” you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of economic determinism. Theorists of the Left think that dissolving political agents into plays of differential subjectivity, or political initiatives into pursuits of Lacan’s impossible object of desire, helps to subvert the established order. Such subversion, they say, is accomplished by “problematizing familiar concepts.” Recent attempts to subvert social institutitons by problematizing concepts have produced a few very good books. They have also produced many thousands of books which represent scholastic philosophizing at its worts. The authors of these purportedly “subversive” books honestly believe that the are serving human liberty. But it is almost impossible to clamber back down from their books to a level of abstraction on which one might discuss the merits of a law, a treaty, a candidate or a political strategy. Even though what these authors “theorize” is often something very concrete and near at hand—a curent TV show, a media celebrity, a recent scandal—they offer the most absract and barren explanations imaginable. These futile attempts to philosophize one’s way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country. Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations. These result in an intellec- tual environment which is, as Mark Edmundson says in his book Nightmare on Main Street, Gothic. The cultural Left is haunted by ubiquitous specters, the most frightening of which is called "power." This is the name of what Edmund- son calls Foucault's "haunting agency, which is everywhere and nowhere, as evanescent and insistent as a resourceful spook."10

 

6. perm do both -

A.at best the judge is their actor - the perm solves - the USFG can do the plan and the judge reject it current debate practices on an individual level.

B. Not competitive - usfg can do plan and the judge say our instance of debate is bad.

 

7. Perm do the plan then the alt - Either the K can overcome the status quo, or it can't overcome the harms they describe.

 

8. Perm do the plan and reject debate practices in all other instances - if their perm args are true all other status quo instances of debate tank the alternative - otherwise alternative can overcome and perm solves.

9. Fiat Good- Patrick Speice and Jim Lyle 2003 “traditional policy debate: now more than ever” Oceans Policy Adrift http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm

There are several ways those who utilize language and performance critiques have sought to use education to subvert competitive values. First, instead of viewing fiat as a tool that allows for the evaluations and comparisons that necessary for playing the game, fiat is argued to be an educational illusion that has allowed for debate to serve as a weak form of individual/collective expression and activism (Shanahan, 1993). The non-policy focused debaters ignore the fact that fiat serves important competitive purposes for the activity, and focus on fiat’s imaginary existence. The arguments that justify the lack of an alternative to the plan, the focus on phrase X, or the absolutist “vote neg” stance common with these arguments are grounded on the belief that fiat doesn’t exist: “why vote for the plan, it will never be enacted as a result of the judge’s decision?” Unfortunately, this overlooks the fact that fiat works to contextualize the plan/resolution to the status quo so that each side of the debate can advance arguments about the workability of the competing options vis-à-vis one another.

 

 

10. Turn- Role playing helps students understand and shape the real world through policy analysis Joyner 99 [Christopher, Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, "Teaching International Law: Views from an International Relations Political Scientist," Spring 1999]

The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.

 

11. Turn - alt causes extinction.

JentlesonDirector of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Professor of Public Policy and Political Science @ Duke University ’02

(Bruce W,; “The Need for Praxis” International Security, Spring ln)

Bringing policy relevance back in thus does not mean driving theory out. International Organization, World Politics, International Security, and the American Political Science Review should continue to have distinct missions from Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and the like. But that distinction should be in terms of how policy problems are approached, not whether attention is paid to them. Greater pride of place needs to be given to research questions defined in policy terms. What drives terrorism? Which strategies can be most effective in deterring it, defeating it, containing it? How better to link force and diplomacy? What about prevention, and questions raised about reducing and countering the political, social, and economic dynamics that foster and feed terrorism? Beyond just general arguments about unilateralism and multilateralism, what strategies and structures can best achieve the goals of peace, security, stability, and justice? These are all September 11 questions -- comparable delineations could be drawn for those other areas of the international agenda that were there on September 10 and have not gone away. The demand for policy-relevant research is huge; it is the supply that is lagging. This sense of praxis also needs to reshape graduate programs. A Ph.D. in political science or international relations should prepare students for selected nonacademic policy careers as well as academic careers. Curriculums need to have a greater degree of flexibility and pluralism with disciplinary training still at the core but also giving greater weight to substantive depth and breadth of knowledge about policy issues and domains, about regions and countries, about cultures and languages and histories. Greater engagement outside the academy needs to be fostered and encouraged: internships in Washington or with international organizations or nongovernmental organizations, participation in colloquiums not just with noted academics but with eminent policy experts, and dissertation and research projects that lead to immersion in key policy issues whether historical or contemporary. Nor is this just a matter of adapting curriculums. It is as much about the messages sent, explicitly and implicitly, in the setting of expectations and other aspects of the socialization that is so much a part of the graduate school experience. None of this will have much impact unless the academic job market also shifts toward comparable balance and pluralism in the profiles being sought for entry-level faculty. Also, a student who takes his or her Ph.D. into a career in the policy world needs to be seen as another type of placement success, not a placement failure.

