Jump to content
Lazzarone

Johnny 23' kritik (1NC shell)

Recommended Posts

I don't Mean to be curt But, when the Alternative to Micro-Fascism is more Micro-Fascism, how in the Sweet Pimple on Satan's Ass is it a change from today?

 

 

Let's Talk about the Card that says all writing is pig shit, well sir, this would classify your own authors as full of pig shit thus contradicting the importance of the Kritik.

 

Now let's fo on the card starting with the Tagline "He goes on" Un-hilighted is the line, "ht heightened sailence of this should signal the danger that critical thinking and oral advocacy skills alone may not be sufficient for citizens to assert the voices in public deliberation."

 

Your Kritik is all that...without the bag of chips, Critical Thinking and Oral Advocacy, that's it, your alt does nothing more when all you want to do is go into another debate room and orally advocate someone else's critical thinking.

 

Now the facist card after that "It's too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you...." that whole line is important because it basically says "Everyone is a little bit Fascist"

 

The next card is completely power tagged Because your spouting wonderful things about Micro fascism in debate and all that, but the tagline goes on to talk about The real inorganization. Anyone can point that out and say this card should be thrown out and despite what the kritik says, if your going to go on pre-packaged cards that you say are bad, at least make them better than the affirmatives, but when you power tag to get your argument, you sir are linking for more into your kritik than the Affirmative ever will unless they choose to power tag their entire Speech.

 

On to the next card, If you want to move on to the next round and get this into the debate machine then As soon as you run this in round 2 you are NOT expirimenting your running a pre-packaged argument filled with Micro-Fascism in the attempt to win a debate round. You sir are taking this travesty about debate you have pointed out Polished into a little fine knife And stuck it into the side of the debate Machine and low and behold you dented it instead of rebuild it, because as per your First reference to Gordon Mitchell you have just taken this disturbing image of Debate for an argument for you to win.

 

But We're not done yet:

 

You then ask the Judge to Simply Vote Neg to bring this critique farther into the Debate Machine. SO The Alternative to Steralizing Horrors of the Real world in debate and all of this litterate pig shit is MORE Steralizing Horrors and litterate pig shit. So we can discuss in future rounds this travesty and... Let the Neg win! I'm starting to see a cycle of Micro-Fascism of focusing on ONE ARGUMENT! REPLACING DEBATE WITH DEBATE GENIUS!!!! Because in realizing the critique you have to realize that all literature is pig shit! With That you have a bunch of pig shit to look at in the round with a bunch of jackasses trying to tell you What the pig shit means! Why don't we have more sophisticated words for that?! Oh yes, it's called Debate Jargain!

 

I'd like to quote parts from that card that Contradict what the Neg would like us to think of this Kritik, "Do not demand of politics that it restore the "rights" of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. You sir are trying to demand of debate politics to restore the right of the indivudal crticial thinking, which your cards previous have stated won't be enough to actually do anything, along with the fact that this is a form of Micr-Fascism that just replaces old microfacsism.

 

We have one more thing with that!

You may think that simply realising that in this round you link to your kritik is enough but because you suggest to throw it into more debate Not only does it make you a hypocrite, worse than someone unknowledgeable because you embrace your inner fascist! But You are ALSO not Aware of the fact that you are replacing Debate with More Debate, so You also lose the effectiveness of saying "We realise we bite" because you bite in so many more ways than the affirmative will ever do, and if they do you can win without having to run this kritik. Then Why do you do it? To Perpetuate your own Micro-fascism into the debate World. This is how the Machine that you want to use works. Garbage In, Garbage out, when someone writes a better Kritik, yours will be old news and have to be shoved Back through the Debate Machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you know what? I'm going to throw caution to the wind and just openly tell you that this Kritik is just sad in so many ways. So just sit back and relax as I rip your precious Johnny 23 apart.

 

"For literature is like schizophrenia: a process and not a goal, a production and not an expression."

 

That's your first 'card'. Already you're screwing yourself over with argumentation. You say that we need to step away from the sterility and rigid 'fascism' of debate, but you're proceeding yourself towards a goal, and the production of this Kritik just furthers the fact that this K bites itself to pieces. It doesn't matter if some parts of the K bite itself, but this isn't that part you're saving your ass from. You bite it by providing a goal and by producing the K. The only way to get out of it would be to memorize it. Good luck with that.

 

"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."

 

Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but when you so much as put the cards into a FORMAT, or PRESENT THEM IN A DEBATE ROUND, you have lost to your own Kritik; because you're enslaving the work of the author(s). How does it feel, to fall prey to your very own microfascism (I'll cover that later, too).

 

"Oedipus is in fact literary before being psychoanalytic...all writing is so much pig shit...Every writer is a sellout."

 

Your authors have just admitted that his writing, that he sells out, is just another pile of heaping pig shit. There is no reason we should listen to your Kritik anymore and, frankly, I never wanted to read it in the first place besides all your self-absorbed, self-righteous bullshit that you keep spewing out. Stop pretending like this Kritik is worth anything.

 

Next, on your first Gordon Mitchell card...

 

"Notice that the critical issue here is not the misinterpretation of content but the reduction of all content to a restrictive format."

 

Uhm...I'm pretty sure that throughout this entire K you're restricting the entire debate round to a 'vote neg' choice, which completely kills any 'education' you think you solve for, and does nothing more that beat free thought over the head with a cudgel. Because, you see, the problem is now that you're restricting the entire debate round further than you would if you were to let debate continue normally. That's just another reason to drop the K as a whole.

 

Also, in the same card it states that "...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."

 

This means that every last example you run about debate being so incredibly horrible is just a disgusting overdramatization of what is actually going on. You have now lost all your 'debate bad' arguments because they're nothing more than stupid molly-coddle based on a blown-up metaphor. Congratz.

 

 

With your Deleuze and Guattari data, towards the end it states that:

 

"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."

 

So, you read it so you concede it, correct? That means you don't know if you're being fascist or not. Let me tell you, man, you are. The mini-fascist inside of you is growing, and taking advantage of your poor, small, uneducated brain and it's making you run this K in the small hope that it will win. So for the sake of us all, kill the fascist inside you by burning the K and deleting the data off of every memory device you stored this disease ridden thing on.

 

In the next D+G card, I'm going to reference the tagline.

 

"...using the appearance of a legitimate carded position in order to further ILLEGITIMATE QUESTIONS."

 

Your tag just said that you're illegitimate. So now either you're screwed or if you change it you've been powertagging; either way you're a bad boy.

 

Further in the card it states that "This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find and advantages place on it..."

 

Mr. Confuzzled, I'll have you know that what I quoted above is the VERY ESSENCE of debate. You said that it has to be done. Debate has to be done. And then you lose. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

 

In the card where you 'ask for our support', it states that if the author was to make it into a guide it would be "Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia". That's DEBATE!!!

 

Next paragraph, it says you have to "develop action, thought, and desires..." That's debate as well. So you're affirming debate. Good for you. So permable I don't even have to mention it.

 

Also in the same card it states that we must "Use political practice as an intensifier of thought..." Sorry to say, man, but that's debate, too. Sorry.

 

Take your own advice...

 

"Do not become enamored of power."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's say i'm an advocate for free and fair elections, but i live in a country that's been ruled by a succession of kings and queens, and i'm the next in line to the throne...

 

the moment i become king someone might say, "you're contradicting yourself: you weren't elected, therefore you must step down".

 

that argument from logical consistency, while strictly speaking true, would result in the resumption of tyranny. all things being equal, in this abstract hypothetical, one should take power in order to institute free elections, and we'd be justifiably skeptical of anyone who lambasted the 'hypocrisy' of such a strategy, since they'd likely have an interest in preserving the monarchy.

