Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Spoon

Edelman Neg?

Recommended Posts

Any of the following can be used **selectively** against arguments like Edleman:

 

1) Identity politics bad

2) The Other-Other (Derrida) I think its just utilitarianism applied to "others"

3) Stupid Underground (Mann) available online. Mann also wrote Masocriticism (part of the argument is literally the underground is stupid and silly....but also if they want to be successful they have to be more strategic in their confrontations with power)

4) Find another leftist orientation (aka -ism) which critiques the value position edleman.

5) Internal critiques of GLBT politics (also called Queer theory) If you read about the successes and failures of movements, particularly gay movements, you can likely create your own strat.

6) Multi-dimensionality/Intersectionality/Essentialism (can be combined with Friere...people have to free themselves)

7) Hardt and Negri aren't exactly feeling identity politics (aka Empire)

8) Depending on their advocacy....State bad w/ PIK (George evidence)

9) Normativity/Schlag (see also Phrenology and the article by Delgado on Normativity)

10) You gotta spec your alt...or you fail.

11) Depending on the articulation: Textual/discursive focus bad

 

Note: about 1/3 of the above assume they have some sort of articulated alternative (of course you could put them in a doublebind, which suggests either they don't have one--which is death--or they do and that fails)

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

sack up and impact turn. futurism good has a plentiful lit base and is a winning argument.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guarantee 100% that implementation of the plan, whatever it is, will not result in any sort of mindset shift away from reproductive futurism.

It also would probably lead to some right-wing terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously? Did you just simplify Derrida into util?

 

Seriously? Did you just make an offhanded comment?

 

Initially, I'm discussing one argument by Derrida

Second, he makes the argument--not me

Third, whats your alternative explanation exactly...if not utilitarianism

 

I will simply contend that it has utilitarian implications. Also, the way I saw it run vs. an anthro version animal rights (a paradox in its own right) had definite utilitarian consequences. I think there are different ways to frame his argument about "other-others."

 

Also, the frames of deontology and utility must have some overlap given that respected academics have re-interpreted Kant as a utilitarian.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously? Did you just make an offhanded comment?

 

Initially, I'm discussing one argument by Derrida

Second, he makes the argument--not me

Third, whats your alternative explanation exactly...if not utilitarianism

 

I will simply contend that it has utilitarian implications. Also, the way I saw it run vs. an anthro version animal rights (a paradox in its own right) had definite utilitarian consequences. I think there are different ways to frame his argument about "other-others."

 

Also, the frames of deontology and utility must have some overlap given that respected academics have re-interpreted Kant as a utilitarian.

 

Well I have never encountered the notion of the "other other." It sounds a little similar to the concept of "the third" whereby the existence of a presence other than the capital O Other makes the obligation political. That's part of what makes your statement so ridiculous. Even if i'm just not familiar with the element of Derrida that you are referring to the idea that any portion of derrida is just utilitarian doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derrida's ethical position is probably closer to the classical utilitarian stance than Levinas (hence calculating the incalculable), but that doesn't make him a utilitarian.

 

The "other Other" and "the Third" are generally the same concept in these things.

 

I think the right way to think about Derrida's ethical work is not in terms of what decisions we should make, but how we should feel about those decisions. The problem of the Third is that in Order for us to be hospitable, we must always in a sense sacrifice some other Other. This is why Derrida speaks of the "gift of death," since our very ethical actions require a sacrifice. It is two easy to take the utilitarian or deontological position of "I made the right decision, it was for the greater good." The problem is by taking this stance we have rendered the call of those sacrificed as meaningless.

 

I could talk more about Derrida's ethical thinking, but am not sure how it helps for answering Edelman.

You really need to achieve three things in order to answer Edelman from a Derridian perspective:

1. Answer Lacan. Derrida's has a better approach to politics, etc.

2. Answer the "ethics of the death drive". The idea that we should embrace our destructive impulses is kinda bizarre, but key to Edelman's thought. Think about this, cut a few derridan's who talk about it and you will be find.

3. Impact turn the future. At some level this is easy. Edelman's argument boils down to this: quests to control the future--to make its unconquerable otherness into the same--end up requiring real violence against those who represent a threat to these visions of the future. Therefore edelman says we should, at least symbolically, destroy the future. From a Derridian perspective this is literally backwards. The future is the space of our own imperfection--the thing we cannot control. The proper radical stance is to embrace the Otherness of the future.

 

You probably also want to defend a different model of queer politics. Hospitality, Otherness, and all that other derridan shit sounds pretty reasonable.