Greater engagement with and experience in the policy world is to be encouraged at all stages of a career. There are many opportunities -- and there can be more -- to help broaden perspectives, build relationships and test and sharpen arguments and beliefs in constructive ways. The same is true for engaging as a public intellectual in the ways and on the terms discussed earlier. Ultimately it is about an ethic, about what is valued, about how professional success and personal fulfillment are defined. I am again reminded of a statement by Vaclav Havel, this playwright turned political dissident turned leader of his country's liberation from communism and move toward democratization, in his 1990 speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress: "I am not the first, nor will I be the last, intellectual to do this. On the contrary, my feeling is that there will be more and more of them all the time. If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics under an alleged need to be independent. It is easy to have independence in your program and then leave others to carry that program out. If everyone thought that way, pretty soon no one would be independent."n33 None of us is likely to have the role or responsibilities that Havel has. But we too are intellectuals who must think deeply about what our roles are to be, amid the extraordinary times in which we live.

 

12. Debates about major real-world issues allow us to have influence in decisions with life-or death implications and prevent fascism.

Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard, 1991 (Stephen, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 211-239, JSTOR)A second norm is relevance, a belief that even highly abstract lines of inquiry should be guided by the goal of solving real-world problems. Because the value of a given approach may not be apparent at the beginning-game theory is an obvious example-we cannot insist that a new approach be immediately applicable to a specific research puzzle. On the whole, however, the belief that scholarship in security affairs should be linked to real-world issues has prevented the field from degenerating into self-indulgent intellectualizing. And from the Golden Age to the present, security studies has probably had more real-world impact, for good or ill, than most areas of social science. Finally, the renaissance of security studies has been guided by a commitment to democratic discourse. Rather than confining discussion of security issues to an elite group of the best and brightest, scholars in the renaissance have generally welcomed a more fully informed debate. To paraphrase Clemenceau, issues of war and peace are too important to be left solely to insiders with a vested interest in the outcome. The growth of security studies within universities is one sign of broader participation, along with increased availability of information and more accessible publications for interested citizens. Although this view is by no means universal, the renaissance of security studies has been shaped by the belief that a well-informed debate is the best way to avoid the disasters that are likely when national policy is monopolized by a fewself-interested parties.

 

13. Policy debate moderates dogmatism and prevents extremism.

Spragens, Professor of Political Science at Duke University, 2000 (Thomas A. “Political Theory and Partisan Politics”, pages 88-89)

strongly institutionalized pattern of authoritative public discourse centered on public policies and the normative justifications for them works to control and limit unfettered partisanship in the citizenry. A purely partisan group or politician is, like the consistent egoist, pushed into a corner, as it were, by the demands of moral and practical rationality. Either pure partisans must abstain from the dialogue and suffer therefore a loss of legitimacy, or else they must adopt a more general and impartial viewpoint, however hypocritically, and provide for their preferred polities an accounting centered around a conception of justice or what Madison termed "the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Thus, even those who are disinclined to transcend their partisan interests and/or are deficient in the cognitive resources and abilities to accomplish that feat are dragged into at least a partial transcendence of their partisanship/partiality by the structure of public dialogue and the force of its inherent logic.

14. Turn - Acting as though we are policymakers allows for the development of public reason, and possibilities for global peace.

Rawls, Harvard University James Bryant Conant University Professor Emeritus, 1999, (John, “The Law of Peoples” pages 54-57)Distinct from the idea of public reason is the ideal of public reason. In domestic society this ideal is realized, or satisfied, whenever

judges, legislators, chief executives, and other government officials, as well as candidates for public office, act from and follow the idea of public reason and explain to other citizens their reasons for supporting fundamental political questions in terms of the political conception of justice that they regard as the most reasonable. In this way they fulfill what I shall call their duty of civility to one another and to other citizens. Hence whether judges, legislators, and chief executives act from and follow public reason is continually shown in their speech and conduct. How is the ideal of public reason realized by citizens who are not government officials? In a representative government, citizens vote for representativeschief executives, legislators, and the like-not for particular laws (except at a state or local level where they may vote directly on referenda questions, which are not usually fundamental questions). To answer this question, we say that, ideally, citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think it most reasonable to enact. When firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold government officials to it.