 

 

does j23 risk exhibiting the very micro-fascistic tendencies it critiques? yes, of course. this must be openly acknowledged and continually reappraised (as other kritiks fail to do). but it's just as important to keep our eye on the main danger: permitting the unconscious micro-fascisms of debate in its current form to go unchallenged.

 

what we're dealing with here is a problem deleuze dealt with throughout his philosophical and political career: the problem of 'the beautiful soul' - the one who is too pure for any real political engagement, who cares more about logical consistency than practical results.

 

the opposite problem is the problem of 'the fascist inside'. what's crucial to realize here is that there are no easy escapes from this double-bind, and if someone tells you there is, they're more than likely trying to sell you on the self-evident desirability of the status quo.

 

without wishing to engage in any mean-spiritedness, that's the sense i get from the above respondents, though i'll reply to their concerns in good faith, as i'm unable to compete with their skillful use of witty catch-phrases ('you are the weakest link', 'chewbacca defense', etc.).

 

_

 

i.c.a. : "Isn't the kritik's hard line stance on possible ways of using debate practices fascist in itself?"

 

quite possibly. but we first have to remove the simple innocence you ascribe to 'the presentation of a good idea' as per the 1a.c. and its stylistic choices. this corresponds to what deleuze called 'the moral image of thought', as levi bryant explains it ('difference and givenness', page 16),

 

if there is a problem with the pre-philosophical image of thought, it is that it remains merely conventional while nonetheless universalizing its presuppositions. such an image of thougt fails to recognize it is itself a point of view and therefore contingent or non-universal. in other words, the image of thought is a matter of prejudice and a blindness to prejudice.

 

this is readily apparent in the unquestioned assumption that "the goal of debate is to win through fiat-world implications" (l.s.k.) -- byrant again (ibid., page 17),

 

the problem is one of the manner in which these presuppositions tend to conceal themselves and become invisible, foreclosing the possibility of difference and the production of the new. ... as a result, thought is led to denounce difference and divergence as aberrant or perverted departues from which is recognizable, normal, and therefore true.

 

...and perhaps this explains some of the vitriol launched this critique's way.

 

it's suggested there aren't significant real-world negative impacts to debate training: "My point about naming one debater other than Karl Rove is to prove that while many debaters do go on to work in the state, you can't name more than one who has 'legitimated an insidious form of social control.' There is zero evidence to suggest that debate practices actually turn us into uncaring individuals who want nothing but violence on others. Karl Rove is inconsequential. Karl Rove is a psychological sociopath who just happened to participate in high school policy debate. The activity itself did not turn him into what he is, but rather the approach he took towards the activity."

 

putting aside the fact that many of us might consider the state itself 'an insidious form of social control', the excerpt quoted above from mitchell's article does evidence that "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'." ...i also don't think karl rove is "inconsequential" - he's an example of the kinds of practices debate can promote; he's a cautionary tale. at dartmouth debate institute, there was a lecture many years running called 'how to lie, cheat, and steal'. this is the approach rove took to the extreme, but it's an approach that still persists in the activity to this day, one that must be accounted for and critiqued. literally tens of thousands of debaters go on to perform important functions in areas like law, journalism, activism, etc., and to contend that how they spent many years and years of their formative school-age days is wholly irrelevant is, quite frankly, far-fetched.

 

"Arguments about what's right and what's wrong and what's true and what's false go on in every sector of academia with people defending their ideas with warrants and yet they are not totalitarian. How is debate any different?"

 

dogmatism is pervasive in academia and elsewhere; debate is but one link in the chain, though a potentially crucial one. please notice, however, that it's not that discussions of right and wrong or true and false are inherently 'totalitarian'; it's that such discussions often fail to sufficiently question their assumptive frameworks. consider how the resolution is typically interpreted in academic debate (specifically, the role of the framers) in the context of the following passage by deleuze (from 'difference and repetition', page 158),

 

We are led to believe that problems are given ready-made, and that they disappear in the responses or the solution. Already, under this double aspect, they can be no more than phantoms. We are led to believe that the activity of thinking, along with truth and falsehood in relation to that activity, begins on with the search for solutions, that both of these concern only solutions. This belief probably has the same origin as the other postulates of the dogmatic image: puerile examples taken out of context and arbitrarily erected into models. According to this infantile prejudice, the master sets a problem, our task is to solve it, and the result is accredited true or false by a powerful authority. It is also a social prejudice with the visible interest of maintaining us in an infantile state, which calls upon us to solve problems that come from elsewhere, consoling or distracting us by telling us that we have won simply by being able to respond[.] ... Such is the origin of the grotesque image of culture that we find in examinations and government referenda as well as in newspaper competitions (where everyone is called upon to choose according to his or her taste, on condition that this taste coincides with that of everyone else). Be yourselves - it being understood that this self must be that of others. As if we would not remain as slaves so long as we do not control the problems themselves, so long as we do not possess a right to the problems, to a participation in and management of the problems. The dogmatic image of thought supports itself with psychologically puerile and socially reactionary examples (cases of recognition, error, simple propositions and solutions or responses) in order to prejudge what should be most valued in regard to thought - namely, the genesis of the act of thinking...

 

'be yourself - it being understood that this self must be that of others' is the skeptical tone we need to adopt to demystify the apparent freedom of choice given to debaters ("Some teams spread and read 30 cards, some just give a slow speech"). what's missed is that "the master [still] sets a problem, [debaters'] task is to solve it, and the result is accredited true or false by [a debate judge]". fact is, most problems are infinitely more complicated than this, and to assume otherwise 'maintains us in an infantile state', which may help explain why even debaters cite the authority of their hallowed framers against one another. what's crucial to understand is that the problems themselves are only valued insofar as they produce (or fail to produce) solutions (or, 'cases'), and thus they exist only as 'phantoms' - that is, we don't truly confront them. and that's how a conventional, seemingly innocent, and half-unconscious practice can lead to what mitchell refers to as "the sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture" exemplified when "debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune". ...make sense?

 

there's a bit fuller explanation here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1329853&postcount=126

 

"debate and the 1AC isn't an actual role-play of the federal government. It's just two people, in a room, resolved that it would be a good idea if the federal government were to do the plan. This kind of proposal of good policy ideas occurs in all kinds of social, local movements who all try to change the state for the better. Debate is not only a personal advocacy of those who advocate the plan, but also a movement to get that plan the support of people, one judge at a time."

 

here the argument just made against j23 ('it's been discussed, so give us the ballot') flips back: certainly there's better ways of convincing fellow citizens of the goodness of your policy idea than 'one judge at a time' at a debate tournament, but now that you've brought your case to light, that's sufficient real-world solvency, so you won't be needing the ballot. =)

 

realistically, however, we're in no position to withdraw or not withdraw from the state; it's only a question of whether we delude ourselves into thinking we can actually effectuate change at that level or whether we instead focus on the issues where we can make a difference, like how we want this argumentative game to look.

 

on 'evidence', as i said before the problem isn't misrepresentation of scholarship but the leveling of scholarship to mere representation. this is akin to the way actual problems become 'phantoms' in deleuze's sense. i'm in no way saying "we shouldn't state the opinions of qualified authors". i'm quoting deleuze left-and-right. i'm saying we shouldn't pretend we're doing so "to propose good ideas backed up by the facts". i'm sorry, but for me that's a mystification, regardless of how sincerely its believed (and i do take you to be sincere). debate is a game; the point of this critique is not to reject the game and thereby get on with some boring notion of 'real activism', but simply to invent new ways of playing the game that are currently occluded by the traditional model.

_

 

l.s.k. : "Kritiks already exist; they've existed for years, they win ballots. Saying that a specific kritik is needed to change the debate world is like saying that a specific brand of cell phone is needed in order to shift the world away from traditional phones."