 

Seriously, finding cards that make these arguments (including responding directly to edelman) is not that hard.

 

Other possible strategies include defending a "politics of becoming" (Deleuze) or pure policy style futurism.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification of the Derrida discussion.

 

Also, I wasn't aware of some of the nuanced aspects of Edleman. I thought it was the typical otherization and securitization style argument applied in a particular context--clearly I was mistaken. Thanks for that clarification as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any of the following can be used **selectively** against arguments like Edleman:

 

1) Identity politics bad

How? Edelman makes the point that there is no static notion of Identity, and says that queerness is defined by its opposition to identity politics, as opposed to being defined by identity politics, which is "always oppositionally defined".

 

In dumber terms, queer does *not* mean "Not heterosexual" but rather "the object of the death drive" that which does not have a name. It link turns ID Tix. Next time you try to help someone, don't be an idiot.

 

2) The Other-Other (Derrida) I think its just utilitarianism applied to "others"

Util is responsive.

 

3) Stupid Underground (Mann) available online. Mann also wrote Masocriticism (part of the argument is literally the underground is stupid and silly....but also if they want to be successful they have to be more strategic in their confrontations with power)

Edelman doesn't try to break down reproductive futurism becuase "that would be a repitition of the futurist utopia, and just as lethal as the past". This argument is a non-sequitor.

 

4) Find another leftist orientation (aka -ism) which critiques the value position edleman.

This is called an impact turn debate. Also the aff mostly won't like to things like feminism et al. Rather they'd just kritik your end-point. Meaning a no link + kritik of the impact being a rather odd position to put yourself in. There's also really good permutation solvency for most of these Ks, specifically capitalism and feminism.

 

5) Internal critiques of GLBT politics (also called Queer theory) If you read about the successes and failures of movements, particularly gay movements, you can likely create your own strat.

Edelman criticizes traditional GLBT politics/Queer Theory. His arugment is not to include the queer, but rather that we should embrace queerness as its exclusion from society.

 

6) Multi-dimensionality/Intersectionality/Essentialism (can be combined with Friere...people have to free themselves)

Link turned, it's not about freedom, it's about trying to move away from freedom.

 

7) Hardt and Negri aren't exactly feeling identity politics (aka Empire)

Explained above, you're an idiot. Also they link turn Empire as a whole, capitalism especially, and Identity Politics. Do this debate if you want to lose.

 

8) Depending on their advocacy....State bad w/ PIK (George evidence)

NOW THIS is actually a good strategy *assuming* said team (Pembroke) defends the State. I believe they lost one of their bid rounds on this at St. Marks. A smart Edelman team (I.E. one that reads Edelman properly) won't defend the State, making this strategy useless.

 

9) Normativity/Schlag (see also Phrenology and the article by Delgado on

Normativity)

Again, assumes that they use the State, otherwise this is totally useless.

 

10) You gotta spec your alt...or you fail.

Fail at what? Solving? Oh yeah, the aff doesn't claim to do that. Suck less.

 

11) Depending on the articulation: Textual/discursive focus bad

Why? There is not a single (good) Lacanian that will lose this debate. You would have to *also* win A) Lack doesn't exist B) The world isn't entirely representations C) There is a Static Notion of Identity and D) That the Real can be molded by our actions, in order to win this argument. If you win ABC and D (or hell, even A and B) then you should win the round on a disad, there's no reason to force yourself to have to win other asinine arguments to get to a worse terminal impact.

 

Note: about 1/3 of the above assume they have some sort of articulated alternative (of course you could put them in a doublebind, which suggests either they don't have one--which is death--or they do and that fails)

 

how the fuck is death the alternative? And FAIL AT WHAT? What is the aff trying to do that they fail at? What are you talking about?

 

For a real argument, look into lesbian-motherhood, it's a kritik of Edelman's exclusion of lesbians from his intersection of queer theory and Lacan.

Also: (Bad strat in my opinion) there are links about how Lacan focuses too much on the phallus for a link to feminism.

Also: Find "Brenkman" he writes specific indicts of Edelman's approach to Queer Theory.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those clarifications.

 

1) So my identity based claims (Empire, Identity politics bad) aren't responsive--or are bad ideas. (aka I'm jettisoning about 3 of the above arguments

 

2) Ok...not an alternative per se--but an end result of the argument. What a world of endorsing their vision of reality means and results in. (see also Issacs)

 

3) Also, the Mann argument I'm pretty sure would still apply.

 

4) Normativity isn't just statism or CLS in drag. Its a criticism of the justifications for personal and political action. Its also a fundamental criticism of the should question.