 

15. Only deliberative argument puts a check on authoritarianism and massive human rights violations

Elshtain, Professor @ University of Chicago, 1998

(Jean Bethke, Political Theory, Vol. 26, No. 3. Jun., pp. 419-422. Jstor)That having been said, this is a worthy and decent book marked by a thoughtful, judicious temperament. One further point needs to be made. Although Nino rejects retributive punishment, he does favor retroactive justice “in the context of radical evil,” and that for this reason: “The trials promote public deliberation in a unique manner. Public deliberation counteracts the authoritarian tendencies which led, and continue to lead, to a weakening of the democratic system and massive human rights violations. All public deliberation has this effect, but especially when the subject of the public discussion is those very authoritarian tendencies” (p.147). Thus, for Nino, any form of punishment should serve several goals. It should promote accountability and simultaneously underscore a commitment to rights – the very rights the defendants in the cases he reviews spurned and trammeled with their cruel and wanton actions.

 

16. Turn- Deliberative Argument is the only means to understand one another.

Hamlett, Associate Professor of Science, Technology & Society @ NC State, and Cobb, Asst Prof of Political Science in School of Public and International Affairs @ NC State, 2006 (Patrick and Michael; Policy Studies Journal, Nov. 1, ln)

Drawing on philosophical developments in deliberative democracy (Bohman, 1996; Dryzek, 2000; Elster, 1998; Fishkin, 1991; Gutmann & Thompson, 2004) and participatory public policy analysis (deLeon, 1990, 1997; Fischer, 2003), many theorists call for more robust forms of public involvement that focus on active deliberative practices by ordinary citizens. Standard public opinion polling, it is argued, cannot plumb the public's thoughtful and informed opinion. On the other hand,reliance upon organized advocacy groups to express public opinion falls prey to the politically strategic maneuverings of interest-group bargaining. Missing from the political mix is the voice of informed, deliberative citizens who are not already committed to a specific policy outcome. Deliberation theorists claim that deliberative practices can have a number of salutary benefits. In general, these benefits are best described as producing better decisions or better citizens. As for better decisions, Fishkin and his colleagues, for example, argue that deliberative polling produces superior individual-level preferences because informed opinions are more consistent with one's true interests (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2003; Fishkin, 1991, 1997; Luskin, Fishkin, & Jowell, 2002). Alternatively, effective public deliberations, as an integral part of the agenda setting, aggregation, and policy formulation stages of the policy process, will generate public decisions with significantly greater legitimacy than decisions reached without such public involvement (Arvai, 2003). In addition, decisions that clearly embody informed public input of this kind should reduce the levels of public opposition to those decisions, which may allow for significantly improved implementation. In terms of better citizens, effective public deliberations are thought to create civic learning opportunities for participants and observers that presumably add to the health of a democratic polity (Putnam, 2000; Talisse, 2001). A crucial part of deliberations includes factual learning by the participants, who must be brought "up to speed"on the technical, economic, and political aspects of the issue that they are examining. In this process, the citizen participants also learn first hand the difficulties of balancing costs and benefits, making fair tradeoffs, accommodating the demands of diverse affected parties, and so on. In addition, deliberation is predicted to orient citizens away from individual and personal goals and toward common issues. Through the exchange of different views, they hope, more strident and radical views of some participants will gradually soften, and the group as a whole will shift its concluding opinions more toward a middle ground between the original positions of the participants. According to Mendelberg (2002, p. 3), "The promise of deliberation is its ability to foster the egalitarian, reciprocal, reasonable and open-minded exchange of language."

 

17. Util first Nye, prof. of IR at Harvard University, 1986 (Joseph, “Nuclear Ethics”, p. 24)

Whether one accepts the broad consequentialist approach or chooses some other, more eclectic way to include and reconcile the three dimensions of complex moral issues, there will often be a sense of uneasiness about the answers, not just because of the complexity of the problems “but simply that there is no satisfactory solution to these issues – at least none that appears to avoid in practice what most men would still regard as an intolerable sacrifice of value.” When value is sacrificed, there is often the problem of “dirty hands.”

Edited by papajohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your 1200 words over which is why im 400 words over. so no i will not fix it.

 

Explain your Jentleson evidence. How does the kritik lead to extinction?

a world in which we reject politics it causes extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a world in which we reject politics it causes extinction.

 

 

Where does it even say the word "extinction". Where does it even support your tag? Why would it cause extinction?

 

Also, explain your claim and warrent on the Spragens evidence

 

What is "Deliberative Argument "

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does it even say the word "extinction". Where does it even support your tag? Why would it cause extinction?

he says debate creates intellectuals these intellectuals are key to world survival.

 

Also, explain your claim and warrent on the Spragens evidence

claim: Policy debate moderates dogmatism and prevents extremism.

i don't know what a warrent is.