 

not all kritiks are born equal, and this critique is staunchly critical of the majority of kritiks and their unwillingness to question their own assumptions. so this 'non-unique' is like saying that because telephones exist, we don't need cellphones.

 

"Your argument links to itself - it's a speech."

 

where did i say 'speech bad'? i said the way debate typically understands speech (solely as propositions to be judged true or false) is bad because it excludes what massumi calls 'more moving dimensions of experience' which rhetoric as an art-form is certainly more than capable of engendering.

 

"The best poem still deserves to lose if it's not relevant, non-topical, or otherwise meaningless. It can be alive all it wants."

 

and that levels all poetry to inefficient communication. if you're going to simply extract 'relevant' claims from a poem, then you could've just spewed out a few cards. point is, what's relevant can't be predetermined before the encounter -- that's the dogmatic image of thought (see above).

 

"Basketball players don't complain that they need to use their hands to throw the ball into the air; baseball players don't complain that they need to hit the ball with a bat. It's true that policy debate is a game to some extent - it's a sanctioned competition, with (some skeleton of rules) - and arguing that you shouldn't need to use the rules of the game to win is just asinine."

 

never said we shouldn't play by the rules to win. you can't stand up and punch a debater in the face during a round, and that's a good rule. you can't speak over your allotted time - another fine rule. but we're not talking about rules; we're talking about practices, and you're assuming that because one practice is dominant (namely, 'fiat'), it's the best. pete maravich disagreed.

 

one difference, however, between basketball/baseball and debate is that certain conventions are up for debate within the normal course of the activity itself. the former is usually limited to arguing the call (which usually amounts to arguing for the *next* call). debaters get to argue about what lines to draw, and this creative potential is something which is unique, and something worth preserving.

 

"The judge is being bribed by the real-world implications of a neg vote - namely, the legitimization of your asinine arguments."

 

i'm not daniel webster, but i think a bribe has something to do with making illegal payments in exchange for favors. how does voting negative benefit the judge again?

 

"You have no warrants that standard debate is stagnant."

 

real-world problems become dead ghosts, scholarly work is chopped down to 'minor expressive activity that secretes ideology according to the dominant codes', literautre and poetry are viewed as irrelevant and/or inefficient. how much time is wasted every round on procedurals? how many rounds won on idiotic dropped arguments? how many generic disadvantages run that have no relation whatsoever to the affirmative case? how many resolutions in a row which center on the tired ol' u.s.f.g.? how much redundant file-work? ...as foucault asked, 'has anyone ever seen a new idea come out a polemic?'

 

http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html

 

"Your argument exists as a means to avoid actual debate of policy, resulting in further stagnation of debate. Voter for education, etc."

 

i respectfully disagree. this critique seeks to open up new educational encounters, and it's a needed contribution to debate theory because people like you still argue as you do; so, your argument proves its necessity.

 

"Shooting yourself in the foot is a sign of strength now? Your argument isn't even internally consistant and you're saying that's good? What message does that send to the future debaters who you hope to help out by "broadening the horizons" of debate? That they can have logically flawed arguments, but it doesn't matter because you're using good rhetoric?"

 

you didn't note what i wrote with sufficient care: i'm not reprieving every logical inconsistency ever, but differentiating this one by its open acknowledgment of complicity as a necessary first step toward liberation. it's what hegel called 'a negation of negation'. zizek explains it like so ('the ticklish subject', page 71-2),

 

the first reaction of the oppressed to their oppression is that they imagine a world simply deprived of the other that exerts oppression on them - women imagine a world without men; african-americans a world without whites; workers a world without capitalists. . . . the mistake of such an attitude is not that it is 'too radical', that it wants to annihilate the other instead of merely changing it; but, on the contrary, that it is not radical enough: it fails to examine the way the identity of its own position (that of a worker, a woman, an african-american . . .) is 'mediated' by the other (there is no worker without a capitalist organizing the production process, etc.), so that if one is to get rid of the oppressive other, one has substantially to transform the content of one's own position.

 

likewise, for many debaters reading this the only logically consistent way to adopt this critique is to imagine a forum without rules, or attempt to destroy debate, or to simply quit. but for me that's not radical enough, as it fails to examine how dominant debate practices have infected one's own identity, even if one were to leave the activity. rather the solution is to negate the negation, which necessarily entails some contradiction, but towards the end of authentic transformation. those who are 'too pure' for such real-world dirtiness only want things to go on as they are - i.e., to remain safe and stagnant. so far from hurting solvency, a self-admitted contradiction is the only way to really solve. the pathetic illusions of liberation offered by most rejectionist and/or activist kritiks are simply another way of refusing to threaten the status quo - 'playing fiddles while the world smolders', in the words of your analogy.

_

 

dominordrian : "when the Alternative to Micro-Fascism is more Micro-Fascism, how in the Sweet Pimple on Satan's Ass is it a change from today?"

 

almost every liberating act is potentially fascistic; we must honestly deal with this brute fact, at the same time as we refuse to accept the micro-fascisms at large.

 

yes, artaud is right: we're pigshit - but at least we admit it, and do our best to inaugurate a real process that 'ploughs the crap of being'. yes, we're sell-outs, but so are all writers - the only difference being we place an explosive device in the pre-packaged argument, fabricating a counterfeit currency that explodes the stale form from within. you don't do this, therefore you lose:

 

as for the un-highlighted portion of mitchell's article ("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."), this is why debate training alone isn't sufficient, since those skills can be used for good or ill. i agree that signaling the danger is only a first step, though a necessary one.

 

yes, 'everyone is a little bit Fascist', which argues for constant vigilance, not any dismissive conservatism.

 

"The next card is completely power tagged Because your spouting wonderful things about Micro fascism in debate and all that, but the tagline goes on to talk about The real inorganization. Anyone can point that out and say this card should be thrown out and despite what the kritik says, if your going to go on pre-packaged cards that you say are bad, at least make them better than the affirmatives, but when you power tag to get your argument, you sir are linking for more into your kritik than the Affirmative ever will unless they choose to power tag their entire Speech."

 

you're mistaken: only the last sentence of the paragraph you're referring to is 'a tag' - the former sentences are transitional between the previous quotation and the next one; they also clarify our position and preempt your 'performative contradiction'-type arguments - ergo, no power-tagging.

 

"If you want to move on to the next round and get this into the debate machine then As soon as you run this in round 2 you are NOT expirimenting your running a pre-packaged argument filled with Micro-Fascism in the attempt to win a debate round."

 

already conceded it's a pre-packaged argument - see above; the experiment is what happens in specific encounters and what happens as the critique blows up - both unpredictable beforehand.

 

"SO The Alternative to Steralizing Horrors of the Real world in debate and all of this litterate pig shit is MORE Steralizing Horrors and litterate pig shit."

 

ever heard of a necessary evil?... see the opening hypothetical on the hypocritical monarch.

 

yaddayaddayadda ..."Debate Jargain!"... yaddayaddayadda

 

"I'd like to quote parts from that card that Contradict what the Neg would like us to think of this Kritik, "Do not demand of politics that it restore the "rights" of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. You sir are trying to demand of debate politics to restore the right of the indivudal crticial thinking, which your cards previous have stated won't be enough to actually do anything"

 

wow, a new argument. unfortunately, we're not trying to restore 'the rights of the individual' - that'd be akin to arguing that current debate practices are 'unfair' as per a traditional procedural abuse argument. instead we simply call them what they are - dogmatic, through and through.

 

"Not only does it make you a hypocrite, worse than someone unknowledgeable because you embrace your inner fascist!"

 

by calling attention to micro-fascisms, we "embrace" our inner fascists? ...hrm, have to think on that one.

 

"But You are ALSO not Aware of the fact that you are replacing Debate with More Debate,"

 

from the shell: "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."

