Jump to content
snelling101

Ocularcentrism

Recommended Posts

I know that my opinion is a little biased since i am on the same team as Dylan, but i figured i could provide a little bit more insight into this file, which i would recommend buying, even just for the affirmative answers.

 

First of all, just because their are base shells with in the file itself doesn't mean that some of the cards can't be used for other positions. For example: the Heidegger links are very good, but they don't have to be used just when running the critique shell. They are very good standalone links for any team running Heidegger.

 

Second of all, this would be a great argument to have just sitting in your tubs. For instance, in a break round at the TOC, they say observation, and it's nearly an instant win. Another great fact, is that it is applicable to every topic that their has been, and every topic their will be.

 

Finnally, the argument doesn't contradict with other posistions,(NOTE: THIS IS ASSUMING THAT YOU DON'T MAKE OCCULAR METAPHORES) that means even if you read two other posistions their is no contradiction like their can be with many other critiques.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in a break round at the TOC, they say observation, and it's nearly an instant win.
you don't really seem to understand that good teams don't need specific evidence to beat bad arguments Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
too bad this isn't a joke file...

 

 

you don't really seem to understand that good teams don't need specific evidence to beat bad arguments

I haven't seen this file, but Occularcentrism is an argument that good teams have won on. I can recall multiple instances of open teams in college debate winning on this.

 

That being said, the link story on "they say observation" isn't nearly as strong as the link if the team does something that...really links. For example, this argument was ran against a Bard team a few years back when they did a performance involving puppets.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "observation" link may seem flimsy, but the evidence is pretty devastating on the construction of ocular metaphors and the observation of bodies of knowledge. The Bataille shell makes a couple of link arguments:

1) Your discussion of the resolution begins with an "observation," a dominant sign of the visible, as a means for placing the following information under its domain.

2) The evidence is comparative between vision and speech, making this link much more specific to the 1AC speech act.

 

The file is 160 pages of evidence that is specific to the ocular way of knowing. It can be supplemented with your Foucault/Biopower file of choice. If nothing else, you can bludgeon your opponents in the block.

 

And while it's true that bad arguments can be beat with no evidence, there's zero reason why this is a bad argument. In the vast debate universe, this is certainly less absurd than many arguments, and just because you disagree with it ideologically doesn't mean anything.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen this file, but Occularcentrism is an argument that good teams have won on. I can recall multiple instances of open teams in college debate winning on this.

 

That being said, the link story on "they say observation" isn't nearly as strong as the link if the team does something that...really links. For example, this argument was ran against a Bard team a few years back when they did a performance involving puppets.

I agree. I cut this K two years ago and our top team ran this against a team that had a 1ac video and won.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you don't really seem to understand that good teams don't need specific evidence to beat bad arguments

 

no link, that ain't what this is. david does a good job of giving an example of how the evidence in this file is pretty good about posing a legit philosophical question about how we should approach knowledge - its a criticism of the notion that we can perfectly observe, diagnose and know the world. if you can't see the clear focauldian and hedieggerian implications of visual understandings of the world you're just not very familiar with those authors. consider the list of philosophers who either explicitly or have been applied via secondary literature to discuss the primacy of the visual: merleau-ponty, sartre, levinas, heidegger, foucault, derrida, descartes, irigaray, lacan, and Nietzsche (as well as probably others I’m just not thinking of at the moment). If you don’t believe me, well…I’ve done the research and you haven’t. it just seems to me that a question that has received that level of academic attention probably shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. sure, debate has mobilize that question in a pretty stupid way. that doesn't mean thats what this is.

 

also, the team doesn't have to be doing something visual (like showing a movie) for this to apply. can anyone really tell me why we say "observation one" when organizing our speeches if not as a reflect that we understand knowledge understood via the visual? "its customary/unthought". yep. but has "i didn't think about it like that" ever gotten you out of a K link before?