 

What is "Deliberative Argument "

argument that is deliberative. its specific to what Mitchell is talking about, where saying debate allows for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

claim: Policy debate moderates dogmatism and prevents extremism.

 

What is "dogmatism"? What is "extremism"? What is the warrant for that claim?

 

 

argument that is deliberative.

 

No fucking way!!!!

 

its specific to what Mitchell is talking about, where saying debate allows for it.

 

No.

 

So wtf is "deliberative argument"?

 

 

 

.

Edited by DA MACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is "dogmatism"? What is "extremism"? What is the warrant for that claim?

dogmatism is a system of ideas based on blatanly false premises which allow for bad shit. extremism is actions by political parties that allow for immoral stuff and fascism.

 

No. So wtf is "deliberative argument"?
lol yeah it is, have you actually ever read Mitchell articles? I told you, argument that is deliberative. i dont know if I can explain it better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogmatism is a system of ideas based on blatanly false premises which allow for bad shit. extremism is actions by political parties that allow for immoral stuff and fascism.

 

You didn't answer the second part of the question

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K PROPER

 

OVERVIEW

 

The affirmative engages in debate with a fixation on winning. This fixation drives the affirmative to engage in certain problematic practices in debate, such as reducing their arguments into commodities such as reading prepackaged cards. This reduces debate into a restrictive format, robbing debate of its revolutionary potential and suppressing all critical thought. All this along with the affirmative’s attempt at excluding our argument through reinforcing dominant institutions of knowledge with shit like “we choose the framework” and “but role-playing is good!” is what Mitchell describes as “insidious social control”.

 

Deleuze and Guatarri describe how this form of fascism is what shapes the discourse in our everyday lives, it’s the fascism within us that prevents the resistance. Deleuze and Guatarri go further to describe what a world would look like without fascism, a world where we are not forced to play by the restrictive rules of the game, but allow for libratory arguments that frees us from the desire of the debate machine.

 

You will notice that we link to our K, but while the affirmative is still consumed by fascism and the “beautiful disease”, we our self-critical; we begin to resist the fascism within us. We begin our questioning:

 

Why do we have a desire for fascism?

 

How do we unhook ourselves from fascism?

 

How do we shatter the limits of debate and make debate a space to challenge regimes of control?

 

How does problematizing these limitations allow us to gain support for new ideas?

 

We ask the judges to do the same. Our kritik is not just a rejection; it is an ethical stance that we offer the judges to take, a way of living that we should all embrace. We do not know whether our criticism will work, but vote negative to acknowledge that these questions must be asked, and that our ethical stance of living and trying to reject fascism is better than engaging unknowingly in the fascist practices of debate. Vote NOT AFF as a way to reject their appeal to win in the name of proposing a good policy option; vote them down as punishment for being consumed by “the beautiful disease” for their refusal to question themselves and their desire to be controlled by the debate machine.

 

 

1. a. We meet, we clearly state our advocacy in the 1NC. Our advocacy is that we question “How can we unhook ourselves from debate's micro-fascistic practices that nail us down to dominant reality? And how can problematizing the limitations inherent in the current format help mobilize support for new ideas, sowing the seeds of a people yet to come?”

b. CI we don’t: It’s an unrealistic standard – philosophical ideas can’t be broken down to a single sentence plan. Forcing us to do that destroys the spirit and value of the critique and makes the whole advocacy pointless. The point of the kritik is to try to break away from these fascist practices.

 

c. Our advocacy is stable and predictable, we won’t shift from what we stated in the 1NC and CX.

 

2. a. No warrant to why link of omissions are uniquely bad and they misinterpret the link. The argument is not that the affirmative leads to fascism, it is that the affirmative engages in the fascist practices of debate. We never said they were the root cause of all fascism, and it doesn’t matter. We should embrace the kritik as a way to unhook ourselves from these fascist practice in debate and embrace the discourse of the kritik. Vote negative as an embracement of our ethical stance against facism.

 

b. They directly link by focusing on the state. Delueze and Guatarri from the 1NC talk about how this blind acceptance blinds us to see the fascism within us and debate.