 

"so You also lose the effectiveness of saying "We realise we bite" because you bite in so many more ways than the affirmative will ever do,"

 

does that mean the perm bites even more? ...why does acknowledginng one's complicity make one more complicit than someone unaware of what they're doing? and what's the alternative - that it's better to be ignorant?

 

"when someone writes a better Kritik, yours will be old news"

 

let's hope.

_

 

paper fork : "... your first 'card'. Already you're screwing yourself over with argumentation. You say that we need to step away from the sterility and rigid 'fascism' of debate, but you're proceeding yourself towards a goal, and the production of this Kritik just furthers the fact that this K bites itself to pieces. It doesn't matter if some parts of the K bite itself, but this isn't that part you're saving your ass from. You bite it by providing a goal and by producing the K. The only way to get out of it would be to memorize it. Good luck with that."

 

first, why would simply memorizing something make it any less prefabricated?, but second, what removes the curse from having a goal is that our goal is the process. (it's a little like rorty's reply to those who say his liberalism is ethnocentric: what removes the curse of ethnocentricism is that liberals are precisely the folks who cultivate a distrust for ethnocentricism.)

 

"Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but when you so much as put the cards into a FORMAT, or PRESENT THEM IN A DEBATE ROUND, you have lost to your own Kritik; because you're enslaving the work of the author(s). How does it feel, to fall prey to your very own microfascism (I'll cover that later, too)."

 

don't worry; you're not 'breaking it to me' since it's already in the shell ("Here we are reading cards..."). see answers above.

 

"There is no reason we should listen to your Kritik anymore and, frankly, I never wanted to read it in the first place besides all your self-absorbed, self-righteous bullshit that you keep spewing out. Stop pretending like this Kritik is worth anything."

 

i think you're saying you don't have to listen because we're not sufficiently self-righteous or self-absorbed - otherwise, why not listen?... but you're right; it isn't worth anything... 'all art is quite useless' - http://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/art.html

 

"Uhm...I'm pretty sure that throughout this entire K you're restricting the entire debate round to a 'vote neg' choice, which completely kills any 'education' you think you solve for, and does nothing more that beat free thought over the head with a cudgel. Because, you see, the problem is now that you're restricting the entire debate round further than you would if you were to let debate continue normally. That's just another reason to drop the K as a whole."

 

in debate terms: there's no 'uniqueness' to the critique's restriction (if scrapped, another position would almost certainly be read - one not so self-critical), so there's only the risk of 'solvency'. is your alternative to 'let debate continue normally'? if so, how do you address the problems described - ignore them?

 

"Also, in the same card it states that "...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." This means that every last example you run about debate being so incredibly horrible is just a disgusting overdramatization of what is actually going on. You have now lost all your 'debate bad' arguments because they're nothing more than stupid molly-coddle based on a blown-up metaphor. Congratz."

 

the limit is a potential present in every instance, though i concede it's a matter of degree, which is exactly why critiques like these need to be affirmed, so as not to ever find out how deep the rabbit hole goes. also, it's far from an 'overdramatization' to say the mitchell article argues that debate takes the laboratory model of debate too far - you're the one blowing one clause out of proportion and thus guilty of distortion.

 

"you don't know if you're being fascist or not. Let me tell you, man, you are. The mini-fascist inside of you is growing, and taking advantage of your poor, small, uneducated brain and it's making you run this K in the small hope that it will win. So for the sake of us all, kill the fascist inside you by burning the K and deleting the data off of every memory device you stored this disease ridden thing on."

 

if i am, then aren't you as well? ...the only reason you raise the matter of micro-fascism at all is because we brought it up, and if merely raising the question of micro-fascism is micro-fascist to an extent that we must never raise the question, then you've built a perfect moat. that's how a 'prejudice and blindness to prejudice' can occur simulatenously, says byrant.

 

"Your tag just said that you're illegitimate. So now either you're screwed or if you change it you've been powertagging; either way you're a bad boy."

 

'illegitimate' in the sense that participants such as yourself think these questions shouldn't be discussed and indeed should be deleted from "every memory device you stored this disease ridden thing on".

 

"Mr. Confuzzled, I'll have you know that what I quoted above is the VERY ESSENCE of debate. You said that it has to be done. Debate has to be done."

 

agreed, that's why this is a debate position. no one's saying debate shouldn't be done but that debate should question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself.

 

"'Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia'. That's DEBATE!!!"

 

not as long as it defaults to state politics (the unitary u.s.f.g.); case harms and disadvantage impacts are often a bit totalizing-ly paranoiac as well... which is what r.e.m.'s michael stipe (former debater) satirized in his 'the end of the world' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CmXGKXOmk -- "it's a tournament, tournament, tournament of lies".

 

"So you're affirming debate."

 

in the best possible sense.

 

"Take your own advice... 'Do not become enamored of power.'"

 

thank you, i'll try.

_

 

_

-

-

-

-

Edited by Lazzarone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but second, what removes the curse from having a goal is that our goal is the process.

 

No. I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand the words behind what you're saying. That's like saying I have a goal, but it's a goal wrapped in something. Like bacon-wrapped shrimp. The bacon doesn't stop the shrimp from being shrimp. And the curse (oh, let's say the eventual coronary), is not removed by the removal of the bacon. The bacon's juices and its basic essence has bonded with the shrimp. So, while you're showing the world what you think is a pure, unadulterated Kritik, it's just basted in pig shit like you said. The one difference from normal debate and your Kritik is that debate is not covered in so much animal feces as your K is. When it all comes down to it, this is a battle between who is more/less linkable into the K. And your K is. That's the point we're all making, and you seem to forget to answer that fact time after time after time. If you say microfascism bad, then all it comes down to is which argument is less fascist. And, considering how microfascist your cards are, you will lose every time.

 

don't worry; you're not 'breaking it to me' since it's already in the shell ("Here we are reading cards..."). see answers above.

 

Then you just have to give up the K. The point of the K is to fix something, and if you just continue on your merry way being microfascist, and your alt solves nothing. If, in a matter of a few tournaments, it gets replaced by the next best K, like you said yourself you hoped would happen, you lost all possible solvency. When all is said and done, each and every individual round will garnish no solvency from your Kritik.

 

i think you're saying you don't have to listen because we're not sufficiently self-righteous or self-absorbed - otherwise, why not listen?... but you're right; it isn't worth anything... 'all art is quite useless' - http://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/art.html

 

I'm saying I wouldn't have listened except I grew weary of how amazing you seem to think this K is. Don't try to argue otherwise. If you believed it was as useless as you put on, you wouldn't argue it or bring it onto a forum. And that point alone makes you lose the Kritik because you're aware of what you're doing; and what you're doing is using these authors to win; which is inherently more microfascist than any of us, because you're using these authors they way they weren't intended to. Debate citations? They are opinions meant to be used. Your opinions? They were meant to educate, not be skewed in an attempt to win. At that point your entire K turns on itself. It's discredited, you're discredited, and no one will listen to the K anymore; thereby losing the 'entrance into the debate machine' you so much wanted. Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

 

in debate terms: there's no 'uniqueness' to the critique's restriction (if scrapped, another position would almost certainly be read - one not so self-critical), so there's only the risk of 'solvency'. is your alternative to 'let debate continue normally'? if so, how do you address the problems described - ignore them?

 

There is plenty of uniqueness to the K's restriction. It's restricting the aff, throwing their argument completely out the window. That's rather fascist if you ask me; you're trying to force the judge to think, act, or believe however you feel is necessary; that's not right. You're just a mini-Stalin at that point. Also, it should be scrapped for Kritiks that are more worth our time. I mean, seriously, perm vote aff and just have everyone think about the Kritik. That solves way more than the neg ever could. The neg can only use microfascism to get their way, the perm could actually garnish solvency because it's the best way to spread the 'idea'. There's no risk of microfascism then. It can go straight to the heads of the NFL and then something could happen. Nothing will happen from a common K. Judges will just vote on it and forget it. Perm solves best, you lose. That's how the perm works.