 

5) Depending on their stance on the state you could run a civic engagement disad (although this lets them unload their state bad arguments--but that might be strategic depending on how dispositional you make your arguments)

 

6) Lee Edleman puts too much emphasis on the signified.

 

7) Answers to Lacan and psychoanalysis. (note the link isn't to the actual answers, just the mentions of, so it requires about 5 to 7 minutes to sort through).

 

Two other options to answer Edleman:

1) In addition, my guess is impact turns of Lacan/psychoanalysis would work too. (although I'm sure there is some sort of nuanced argument)

 

2) You could go all in on the following four arguments:

---utilitarianism

---realism good

---fear good

---AT: value to life

---I would throw lacan turns into the mix as well...(as it gives you another leg to stand on)

---as well as my "your alt doesn't work"

---and some criticism of this futurism argument

 

On a side note why isn't Kurusawa responsive? Are they talking about two different notions of futurism? Or?

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You MUST answer Lacan or you will not beat this argument. Period. Edelman's nuance is that he is Lacan with an aside about queer theory. He just takes Lacanian ideas and applies them to queer theory. His base is Lacan, and NOT queer theory.

 

Realism isn't responsive, fear good is also not responsive. Util is, and so is A2 VTL.

 

Schlag is still really not responsive, and alsoa really bad idea. There is a VERY large literature base criticizing Schlag from a Lacanian standpoint. And NOT a strong literature base responding to it.

 

Mann is wholly unresponsive. Edelman says we should *not* be underground. We should accept being outcasted, and not an attempt to subvert the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schlag is still really not responsive, and alsoa really bad idea. There is a VERY large literature base criticizing Schlag from a Lacanian standpoint. And NOT a strong literature base responding to it.
Given that...I would explain how the plan text runs counter to Lacan. (or impact turn lacan)

 

OR

 

This would actually be a semi-decent trojan horse...which would allow you to run Lacanian impact turns in the block--not that you were prevented from doing so in the first place. (with the intent of jettisoning the original Schlag argument unless they just mishandled it)

 

Mann is wholly unresponsive. Edelman says we should *not* be underground. We should accept being outcasted, and not an attempt to subvert the system.
This makes sense now.

 

Doesn't realism good answer the security argument. Or is it that its only an indirect answer?

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
Kurusawa is not responsive.

Nice try.

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

obviously I wasn't talking about that kind of futurism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I'd like to add to Dudley's analysis is that Masocriticism has traction - period. But you better know what your talking about, and you better be prepared to 1-off it, or you'll get trashed.... although in reality, it's only SO strong of a position, so its much better to just do one of the following:

 

1.) Concede the round and go get a salad/cheeseburger with the wicked cool guys/gals running edelman

 

2.) Attack Framework and develop your strat like you would a non-edelman abortion case with lacan indicts on case, perhaps solvency.

 

3.) Ask them if they defend the State, if they do - read their own friggin cards back at them on the negative.

 

but seriously now, number one aint such a bad idea... i might even buy you a frosty libation to pass the time.

Edited by bigsham411

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good answer would be through Zizek. I read the argument in a v-debate somewhere, called it an Ideology critique. The affirmative's proffered plan is a no-risk venture taken in the sterile realm of debate. Its revolutionary potential is subverted in the name of winning and losing rounds. The affirmative team knows that the plan won't get passed at the end of the round either way, so they take on what they know to be an impossible task as a form of intellectual masturbation instead of actually committing to an authentic action. This position allows them to shirk off any responsibility of the transformation of the Social Order and place the burden on the judge, who is faced with the task of either letting all the cards fall down (at which point they would shout out "but that isn't what we wanted!"), or to maintain the current social coordinates so they can continue indulging in their desire to protest.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism good only answers the very minute portion of Edelman that is security. Most otherwise, realism is only as responsive as it is to Lacan. Irrelevant. Realism explains interactions between States. Lacan says that a focus on the State as a Big Other is bad.

 

Oh: Framework is responsive. But knowing Pembroke they just copy OU's answers to this shit. And they're not as good as OU was.

Edited by Studley Dudley
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Realism good only answers the very minute portion of Edelman that is security. Most otherwise, realism is only as responsive as it is to Lacan. Irrelevant. Realism explains interactions between States. Lacan says that a focus on the State as a Big Other is bad.

 

Seriously, this. Realism is not responsive to every single K, kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Deleuze and Guattari also be responsive to this? Not only to his Lacanian base, but also to his notion of a "queer" identity? I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've got down with some DnG.