 

c. New link-

The State interferes in thought processes like debate as a means of eliciting universal obedience. Deleuze / Guattari, 1980 [Gilles and Felix, professors at the University of Paris VIII at Vincennes, A Thousand Plateaus, p375-376]

 

Thought contents are sometimes criticized for being too conformist. But the primary question is that of form itself. Thought as such is already in conformity with a model that it borrows from the State apparatus, and which defines for it goals and paths, conduits, channels, organs, an entire organon. There is thus an image of thought covering all of thought; it is the special object of “noology” and is like the State-form developed in thought. This image has two heads, corresponding to the two poles of sovereignty: the imperium of true thinking operating by magical capture, seizure or binding, constituting the efficacy of a foundation (mythos); a republic of free spirits proceeding by pact or contract, constituting a legislative and juridical organization, carrying the sanction of a ground (logos). These two heads are in constant interference in the classical image of thought: a “republic of free spirits whose princes would be the idea of the Supreme Being.” And if these two heads are in interference, it is not only because the first prepares the way for the second and the second uses and retains the first, but also because antithetical and complementary, they are necessary to one another. It is not out of the question, however, that in order to pass from one to the other there must occur, “between” them, an event of an entirely different nature, one that hides outside the image, takes place outside.41 But confining ourselves to the image, it appears that it is not simply a metaphor when we are told of an imperium of truth and a republic of spirits. It is the necessary condition for the constitution of thought as principle, or as a form of interiority, as a stratum. It is easy to see what thought gains from this: a gravity it would never have on its own, a center that makes everything, including the State, appear to exist by its own efficacy or on its own sanction. But the State gains just as much. Indeed, by developing in thought in this way the State-form gains something essential: a whole consensus. Only thought is capable of inventing the fiction of a State that is universal by right, of elevating the State to the level of de jure universality. It is as if the sovereign were left alone in the world, spanned the entire ecumenon, and now dealt only with actual or potential subjects. It is no longer a question of powerful, extrinsic organizations, or of strange bands: the State becomes the sole principle separating rebel subjects, who are consigned to the state of nature, from consenting subjects, who rally to its form of their own accord. If it is advantageous for thought to prop itself up with the State, it is no less advantageous for the State to extend itself in thought, and to be sanctioned by it as the unique, universal form. The particularity of States becomes merely an accident of fact, as is their possible perversity, or their imperfection. For the modern State defines itself in principle as “the rational and reasonable organization of a community”: the only remaining particularity a community has is interior or moral (the spirit of a people), at the same time as the community is funneled by its organization toward the harmony of a universal (absolute spirit). The State gives thought a form of interiority, and thought gives that interiority a form of universality: “The goal of worldwide organization is the satisfaction of reasonable individuals within particular free States.” The exchange that takes place between the State and reason is a curious one; but that exchange is also an analytic proposition, because realized reason is identified with the de jure State, just as the State is the becoming of reason.42 In so-called modern philosophy, and in the so-called modern or rational State, everything revolves around the legislator and the subject. The State must realize the distinction between the legislator and the subject under formal conditions permitting thought, for its part, to conceptualize their identity. Always obey. The more you obey, the more you will be master, for you will only be obeying pure reason, in other words yourself… Ever since philosophy assigned itself the role of ground it has been giving the established powers its blessing, and tracing its doctrine of faculties onto the organs of State power. Common sense, the unity of all the faculties at the center constituted by the Cogito, is the State consensus raised to the absolute. This was most notably the great operation of the Kantian “critique,” renewed and developed by Hegelianism. Kant was constantly criticizing bad usages, the better to consecrate the function. It is not at all surprising that the philosopher has become a public professor or State functionary. IT was all over the moment the State-form inspired an image of thought. With full reciprocity. Doubtless, the image itself assumes different contours in accordance with the variations on this form: it has not always delineated or designated the philosopher, and will not always delineate him. It is possible to pass from a magical function to a rational function. The poet in the archaic imperial State was able to play the role of image trainer.43 In modern States, the sociologist succeeded in replacing the philosopher (as, for example, when Durkheim and his disciples set out to give the republic a secular model of thought). Even today, psychoanalysis lays claim to the role of Cogitatio universalis as the thought of the Law, in a magical return. And there are quite a few other competitors and pretenders. Noology, which is distinct from ideology, is precisely the study of images of thought, and their historicity. In a sense, it could be said that all this has no importance, that thought has never had anything but laughable gravity. But that is all it requires: for us not to take it seriously. Because that makes it all the easier for it to think for us, and to be forever engendering new functionaries. Because the less people take thought seriously, the more they think in conformity with what the State wants. Truly, what man of the State has not dreamed of that paltry impossible thing--to be a thinker?

 

Group 3 and 4-We don’t advocate any spillover, nor do we claim voting negative will solve for all of fascism. Also, Christian is a dumbass. This isn’t a fucking DA moron. We criticize the CURRENT fascism in debate. The implication of the K is happening. Timeframe is irrelevant in K debates.

 

 

5. a. No link-we are not the left, we don’t link into Rorty’s argument.

b. Reject it, rorty evidence never mentions suffering or focusing on governmental policy. His card sucks.