 

 

quite frankly, in a round with approximately equally skilled debaters, i'd bet a lot of money that the neg ain't losing the round on the quality of this evidence. i mean, i pretty obviously ain't coaching my teams to make "bad" arguments. i'll take the pepsi challenge on this file. am i suggesting this is your "A" strategy? nope. The point here, however, is that its a serious question with good evidence that links to a lot of cases. this last bit makes it extremely useful against cases where you’re caught with your pants down. Maybe they break a new case; maybe you’ve just not hit it before or have nothing to say. This becomes even truer if the case is critical as all of the evidence will serve to turn the case. The true strength of the file is its flexibility. There’s a Foucault/Bataille story, a Heidegger story, a Levinas story, and a pseudo-CLS story that has contextual (to ocularcentrism) internals to racism and gender. All of the stories have their own, contextual, internal links and alternatives. There are also a number of other random alternatives if you wanna mix things up. This adds up to the possibility of running this a huge number of times without ever telling the same story.

 

Still not your thing? Fine. Reasonable even. But consider that the aff answers in this file are, by and large, on fire. Don’t get caught without these, because I can guarantee at least one team that will be carrying this position (hint hint).

Edited by TLF
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol no need to get so defensive. i wasn't saying occularcentricism should never be run. i was saying that bs claims like "instant win at toc break round!" are vastly overselling and misunderstand how answering debate args work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too get too into the whole occularcentrism debate, but through Spanos (foremost a heideggerian) his criticism of the occularcentric ontology endemic to western thought has been fascinating. Much more than just a "you said the word observation!" link, it indicts a whole span of ideology - rather than just criticizing someone's use of a "dirty word" - and that's where the best links come from.

 

I am sure this file is cool. Using Bataille and Heidegger as standpoints to criticize many western practices is awesome and interesting. And it's fun that you are using Story of the Eye which I advise anyone to read - if you've got the stomach. I guess that's why there's the warning on the file and I would also warn folks reading that in rounds. KNOW YOUR JUDGE. There's a reason K debate gets a bad connotations. It's because people are too focused on wanting to "trick" someone or fuck with their opponents without making an argument.

 

Anyways, i'm sure the file's awesome and it's a theory that I think is sweet - I would recommend checking out the file!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not sure why i deserved neg rep and a boo for that last post?

 

i got neg rep too. i'm just chalking it up to belligerence. regardless, i really appreciated your post spurlock.

 

as to loghry's links, the hibbits stuff is in the file it's just not the primary focus. a lot of that bibliography is also included, but not all of it. its possible this summer there'll be an update to the file, as there are a couple of other books (spurlock's spanos suggestion among them) that i think need to be included. i just got to a point where i was like, you know, 150pgs is probably good for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

150 pages of occularcentrism is fucking plenty, just wanted to provide some resources for people to check out on the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first time i saw the term was here:

 

Jay, Martin. (1986) "In the Empire of the Gaze: Foucault and the Denigration of Vision in Twentieth Century French Thought," in Foucault: A Critical Reader, ed. David Couzens Hoy. Oxford.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
too bad this isn't a joke file...

 

 

you don't really seem to understand that good teams don't need specific evidence to beat bad arguments

 

HAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the first time i saw the term was here:

 

Jay, Martin. (1986) "In the Empire of the Gaze: Foucault and the Denigration of Vision in Twentieth Century French Thought," in Foucault: A Critical Reader, ed. David Couzens Hoy. Oxford.

 

linked to in the bibliography i posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

 

This is a great deal of amazing file to have especially since they are from Dylan, he is one of the most well read person on Heidegger that I know! I have also read some of his Bataille cards and they are very good, like some of the best cards I have read. I would have to agree with Chris...you do have to know your Judge. Plus, a lot of you are simply just limiting this argument to one link level, but you can make this link to every aff the fact actions are taken could certainly be an occularcentular view. I do know the quality of files dylan produces and they are really solid.

 

 

-Aaron

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ocular penetration is good - extend bataille.

 

 

edit - thanks, aaron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there can be, i suppose. is there widespread interest in me seperating the aff answers and selling it for less?

 

on a related note, given that there was one book i overlooked and there's apparently a good deal from spanos i didn't know about i'll probably be adding to the file over the summer. i haven't totally worked out how i'm gonna deal with those additions, but i want to be sure that the price of the file doesn't increase and anyone who has already bought the file can get the "updates" for free.

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...