Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
X Spike

Hillman

Recommended Posts

Who wants to read a Hillman aff? Possible ideas for an advocacy/1ac?

 

The United States federal government should trigger all your disads

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillman would probably be against the resolution. He thinks we should abandon notions that we can be free from war and simply engage war. So, if we are waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling out would contradict a belief of Hillman's. Am I interpreting this right or were you thinking something else?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking maybe you could read cards that removing troops from [x] causes a massive war, and there's consensus on the fact that it would cause war. Something like afghanistan. Then affirming that war.

 

EDIT: then again, i'm not deeply knowledgable of Hillman. I could easily stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillman would probably be against the resolution. He thinks we should abandon notions that we can be free from war and simply engage war. So, if we are waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling out would contradict a belief of Hillman's. Am I interpreting this right or were you thinking something else?

 

I think Hillman would support engaging in war by voting aff to spite the DA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillman would probably be against the resolution. He thinks we should abandon notions that we can be free from war and simply engage war. So, if we are waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling out would contradict a belief of Hillman's. Am I interpreting this right or were you thinking something else?

The fulfillment of the resolution would be that troops would be moved from one of the countries. It would be completely extra-topical, though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
I was thinking maybe you could read cards that removing troops from [x] causes a massive war, and there's consensus on the fact that it would cause war. Something like afghanistan. Then affirming that war.

 

EDIT: then again, i'm not deeply knowledgable of Hillman. I could easily stand corrected.

you could read a disad against yourself on any topic...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Class is a legal fiction,” says Hillman. It could be said that Sontag promotes the use of Marxist socialism to attack sexism.

 

In the works of Hillman, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist art. The main theme of Hillman's model of cultural neocapitalist theory is not narrative, as cultural discourse suggests, but prenarrative. In a sense, several theories concerning the bridge between reality and society may be discovered.

 

The primary theme of the works of Hillman is the failure, and thus the rubicon, of neosemanticist class. Hillman suggests the use of epistomology to read and challenge art. But Hillman uses the term ‘capitalist Marxism’ to denote not narrative, but prenarrative.

 

In the works of Hillman, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. If Marxist socialism holds, we have to choose between postdialectic capitalist theory and the presemioticist paradigm of narrative. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a cultural neocapitalist theory that includes culture as a totality.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class is a legal fiction,” says Hillman. It could be said that Sontag promotes the use of Marxist socialism to attack sexism.

 

In the works of Hillman, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist art. The main theme of Hillman's model of cultural neocapitalist theory is not narrative, as cultural discourse suggests, but prenarrative. In a sense, several theories concerning the bridge between reality and society may be discovered.

 

The primary theme of the works of Hillman is the failure, and thus the rubicon, of neosemanticist class. Hillman suggests the use of epistomology to read and challenge art. But Hillman uses the term ‘capitalist Marxism’ to denote not narrative, but prenarrative.

 

In the works of Hillman, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. If Marxist socialism holds, we have to choose between postdialectic capitalist theory and the presemioticist paradigm of narrative. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a cultural neocapitalist theory that includes culture as a totality.

 

 

postmodern generator. classy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking maybe you could read cards that removing troops from [x] causes a massive war, and there's consensus on the fact that it would cause war. Something like afghanistan. Then affirming that war.

 

EDIT: then again, i'm not deeply knowledgable of Hillman. I could easily stand corrected.

 

Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head. If you prove that you cause a war, you can access Hillman. This also basically means the neg gets no disads. Now, Hillman writes about local-level simulation of war as well, so if you don't care about T, you could write some in-round discursive stuff as well. If you're really interested in this aff, we could put something together possibly. I have a Hillman backfile somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pullin troops out of south korea escalates the korea situation to war

north/south korea war escalates globally

war is fricken sweet- hillman

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading a disad probably doesn't solve Hillman's criticism. The argument is not that war is good, but that war is a part of the human psychological condition that must be confronted instead of relegated to the realm of academic peace studies. There are two ways to make this relevant to the affirmative you're proposing. One is to include a representations 1st or a psychoanalysis framework in the 1AC. The other involves establishing an interpretation of fiat that makes questions of imagination more important than "real" depictions of a policymaking universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just reading a disad probably doesn't solve Hillman's criticism. The argument is not that war is good, but that war is a part of the human psychological condition that must be confronted instead of relegated to the realm of academic peace studies. There are two ways to make this relevant to the affirmative you're proposing. One is to include a representations 1st or a psychoanalysis framework in the 1AC. The other involves establishing an interpretation of fiat that makes questions of imagination more important than "real" depictions of a policymaking universe.