 

6. a. Turn: the permutation destroys the revolutionary nature of the critique. If debaters can defeat the critique simply by advocating a permutation to do both, the revolutionary potential of the critique is destroyed. No one would bother to care about the criticism or the value of the argument, because it would be so easily defeated.

 

b. The permutation doesn’t solve the implication of the critique. Realistically, only after the argument begins winning rounds will debaters ask for cites, write blocks, consider running the argument themselves, and maybe even stop and think about the remote possibility that what we’re saying might actually be true.

 

c. The permutation doesn’t function. The affirmative team can’t perm a style. Extend the 1NC’s argumentation that style is what happens when language is no longer defined by what it represents, but by what causes it to move. The permutation is a specific link to reducing argument to an object of consumption, a commodity.

 

7. a. This perm is stupid, CA the answers above.

b. The permutation is a new link. The affirmative team merely tries to flatten a real-world

advocacy into a “minor expressive activity” that one can capture.

 

c. The perm solves has the potential to change status quo practices, but the perm functions as offering an ethical stance the judge should take. We advocate that the judge should oppose fascism in debate, which would mean rejecting the aff in favor of our kritik. CA this to all the perms.

 

8. a. CA above answers.

 

b. Perm fails, the judge doesn’t have the power to reject other instances, they don’t exist yet. Prefer the kritik alone WE ACTUALLY CRITISIZE.

 

c. The point of the kritik is to get you to oppose all fascism, there is no warrant to why the AFF should be an exception.

 

d. Here’s a better option: vote neg and reject ALL instances of fascism.

 

Group 9 and 10 a. Mitchell from the 1NC specifically talk indicts this argument. Conceding Mitchell damns this argument. Mitchell argues that appeals to fiat and the sterile laboratory of debate engages in a spectator mentality that depoliticizes the individual. Real world events simply become a tool of the debate machine, they serve to function as a case’s inherency or to non-unique a disad.

 

b. His first piece of evidence sucks, it says fiat allows for workability and allows sides to advocate policy options, but simply defining fiat isn’t a reason to vote AFF, they have to justify fiat first. Prefer the empowerment of individuals over the fascist-cock sucking practices of debate fascism (and cjiron).

 

c. Prefer D&G over Joyner, Joyner is exactly the shit we kritik. This just makes the link harder and more specific, Delueze and Guatarri talk about how their attempt to make debate and this fixation on the state seem educational is what blinds us to the facist practices of current debate and the state.

 

11. His argument is dumb, Jettleson says intellectuals are good, but there isn’t any reason why we exclude them or why this is a reason to vote AFF. This card sure as shit doesn’t say voting neg and rejecting fascism will lead to extinction. Power tagged-reject it.

 

12. Ignore waltz, we aren’t saying that we shouldn’t debate about real life issues. Waltz isn’t specific in talking about the practices in debate we criticize.

 

13. He says

public discourse is key to check back extremisim, he then says debates allow for public discourse.
-Turn-the rhetoric and questioning of the kritik in this debate round does function as a discourse for people to take.

 

14. a. Mitchell makes a direct indict on this argument. He discusses how the academic debate tournament itself fosters an environment that produces desensitized manipulators.

 

b. The failure to step out of our traditional policy debate box prevents the formation of effective discursive and political strategies. Shapiro, 1988 [Michael J., University of Hawaii, The Politics of Representation, p54]

 

A challenge to ideology is relentless politicization in the form of questioning the implicit narratives, grammars, and rhetorics that reproduce and reinforce forms of power and authority. I have mentioned just a few of the discursive mechanisms available for this challenge, most of which are fairly obtrusive. It should be noted, however, that even a seemingly realist genre of writing can be ideology challenging. In addition to the familiar literary effects of the neologism, oxymoron, or otherwise disturbing figure of speech, there can be a similar impact from simply simulating a typical literal genre of writing in such a way that the simulation comes across as a parody. Much of the writing of Kafka, Beckett, and Handke functions this way. What a politicized form of writing must do, in general, is somehow disturb us, force us out of our narrative habits by giving us an experience of discord in both our relation to things and to each other, by making unfamiliar, through transcoding or refiguring or otherwise recontextualizing, what has been familiar. This writing can reorient our valuations by dislodging privileged subjects, objects, and relationships in our conventional discursive practices. Our failure to be politicizing animals in our roles as social and political analysts has stemmed largely from what Samuel Beckett has called a failure to “feel the words in our mouths.” Strategies that are politicizing then - to continue Beckett’s metaphor - are strategies which make our words chewy. Writing styles that manage to tease our jaded palates are likely to force us to examine what we have been eating, and, as a group of social and political analysts, it should make us self-conscious about our roles in conspiring with those who have offered a bland depoliticizing diet.