 

Then again, how many things are Deleuze and Guattari not responsive to?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh: Framework is responsive. But knowing Pembroke they just copy OU's answers to this shit. And they're not as good as OU was.

 

I'm not sure what "knowing Pembroke" is supposed to mean, but our framework answers are original. Obviously we owe a lot to OU's aff and cites, but it does a disservice to the work Brad and Lewis have done to say that all we do is copy their answers.

 

Their cites are on the wiki for a reason - so people have access to them. But it would not be possible to run the Edelman aff successfully without going deeper than what OU has online; besides the 1AC, there are only a few cites on their page.

 

Not a big deal, but your post gives me the feeling you have some kind of hostility towards us.

Edited by THodgman
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't Deleuze and Guattari also be responsive to this? Not only to his Lacanian base, but also to his notion of a "queer" identity? I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've got down with some DnG.

 

Then again, how many things are Deleuze and Guattari not responsive to?

Not totally sure about the implications, but on this year's college topic we hit UTSA's affirmative at Georgia State that integrated both Deleuze and Edelman (Edelman came as a response on framework and an answer to the Cap K). Somebody more versed than me can figure out where their positions clash (as well as where Deleuze diverges from his work with Guittari).

 

EDIT: There also needs to be way less hostility in the K forum. Chill out, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and even though Brenkman wrote an article attacking No Future, any team worth their salt should have Post-Partum Carded which is Edelman cracking the whip right back at him... it would be a nice debate, regardless, but if it comes down to knowledge of the literature the AFF probably has the upper-hand.

Also, I think there's some Brenkman in the Michigan file...

But to explore the potential for Feminism as an Argument - it requires a very fine line be walked. First, you must win the link - and the only remotely intelligent link stories are that:

A) Edelman somehow views motherhood as the antithesis of queerness or

B) Edelman focus' solely on homophobia's disabling of masculinity

C) Focusing on the issue of abortion without the historical debate surrounding it subjugates women’s role in the process of reproduction.

However, the problem with these is that they themselves presuppose the identity of motherhood and masculinity as something to or not to be advocated. To quote Edelman more specifically, "Queerness, unlike 'lesbian,' 'gay,' 'bisexual,' 'transsexual,' or 'transgendered,' can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one."

Therefore, Queerness cannot be the antithesis of motherhood, only the destabilizing signifier which over-codes motherhood, femininity, masculinity, etc. within the logic of the same (i.e. the symbolic order which upholds paternalistic understandings of motherhood and attempts to fixate them as identities to be subjugated).

And, in terms of Edelman's focusing on masculine notions of subjugation - the same answer can be applied. It’s only when viewed within the realm of the current social order that this could be discerned, and even still, it’s completely subjective based on the viewer’s notion of masculinity. Further, Edelman’s project is not to reclaim lost masculinity or mourn some loss of it (that would contradict the entire premises of the Lack), but to embrace sinthomosexuality which is that identity which names Queerness, or more accurately, that identity which disregards its identity to embrace its own unnamable Queerness. In this respect, it can almost be likened with a traversal of the fantasy in so far that it accepts the irreducibility of the Lack.

On the issue of woman’s role in the process of reproduction - Edelman does address this, just not in the way Jennifer Doyle and Carol-Anne Tyler want him to. Edelman inherently disregards projects of inclusion (i.e. giving the 'choice' of abortion) and specifically, he doesn't care about the relation of queer theory to sexual orientation or the affirmation of various forms of identity - "Queerness" is a larger issue, it is what we put outside the knowable and/or acceptable. To quote page 6 of No Future, “Queerness dispossesses the ground on which current social ground rests.” Queer Negativity then is a totally rejection, in every instance, that cannot reinforce a ‘positive’ social value. As I’ve argued above, Queerness is not the antithesis of motherhood; rather, motherhood is only one signifier in an infinite chain which make Queerness possible.

If anyone can articulate another Link story I’d be glad to analyze it within the framework of Edelman, but traditional links will fall just as hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Realism good only answers the very minute portion of Edelman that is security. Most otherwise, realism is only as responsive as it is to Lacan. Irrelevant. Realism explains interactions between States. Lacan says that a focus on the State as a Big Other is bad.

 

Oh: Framework is responsive. But knowing Pembroke they just copy OU's answers to this shit. And they're not as good as OU was.

 

LULZ GOOD ONE!

 

KRISTINA QIU'S FORMER TOOL - NOW FARHAD MIRZADEH'S - SUGGESTING A TEAM THAT HAS A TOTAL OF 8 TIMES THE BIDS HE HAD IN HIGH SCHOOL ISN'T GOOD!

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...