 

the limit is a potential present in every instance, though i concede it's a matter of degree, which is exactly why critiques like these need to be affirmed, so as not to ever find out how deep the rabbit hole goes. also, it's far from an 'overdramatization' to say the mitchell article argues that debate takes the laboratory model of debate too far - you're the one blowing one clause out of proportion and thus guilty of distortion.

 

It's not a matter of how deep the rabbit hole goes, it's a matter of you taking a shovel and making the hole as deep as you want to, so that people believe it was originally that deep. You're blowing everything out of proportion with this K, and your authors admit that. Everything in your K is just 'worst case scenario' not 'this is what's happening', and at that point should get ignored. So yes, it is an overdramatization. If I say snow is cold, it's cold. But if you come up and say that snow is absolute zero, by no means is it that cold. You're bumping it up a few notches too much, and at that point you destroy everything you've fought so hard to 'affirm'.

 

if i am, then aren't you as well? ...the only reason you raise the matter of micro-fascism at all is because we brought it up, and if merely raising the question of micro-fascism is micro-fascist to an extent that we must never raise the question, then you've built a perfect moat. that's how a 'prejudice and blindness to prejudice' can occur simulatenously, says byrant.

 

The only difference between you and me is that I'm not trying to yell my ideals and beliefs about debate from your high-and-mighty soap box. When you try to pretend that you're above the rules of debate, but by doing so you just perpetuate your own implications, you should just step down from the soap box, apologize to everyone for wasting their time, and walk away.

 

'illegitimate' in the sense that participants such as yourself think these questions shouldn't be discussed and indeed should be deleted from "every memory device you stored this disease ridden thing on".

 

That's not the context of the tagline, sir. The context was that it was, indeed, illegitimate. If it were encased in '', I would have allowed it. But it wasn't. If it was precluded with sarcasm, I would have allowed it. If you would have changed it in any way to make sense, I would have allowed it. But you didn't. And now that you've set the K tagline, a change that massive means you're either powertagging to win or you're just full of crap. Or both.

 

agreed, that's why this is a debate position. no one's saying debate shouldn't be done but that debate should question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself.

 

I do believe in your cards by that Gordon fellow it gives nothing but disdain for debate as a whole; not the way it's done. No amount of 5 dollar words will change that. I don't care if you use 'unarticulate presupposition to subvert', it all means the same. It means "Oops, I messed up, and now I have to cover my ass." And you give no impacts as to what happens if debate DOESN'T question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself.

 

not as long as it defaults to state politics (the unitary u.s.f.g.); case harms and disadvantage impacts are often a bit totalizing-ly paranoiac as well... which is what r.e.m.'s michael stipe (former debater) satirized in his 'the end of the world' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CmXGKXOmk -- "it's a tournament, tournament, tournament of lies".

 

Yes, as long as it defaults to state politics. As long as it precludes and includes anything about free political action. Debate is all about free political action. If we didn't have free political action you wouldn't be allowed to run this K you hold so dear and defend so oddly. If there was even a hint of unitary OR totalizing paranoia there wouldn't be Kritiks. Or framework. Or topicality.

 

I'm sorry to say this, but everything about this K makes me laugh. Out of pity.

 

Or, if you're so against debate action, then what about I just kick my affirmative position to allow better debate, and tell you all about my friend Debrix? And how the subversion of thought in any way, shape, or form is the result of tabloid geopolitics, which turn us all into enemies who have the sacrosanct goal of destroying each other.

 

Unless you don't want me to. Then I can just stick to my good ol' aff and you can stick to your good ol' neg. Debate is a game, and in any other game, like football, no one complains when they think that a rule is too demanding or the way we play is stupid.

 

You're just following the rules of the game by trying to find the best way to win. You're no different than any of us, and you know that. We all know that. So just drop the facade of self-righteousness and give me a good ol' "Aw, shucks, you're right: I'm just running this to win."

 

And then maybe I'll like you a little more.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but second, what removes the curse from having a goal is that our goal is the process.

 

No. I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand the words behind what you're saying. That's like saying I have a goal, but it's a goal wrapped in something. Like bacon-wrapped shrimp. The bacon doesn't stop the shrimp from being shrimp. And the curse (oh, let's say the eventual coronary), is not removed by the removal of the bacon. The bacon's juices and its basic essence has bonded with the shrimp. So, while you're showing the world what you think is a pure, unadulterated Kritik, it's just basted in pig shit like you said. The one difference from normal debate and your Kritik is that debate is not covered in so much animal feces as your K is. When it all comes down to it, this is a battle between who is more/less linkable into the K. And your K is. That's the point we're all making, and you seem to forget to answer that fact time after time after time. If you say microfascism bad, then all it comes down to is which argument is less fascist. And, considering how microfascist your cards are, you will lose every time.

 

don't worry; you're not 'breaking it to me' since it's already in the shell ("Here we are reading cards..."). see answers above.

 

Then you just have to give up the K. The point of the K is to fix something, and if you just continue on your merry way being microfascist, and your alt solves nothing. If, in a matter of a few tournaments, it gets replaced by the next best K, like you said yourself you hoped would happen, you lost all possible solvency. When all is said and done, each and every individual round will garnish no solvency from your Kritik.

 

i think you're saying you don't have to listen because we're not sufficiently self-righteous or self-absorbed - otherwise, why not listen?... but you're right; it isn't worth anything... 'all art is quite useless' - http://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/art.html

 

I'm saying I wouldn't have listened except I grew weary of how amazing you seem to think this K is. Don't try to argue otherwise. If you believed it was as useless as you put on, you wouldn't argue it or bring it onto a forum. And that point alone makes you lose the Kritik because you're aware of what you're doing; and what you're doing is using these authors to win; which is inherently more microfascist than any of us, because you're using these authors they way they weren't intended to. Debate citations? They are opinions meant to be used. Your opinions? They were meant to educate, not be skewed in an attempt to win. At that point your entire K turns on itself. It's discredited, you're discredited, and no one will listen to the K anymore; thereby losing the 'entrance into the debate machine' you so much wanted. Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

 

in debate terms: there's no 'uniqueness' to the critique's restriction (if scrapped, another position would almost certainly be read - one not so self-critical), so there's only the risk of 'solvency'. is your alternative to 'let debate continue normally'? if so, how do you address the problems described - ignore them?

 

There is plenty of uniqueness to the K's restriction. It's restricting the aff, throwing their argument completely out the window. That's rather fascist if you ask me; you're trying to force the judge to think, act, or believe however you feel is necessary; that's not right. You're just a mini-Stalin at that point. Also, it should be scrapped for Kritiks that are more worth our time. I mean, seriously, perm vote aff and just have everyone think about the Kritik. That solves way more than the neg ever could. The neg can only use microfascism to get their way, the perm could actually garnish solvency because it's the best way to spread the 'idea'. There's no risk of microfascism then. It can go straight to the heads of the NFL and then something could happen. Nothing will happen from a common K. Judges will just vote on it and forget it. Perm solves best, you lose. That's how the perm works.

 

the limit is a potential present in every instance, though i concede it's a matter of degree, which is exactly why critiques like these need to be affirmed, so as not to ever find out how deep the rabbit hole goes. also, it's far from an 'overdramatization' to say the mitchell article argues that debate takes the laboratory model of debate too far - you're the one blowing one clause out of proportion and thus guilty of distortion.