 

c. Role-playing makes us defenseless against institutional logic. Schlag, 1991 [Pierre, University of Colorado, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 139 U. PA. L. Rev. 801, April]

 

The problem for us, as legal thinkers, is that the normative appeal of normative legal thought systematically turns us away from recognizing that normative legal thought is grounded on an utterly unbelievable representation of the field it claims to describe and regulate. The problem for us is that normative legal though, rather than assisting in the understanding of present political and moral situations, stands in the way. It systematically reinscribes its own aesthetic -- it’s own fantastic understanding of the political and moral scene. Until normative legal though begins to deal with its own paradoxical postmodern rhetorical situation, it will remain something of an irresponsible enterprise. In its rhetorical structure, it will continue to populate the legal academic world with individual humanist subjects who think themselves empowered Cartesian egos, but who are largely the manipulated constructions of bureaucratic practices -- academic and otherwise. To the extent possible, it is important to avoid this kind of category mistake. For instance, it is important to understand that your automobile insurance adjuster is not simply some updated version of the eighteenth century individual humanist subject. Even though the insurance adjuster will quite often engage you in normative talk -- arguing with you about responsibility, fairness, fault, allocation of blame, adequacy of compensation, and the like -- he is unlikely to be terribly receptive or susceptible to any authentic normative dialogue. His normative competence, his normative sensitivity, is scripted somewhere else. It is important to be clear about these things. The contemporary lawyer, for instance, may talk to normative rhetoric of the eighteenth century individual humanist subject. But make no mistake: This normative or humanist rhetoric is very likely the unfolding of bureaucratic logic. The modern lawyer is very often the kind of meta-insurance adjuster. And that makes you and me, as legal academics, trainers of meta-insurance adjusters. This is perhaps an unpleasant realization. One of the most important effects of normative legal thought is to intercede here so that we, as legal academics, do not have to confront this unpleasant realization. Normative legal thought allows us to pretend that we are preparing our students to become Atticus Finch while we are in fact training people who will enter the meta-insurance adjustment business. For our students, this role-confusion is unlikely to be very funny. It will get even less so upon their graduation -- when they learn that Atticus Finch has been written out of the script. For us, of course, it is a pleasant fantasy to think we are teaching Atticus Finch. When the fantasy is over, it becomes one hell of a category mistake. And in the rude transition from the one to the other, Atticus Finch can quickly turn into Dan Quayle. In fact, if you train your students to become Atticus Finch, they will likely end up as Dan Quayle -- cognitively defenseless against the regimenting and monitoring practices of bureaucratic institutions. Atticus Finch, as admirable as he may be, has none of the cognitive or critical resources necessary to understand the duplicities of the bureaucratic networks within which we operate. Apart from the fantasies of the legal academy, there is no longer a place in America for a lawyer like Atticus Finch. There is nothing for him to do here -- nothing he can do. He is a moral character in a world where the role of moral thought has become at best highly ambivalent, a normative thinker in a world where normative legal thought is already largely the bureaucratic logic of institutions.

 

Group 15-16 a. His cards talk about debating about the actions and results of policy actions are good, however their cards would assume the assumptions and discourse used to justify the action is good. However, in the case of the affirmative, talking about the effects of the policy would only be good if the way they present it in the debate round wasn’t problematic (as per the 1NC). Structure precludes the plan. We can’t engage in a structure without first justifying it.

 

b. Cross-apply the Mitchell and Deleuze and Guattari evidence from the 1NC. Neurotic fixation on winning desensitizes participants.

 

17. Util doesn’t apply here. We criticize the process you take to achieve your harms, and the structure your util framework works in. You have to justify the structure your util framework is in before we can evaluate it. It’s impossible otherwise because our kritik makes these normative frameworks problematic.

 

Group all their policy good turns-

Pure policy focus forces teams to take on the role of a policy expert, fighting for the greater good by recommending solutions to the “problems” in the law. The discourse employed in their struggle for the ballot is the perfect example of the “discourse of the university,” a discourse that cloaks its desire for mastery and power underneath a veil of expertise. Schroeder, 2002 [Jeanne, professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, William and Mary Law Review, 44 Wm and Mary L Rev 263]

 