 

the last of the 2 options you gave is the most interesting. What would this sense of 'violent imagination' entail?

 

And does hillman advocate a literal embrace of going to war? or is it more like baudrillard's speaking evil where we discursively advocate war as a deconstructive project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not perform a war (ie, play some Afganistan documentary) and then claim this is the inevitable state of things in the area and our attempts to order and secure the region only end up making it worse. Give up our troops there as a recognition of this fact.

 

^ THIS sounds sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm under the impression that reading Hillman on this topic would be a contradiction. Reading Hillman on the neg seems a bit better

 

1. its fx t to say pull out of x in order to cause war-though that wouldn't be too problematic, also it would be humorous if someone reads solvency for "pulling out of x stops war".

 

2. I think you lose the ethos of Hillmans best link which is the infatuation of war, i.e. saying "reduce presence in x country makes impacts inevitable" isn't really what Hillman is looking for but to love war in order to demystify war and stop extinction.

 

3. It seems kind of shifty to concede DA and embrace apocalypse because i dont think thats what the point is.

 

4. The aff seems to link to itself, by re-orienting our enemy to a shifty or by increasing security ideology seems to be what hillman critiques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not perform a war (ie, play some Afganistan documentary) and then claim this is the inevitable state of things in the area and our attempts to order and secure the region only end up making it worse. Give up our troops there as a recognition of this fact.

 

This or something like it seems to make the most sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillman would definently be against the resolution unless you want to read links that say you cause war.

This is good because no longer do we repress things like the existence of war but embrace it. blah blah blah hillman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War good is going to be such a big advantage this year. I hope something happens that makes this a hard point to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillman is not "war good". Anyone who says so is an idiot that doesn't understand his argument in the slightest. Hillman's argument is actually quite the opposite, that imagining war is good because we can't understand the devastation it would cause (as America has never "witnessed" a war. The closest we came was the televised events of Vietnam and look at what the FUCK *that* did to our country), because that would actually allow us to move away from the violence that we are able to project elsewhere because war is "something that doesn't take place here." It's the Cartesian map which has an arrow pointing at every place in America saying "this is not war".

 

Also, Hillman's psychoanalysis is Jungian, not Lacanian. VERY different sides of the camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillman is not "war good". Anyone who says so is an idiot that doesn't understand his argument in the slightest. Hillman's argument is actually quite the opposite, that imagining war is good because we can't understand the devastation it would cause (as America has never "witnessed" a war. The closest we came was the televised events of Vietnam and look at what the FUCK *that* did to our country), because that would actually allow us to move away from the violence that we are able to project elsewhere because war is "something that doesn't take place here." It's the Cartesian map which has an arrow pointing at every place in America saying "this is not war".

 

Also, Hillman's psychoanalysis is Jungian, not Lacanian. VERY different sides of the camp.

 

 

This is more how I pictured the argument playing out. More like Baudrillard's speaking evil than a literal advocacy of war.

 

In that context, how would Gulakov's idea work? Would showing a documentary about the inevitability of war/our embrace of it be in line with Hillman's thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, acting out/playing a clip of the war would be a good internal link to Hillman.

 

Alternatively, if someone asks what the aff is about spend the rest of cross-x playing "war". Fake machine guns, grenades, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, acting out/playing a clip of the war would be a good internal link to Hillman.

 

Alternatively, if someone asks what the aff is about spend the rest of cross-x playing "war". Fake machine guns, grenades, etc.

 

I'm sold. We're so running this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as simple as this:

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its military/police presence in South Korea, Turkey, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait by sending all troops in Turkey into Russia, all troops in South Korea into North Korea, all troops in Japan into China, all troops in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan into Iran and Isreal.

 

It's topical, they aren't there anymore...

Advantages would be, Spark/Wipeout, Hillman, and Malthus.

 

All you would need is evidence why everyone would die as a result of these wars, and why the U.S. doesn't have to win them...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...