 

It's not a matter of how deep the rabbit hole goes, it's a matter of you taking a shovel and making the hole as deep as you want to, so that people believe it was originally that deep. You're blowing everything out of proportion with this K, and your authors admit that. Everything in your K is just 'worst case scenario' not 'this is what's happening', and at that point should get ignored. So yes, it is an overdramatization. If I say snow is cold, it's cold. But if you come up and say that snow is absolute zero, by no means is it that cold. You're bumping it up a few notches too much, and at that point you destroy everything you've fought so hard to 'affirm'.

 

if i am, then aren't you as well? ...the only reason you raise the matter of micro-fascism at all is because we brought it up, and if merely raising the question of micro-fascism is micro-fascist to an extent that we must never raise the question, then you've built a perfect moat. that's how a 'prejudice and blindness to prejudice' can occur simulatenously, says byrant.

 

The only difference between you and me is that I'm not trying to yell my ideals and beliefs about debate from your high-and-mighty soap box. When you try to pretend that you're above the rules of debate, but by doing so you just perpetuate your own implications, you should just step down from the soap box, apologize to everyone for wasting their time, and walk away.

 

'illegitimate' in the sense that participants such as yourself think these questions shouldn't be discussed and indeed should be deleted from "every memory device you stored this disease ridden thing on".

 

That's not the context of the tagline, sir. The context was that it was, indeed, illegitimate. If it were encased in '', I would have allowed it. But it wasn't. If it was precluded with sarcasm, I would have allowed it. If you would have changed it in any way to make sense, I would have allowed it. But you didn't. And now that you've set the K tagline, a change that massive means you're either powertagging to win or you're just full of crap. Or both.

 

agreed, that's why this is a debate position. no one's saying debate shouldn't be done but that debate should question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself.

 

I do believe in your cards by that Gordon fellow it gives nothing but disdain for debate as a whole; not the way it's done. No amount of 5 dollar words will change that. I don't care if you use 'unarticulate presupposition to subvert', it all means the same. It means "Oops, I messed up, and now I have to cover my ass." And you give no impacts as to what happens if debate DOESN'T question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself.

 

not as long as it defaults to state politics (the unitary u.s.f.g.); case harms and disadvantage impacts are often a bit totalizing-ly paranoiac as well... which is what r.e.m.'s michael stipe (former debater) satirized in his 'the end of the world' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CmXGKXOmk -- "it's a tournament, tournament, tournament of lies".

 

Yes, as long as it defaults to state politics. As long as it precludes and includes anything about free political action. Debate is all about free political action. If we didn't have free political action you wouldn't be allowed to run this K you hold so dear and defend so oddly. If there was even a hint of unitary OR totalizing paranoia there wouldn't be Kritiks. Or framework. Or topicality.

 

I'm sorry to say this, but everything about this K makes me laugh. Out of pity.

 

Or, if you're so against debate action, then what about I just kick my affirmative position to allow better debate, and tell you all about my friend Debrix? And how the subversion of thought in any way, shape, or form is the result of tabloid geopolitics, which turn us all into enemies who have the sacrosanct goal of destroying each other.

 

Unless you don't want me to. Then I can just stick to my good ol' aff and you can stick to your good ol' neg. Debate is a game, and in any other game, like football, no one complains when they think that a rule is too demanding or the way we play is stupid.

 

You're just following the rules of the game by trying to find the best way to win. You're no different than any of us, and you know that. We all know that. So just drop the facade of self-righteousness and give me a good ol' "Aw, shucks, you're right: I'm just running this to win."

 

And then maybe I'll like you a little more.

there's no terminal impact to any of these arguments that are either un-impacted OR don't link to the aff too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you being so immature about it? You're trying to personally attack him and call him stupid when its probably your first year of debate :S

Okay first, it's not my first year of debate.

Second, I'm not personally attacking him. He chose personal advocacy by the way he's defending it, so I'm responding directly to his own argumentation, not responding to his argumentation itself. That's the problem with personal advocacy.

 

And no, I'm not being immature. I'm being reasonable. Immaturity is not defined by giving him feasable refutation to all his points. Immaturity would be 'you're a dumb-dumb, go home lol'.

 

I apologize if it looks like I'm losing my cool, but his self-righteous attitude just rubs me the wrong way. And you can't say that he's not being self-righteous. Because he blatantly is.

 

 

@ Rhizome: That's the point I'm making. I'm saying that it's just a wash on the flow, and that in the end the judge probably won't end up voting for it. No impacts for neg side, no impacts against the aff side.

Edited by Paper Fork
I don't want to double post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay first, it's not my first year of debate.

Second, I'm not personally attacking him. He chose personal advocacy by the way he's defending it, so I'm responding directly to his own argumentation, not responding to his argumentation itself. That's the problem with personal advocacy.

 

And no, I'm not being immature. I'm being reasonable. Immaturity is not defined by giving him feasable refutation to all his points. Immaturity would be 'you're a dumb-dumb, go home lol'.

 

I apologize if it looks like I'm losing my cool, but his self-righteous attitude just rubs me the wrong way. And you can't say that he's not being self-righteous. Because he blatantly is.

 

 

@ Rhizome: That's the point I'm making. I'm saying that it's just a wash on the flow, and that in the end the judge probably won't end up voting for it. No impacts for neg side, no impacts against the aff side.

*sigh*

 

it might not be your first year of debate but you clearly aren't handling this situation very well.

 

The entire point of this specific criticism is NOT to set in motion a new machine but to become self-reflective on how the current machine operates. it's an experiment.

 

historically your arguments are inappropriate - just because we passed one piece of anti-racism or anti-sexism legislation doesn't mean that all of a sudden we've 'plugged those movements into congressional action meaning that no racism doesn't exist' but to keep building.

 

Kevin uses the example of taking different pictures to create a larger picture. No individual picture create the whole, but individually we can see how each picture contributes to us focusing and seeing the problem and how large that problem has become. The alternative is likewise - individually it might not spark a revolution, but the ballot is like another small picture - allowing us to understand and see a bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay first, it's not my first year of debate.

Second, I'm not personally attacking him. He chose personal advocacy by the way he's defending it, so I'm responding directly to his own argumentation, not responding to his argumentation itself. That's the problem with personal advocacy.

 

And no, I'm not being immature. I'm being reasonable. Immaturity is not defined by giving him feasable refutation to all his points. Immaturity would be 'you're a dumb-dumb, go home lol'.

 

I apologize if it looks like I'm losing my cool, but his self-righteous attitude just rubs me the wrong way. And you can't say that he's not being self-righteous. Because he blatantly is.

 

 

@ Rhizome: That's the point I'm making. I'm saying that it's just a wash on the flow, and that in the end the judge probably won't end up voting for it. No impacts for neg side, no impacts against the aff side.

*sigh*

 

it might not be your first year of debate but you clearly aren't handling this situation very well.

 

The entire point of this specific criticism is NOT to set in motion a new machine but to become self-reflective on how the current machine operates. it's an experiment.

 

historically your arguments are inappropriate - just because we passed one piece of anti-racism or anti-sexism legislation doesn't mean that all of a sudden we've 'plugged those movements into congressional action meaning that no racism doesn't exist' but to keep building.

 

Kevin uses the example of taking different pictures to create a larger picture. No individual picture create the whole, but individually we can see how each picture contributes to us focusing and seeing the problem and how large that problem has become. The alternative is likewise - individually it might not spark a revolution, but the ballot is like another small picture - allowing us to understand and see a bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if each time after you take the picture, you rip it up (by going aff next round), you just recycle through building up and ripping down your case each and every time.

 

And, in all honesty, every single kritik is exactly like you described; self-reflective. He's running it as a K, but he's saying it's different than a K by the way he's explaining it. If it's run like a K it kind of has some set standards (even though the K is trying to run against the standards), in order to beat the system you have to use the system. Otherwise no one will take you seriously.