Specifically, Lacan developed his discourse theory in the aftermath of the Paris student riots of 1968. n363 He wished to chastise the self-styled radicals who claimed to be establishing a new "free" university. Lacan argued that these "radicals" were anything but. They, in fact, were policy scientists who spoke within the same discourse as the university they claimed to despise. n364 In the university's discourse, the addressor stands in the position of knowledge (S2) or expertise. n365 In contrast to the master, the expert does not claim authority purely by virtue of his position. He claims that he deserves his position because of his superior knowledge. He purports to have reasoned justification for where he is and what he does. n366 The expert addresses the "little a," the cause of desire. n367 Once again, in contrast to the master, the university expert claims purpose. He claims to inquire into society's goals (its desire) in order to propose policies designed to achieve these purposes. The [*349] university expert, having identified an end, now "rationally" pro-poses means to achieve this end. The truth hidden under the veil of expertise is, however, the master. n368 The claim to expertise is a rationalization for the expert's imposition of her will. The claim to superior knowledge is a means of gaining and wielding power. n369 The purported inquiry into the ends of society and the promulgating of policies are really means to the end of controlling and manipulating others. The result of the university's discourse is the split subject. n370 The split subject is the one subjected to the expert's manipulation and who is thereby alienated from the enterprise. n371 Lacan argues that in the context of the actual university, one split subject is the student. n372 In the master's discourse, the result, the "little a," comes about through exclusion. It is, in a way, an unintended consequence. The master seeks to exclude the "little a" from his discourse, but by doing so, he causes the "little a" to function as the object of desire. n373 In contrast, the goal of the university's discourse is to produce a subject who obeys the policy set by the experts. n374 That is, the expert intends that his discourse produce a subject, whether or not the actual form this subject takes meets the expert's expectations. [*350] Lacan believes that one speaking in the university discourse is indifferent to whether the expert speaker or the student addressed actually achieves a true understanding. n375 The professors care about their prestige in academia and in society, and students are merely a means to that end. Consequently, students become alienated from the whole enterprise, parroting back what their teachers tell them rather than seeking to create their own knowledge. In law, the split subjects are those who are to be manipulated by policy. The expert wishes to produce these subjects who will achieve the expert's goals, even if the expert does not consciously wish to alienate or "split" them. For example, Jolls, Sunstein, and Thaler want legal rules to make people act as though they were economically rational. n376 Nevertheless, although the expert wants to produce certain types of subjects, the expert does not address these subjects directly. The expert does not ask the subjects what their goals are. The expert does not ask about their experience of the law to which they are subjected. Rather, the university's concern is "objective"-the goals ("little a") of society as a whole. The question is how to make the individuals who comprise society better achieve society's goals. In the name of a free society, policy science fundamentally mistrusts the freedom of its members.

 

And, this turns back all of their policy good claims. It’s fundamentally totalitarian. Schroeder, 2002 [Jeanne, professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, William and Mary Law Review, 44 Wm and Mary L Rev 263]

 

I have made the university discourse seem sinister: a Kafkesque nightmare. To some extent, from a Lacanian perspective, it is. Indeed, Lacan goes so far as to suggest that the Soviet Union was the apotheosis of the university discourse-the Stalinist government by experts produced the oppression of totalitarianism. n407 Perhaps the best known critic of policy scholarship is Pierre Schlag. Schlag maintains that policy-oriented scholarship (which he refers to as "normativity") is at its heart bureaucratic. n408 Schlag is, unfortunately, ultimately a romantic who does not fully understand the implications of his intuition. He thereby unwittingly undercuts the power of his critique. As Carlson has shown, Schlag's position is "paranoid" in the technical Lacanian sense. n409 A paranoid is one who truly believes that the Big Other exists-that the social system is as strong and monolithic as it claims to be, that there is someone or something who really is in control. n410 The paranoid believes that there is an other of the Other. n411 Of course, no one is truly in control of the symbolic order, as Schlag acknowledges at many points when he chides legal academics for their self- importance despite their irrelevance. n412 [*358] Lacan's point, however, is that the Big Other (i.e., the symbolic) can function even if there is no bureaucracy or anyone else in control. Insofar as the law functions and the bureaucracy stays in place is not because the law is some objective, external force, or because the bureaucracy is truly in control. Indeed, it is this nonexistence of the Big Other that makes it function and society helps it do so. By continuing to live in society and acting as though the law were the law, one is implicitly choosing to engage in the intersubjective enterprise of creating and enforcing the law (even though this force may be a forced one).

Edited by DA MACHINE
underlining/bolding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thought this was the block. by the way the 2nc is 200 words over. i let you get away with 3700 in the 1nc but you wont in the block. waive cx.

Edited by papajohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was just the 2NC.

 

Lol you wish i'd drop framework.

 

Also, i'm not suppose to post the 1NR yet until CX is over. Are you waiving it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

isn't there supposed to be like, a 1NR first?

 

or was that just like, the entire neg block in one speech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was just the 2NC.

 

Lol you wish i'd drop framework.

 

Also, i'm not suppose to post the 1NR yet until CX is over. Are you waiving it?

read my edit.

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...