 

Besides, if it was a legitimate 'experiment', he'd have some set hypothesis and controls; of which he has neither. I'm sorry if I sound immature again, but it's just a glorified K that's masking itself with the idea of 'let's seriously think about changing things'. No one who wants to change the world/debate would be in debate, because debate is just a game. Pure and simple. It's like saying football has an effect on those outside of the game. At the end of the day people will file out of the stadium, drive home, and nothing will be different. It's the same thing.

 

That's why I'm having such an issue with this K. In all honesty I understand what it's saying, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I don't appreciate the way the guy is running it. If he disclaimed by saying 'this is a great way to run a K', then it'd be okay. I'm just sick of people saying 'debate sucks so I'm going to run stuff'. It's either not true or their disenchanted and believe that an argument in a debate round will solve the world's ills. It's just my sincere hope that the guy running this doesn't think it'll solve for anything. It's not an 'experiment'. It's just another argument, like Zizek or Heidegger. It may be run like an 'experiment', but it's not. It really is not. If he wanted to change debate he'd go straight to the top. That's how LD, Pufo, and everything else got started. That's how you change debate. Not run arguments.

 

I hope my point's getting across, here.

Edited by Rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main point was that since you basically constrict the Affirmative to just say "Okay" your being even more fascist than Debate was ever before, atleast the back door Kritiks as you say give the affirmative a chance to respond. The alternative to the Status Quo (None of which are debate jargain because they where used long before debate came around) is the Status Quo just with one side embracing the Status Quo for what it is. So at that point it articulates into The Alternative of Debate is for Us to be the Negative..... huh..... yea.... I got nothing for that if you want to go ahead and be the negative sure, I thought I was going to have to play both roles. If you realise all these things happen and say "Lets bring this into other debates" All it is is critical thinking because so much of it is the system used before. Or you don't realize that you just create the status quo and you have no new thing to bring into anything.

 

The thing is You realize that there's Micro-fascism, but you do nothing about it, infact you say the answer to this already bad micro-fascism is to clamp fascism even tighter to just this kritik, while you say you realize your micro-fascist in the debate world just like debating, but at the point you chalk everything the aff says to micro-fascism is when you move from Fascism to McCarthyism, anyone that speaks out against you is your verson of a "Communist".

 

 

At that point no perm is needed, remember the phrase "ignorance is bliss"?

 

You lose me at this counterfiet currency that explodes the stale from within. If you shove a Kritik into the debate machine, let's use Coercion for today, you either win with it or lose from it. When you do can't simply use the Debate Machine to Change the Debate Machine, what will happen is you change your Kritik, like you have done so many many a time.

 

We don't provide a counter currency true, but at the point when your counter currency is made from the real currency, looks like the real currency, is read like the real currency, is made by the people who make the real currency, and wins like the real currency. It Is the Real Currency.

 

You have no way to destroy this micro-fascism if it stays in everyone. No one stopped the Jewish Holoucast by realizing the Jewish where being killed by the thousands. We had something called World War II to stop it.

 

I can sum up this kritik easy.

 

"When The Nazi's Came for the Jews, I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.

 

When the Nazi's came for the Gays, I did not speak up because I was not gay.

 

When the Nazi's came for the cripples, I did not speak up because I was not a cripple.

 

When the Nazi's came for me, there was no one left to speak up."

 

You just realize the Nazi's are comming for people, and then if you will are trying to join them by Perpetuating the Realization into other rounds.

 

 

Rhizome: At the point they use this argument singularly to win the debate, it's not an expiriment, it's the Status Quo. The Bigger Picture is basically replace a 72" plasma with a 72" LCD. You do all the work, for the same thing, just a different preferance.

 

Back to Lazzarone

In order to win on this against a good debate team: you have to put all these clarifications your making now in the Alternative. Define what the counter currency is. You simply replace Debate jargain with philosophy jargain, while your alienating the aff, which is a good thing with K's, your also alienating the judge and leaving them with the Quesiton, "What's the difference? Especially when Realization isn't enough like they said." Bring the Counter Currency to the top and This will do better to me.

 

Unlike Paper Fork the real rash i have with this kritik is it takes way to much work to make a difference between the Status Quo, and the Alternative world of Debate. At which it becomes the kind of off case that requires you to run just this. Any other hurts you wayy more than the aff. And if in the first 16 minutes you can't identify the difference between the Squo and the Alt, you lose no matter what you say because if your upholding the rules you have to abide by the "No new Arguments in Rebuttals" ideal. If Not you've just severed out of your Entire 1NC and lost anyways.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you want to move on to the next round and get this into the debate machine then As soon as you run this in round 2 you are NOT expirimenting your running a pre-packaged argument filled with Micro-Fascism in the attempt to win a debate round."

 

already conceded it's a pre-packaged argument - see above; the experiment is what happens in specific encounters and what happens as the critique blows up - both unpredictable beforehand.

 

Once again you prove the point that the Kritik can solve itself in one round, and you no longer experiment after the first round of running this Kritik.

 

If the experiment is what happens as the critique blows up, Then the round after, you know what will happen already.

 

As I have said before this kritik can be solved for in one round, and from what Paper Fork said any chance of this Kritik connecting from round to round is dashed when you have to go Affirmative. Again as you said in a previous post your not saying "screw the rules" you have to not acknowledge the micro-fascism and Do something to uphold the resolution.

 

At the same time on the Neg, you cannot simply acknowledge all of the ways you are Micro-fascist as someone else points them out, because at that point you are being a new kind of Fascist doing no work in this discussion while using the same defeated argument to try to win and put down the other team, at that point when it's only your team that can seem to "create counter currency" You are becomming worse than the affirmative which will give you a chance to argue against them, hence letting you read your kritik and argue it. You do not even let them attempt to argue it because you've given them a label of Micro-fascist that they will not be able to shake and that you claim not to be by acknowledging it. You become Nano-Fascist for the above reason, shrinking the picture to only this way to solve debate, not even the resolution as you say is the master for debaters to debate, like the tagline suggests, you do not have to debate Policy if you don't want to. Yet you want to constrict Policy debate to a point it's just The person that acknowledges they're trying to win a round.

 

But again, see the real way this kritik just doesn't seem to flow with me in the above post.

 

Again, when you want to move on into other rounds you aren't expirimenting, you aren't even attempting the alternative, which is the Squo....Debate exactly as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dominordrian: "this kritik can be solved for in one round"

 

so we can "rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism" and "ferret out the fascism that is ingrained in our behavior" in a single debate round? how can the debate machine, quoting foucault again, be "a constant generator of de-individualization" with one ballot?

 

this is another reason why 'solvency-talk' can be misleading: as in the imaginary passage of an affirmative plan, we prefer to picture it as happening 'once and for all' - a poor model to map on-going practices like vigilance.

 

"any chance of this Kritik connecting from round to round is dashed when you have to go Affirmative"

 

as written above, j23 can be run on the affirmative as well. so it's fraught with potential error to prognosticate a team's tournament strategy; you assume they'll view their resolutional burdens exactly as you do. it's also a bit absurd to demand a team adopt a consistent advocacy throughout an entire tournament: 'hey, last round you claimed to be against american imperialism; what gives!?!'. (foucault and deleuze didn't even believe in the consistency of personal identity, much less team identity.)

 

"You are becomming worse than the affirmative which will give you a chance to argue against them, hence letting you read your kritik and argue it. You do not even let them attempt to argue it because you've given them a label of Micro-fascist that they will not be able to shake..."

 

wow, so whatever label the negative team applies to the affirmative position can't be shook? that's new. what tremendous power! ...only, it's an utter farce. you're given equal speech-time; no one is 'not letting you argue'.

 

"you basically constrict the Affirmative to just say 'Okay'..."

 

WHEN? WHERE? -- by simply making a counter-claim? ... you can always defend focusing on the state, defend self-certainty, defend the laboratory model of debate, and so forth.

 

this nutty idea shared among a couple of the above replies that questioning debate's micro-fascistic practices is somehow THE unbeatable argument and that merely breathing it amounts to the WORST fascism ("You're just a mini-Stalin"(!)) since apparently after hearing this critique the other team has NO argumentative recourse and is condemned to writhe helplessly in involuntary fits of irrationality and pain is... well, 'nutty' works.

 

everyone, just tell me this: tell me (without extended diatribes on 'bacon-wrapped shrimp') how this critique links more to itself than the affirmative. (...and as a sub-request, tell me how reading our cards is uniquely micro-fascistic, as paper fork claimed.)

 

because if your big answer is to concede the ground of the critique and try to turn it around, that's not a very winning strategy. at this point, paper fork is right to say whichever side 'links less' wins, but my guess is if you're still shilling a fiated plan, with all the implications that entails, you're headed for an unplanned water landing. "your being even more fascist than Debate was ever before" is weak sauce.

 

also, what's wrong with wanting to win debates? ...all the shell's against is "neurotically fixat[ing] on the goal of winning to the detriment of debate's revolutionary potential", like those who refrain from running creative or innovative arguments because they're 'risky' in front of some conservative judges. play hard, but don't play it safe, is the underlying message.

 

"you chalk everything the aff says to micro-fascism is when you move from Fascism to McCarthyism, anyone that speaks out against you is your verson of a 'Communist'."

 

well, i am a communist, but i get your point. all i can say is i've tried to do something about some unsavory practices i saw in debate, and don't think that's mccarthyist since integral to this critique is an acknowledgment of one's own complicity. if you have a better idea, i'm certainly open to suggestions.

 

"We had something called World War II to stop [the Holocaust]."

 

so wait, the only alternative is to start dropping bombs?

 

"you ... can't simply use the Debate Machine to Change the Debate Machine"

 

why not? doesn't debate look and sound differently than it did ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago? how did this happen if internal debate practices didn't change, if the way debaters debate didn't change, slowly but surely?

 

cultural transformations don't happen because framers suddenly decree it; they happen piece-by-piece, round-by-round. they're not all-or-nothing. ...you can start running some controversial argument in preliminary rounds once you already know you are going to break, then you run it as a surprise in elimination rounds, then you start running it on the affirmative; all the time, you're making changes, re-writes, putting this in, taking that out; more teams start doing the same; and suddenly it becomes more difficult to claim some claim unquestioningly, more difficult to use gendered-pronouns, or to assume american empire is the only safe world order; the self-evidence is stripped from ideas that once seemed to go without saying. that's real change; it changes the way we think, talk, and behave. (and notice it doesn't rely on any personal sincerity of the debaters themselves; according to d&g, that 'view from the interior' is an illusion.) experimenting in this way in one round isn't somehow erased when other normal rounds take place: "People are co-opted, not works, which will always come to awake a sleeping youth, and which never cease extending their flame." -- likewise, debaters are co-opted, not rounds... i recall a round where i heard a critique of geopolitical realism from greenhill's a-team, using the work of an author named jim george, and it left me with chills. upon getting back from new orleans, i dug deep into international relations theory, but the liberating nature of that experience isn't affected by whether asher haig 'really believed' what he was saying, or subsequently became a militarist or something. that's what 'awaking a sleeping youth' concretely means there, and it isn't 'self-righteous' to try to pass the torch to others.

 

"We don't provide a counter currency true, but at the point when your counter currency is made from the real currency, looks like the real currency, is read like the real currency, is made by the people who make the real currency, and wins like the real currency. It Is the Real Currency."

 

this is your best argument so far, and i like it ('if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...'), but what kind of currency prints a critique of the money system on its greenback? -- d&g are harsh here: "the only literature is that which places an explosive device in its package, fabricating a counterfeit currency...". in other words, if you admit to not 'providing a counter-currency', you're not moving debate forward and, ceteris paribus, shouldn't be upped over those teams who do.

 

_

 

paper fork: "if each time after you take the picture, you rip it up (by going aff next round), you just recycle through building up and ripping down your case each and every time."

 

answered above: (1) don't assume what 'going aff' means, (2) it's absurd to hold us to inter-round consistency, (3) every round is a singular encounter that can't be erased by what occurs in future rounds.

 

"every single kritik is exactly like you described; self-reflective. He's running it as a K, but he's saying it's different than a K by the way he's explaining it."

 

few kritiks question the risks inherent in the practice of critique itself, the dogmatic image of thought they perpetuate. read that massumi quotation again and ask yourself if most kritiks take that into account.

 

"if it was a legitimate 'experiment'..." -- experiment in the banal sense of 'trying something new', not controlled, double-blind study.

 

"No one who wants to change the world/debate would be in debate, because debate is just a game. Pure and simple."

 

not sure about that one, but the critique isn't out to change the world in any case - only to change debate.

 

"That's why I'm having such an issue with this K. In all honesty I understand what it's saying, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I don't appreciate the way the guy is running it. If he disclaimed by saying 'this is a great way to run a K', then it'd be okay."

 

"a 'shell' is defined both as an 'explosive projectile' and a 'husk'. the above position is just a shell. it's a sketch of a possible direction. so it's up to you to fill it up and make it fly." : http://www.stuartgeiger.com/ossdebate/index.php?title=Talk:Shell (that was deleted from the opening shell somehow after some hacker broke in to cross-x.com and altered all the thread titles.)

 

"I'm just sick of people saying 'debate sucks so I'm going to run stuff'."

 

me too. like t-hacks.

 

"[they] believe that an argument in a debate round will solve the world's ills."

 

burroughs' short story at the top satirizes 'activist' kritiks as well: "these unworthy vessels only increased his resolve to make a better world".

 

"That's how you change debate. Not run arguments."

 

so you can't change debate by running arguments? 'the kritik' didn't change debate? nor 'the counterplan'? isn't running a new argument in itself a change?

 

i like your football analogy; let's use that. american football evolved from rugby and what americans call soccer, but at the beginning, both teams would put everyone at the line of scrimmage. then someone thought to introduce the forward pass. that didn't break the rules, but it drastically changed standard practice; it was a game changer.

 

"in any other game, like football, no one complains when they think ... the way we play is stupid."

 

that's empirically false. in the course of the history of american football, a coach must've said: 'this whole cluster-fucking at the line thing - yeah, we shouldn't do that anymore, because it's stupid'. from that complaint came something new, see?

 

well, what i'm saying is always focusing on the state - that's stupid. always dogmatically pretending to know the answer - that's stupid. and so forth. it isn't about self-righteously trying to change the whole wide world; it's about satirizing those kritiks and those affirmatives who pretend to do just that in what i agree is just a humble, useless game. you should've soaked in that oscar wilde preface to 'dorian gray' i quoted before: "We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

 

i know it seems that games come out of nowhere fully furnished with rules, ready-made like magic, but trust me, their the outcome of a long process of trial-and-error. maybe j23 is another error, and maybe another critique will make the moves i've failed to. i hope that happens. until then...

 

"If we didn't have free political action you wouldn't be allowed to run this K you hold so dear and defend so oddly. If there was even a hint of unitary OR totalizing paranoia there wouldn't be Kritiks. Or framework. Or topicality."

 

freedom is a practice, not a right you possess once and for good. so in the context of this critique, here's what i take foucault to be saying there: to free debate from unitary and totalizing paranoia means to de-emphasize the central (i.e., unitary; e.g., 'u.s.f.g.') role played by the state and criticize those who engage in hyperbolic disaster scenarios (i.e., totalizing paranoia; e.g., 'recession, depression, and nuclear war').

 

"...nothing but disdain for debate as a whole..."

 

nothing but love: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2209970435669375327

 

"you give no impacts as to what happens if debate DOESN'T question its un-articulated presupposition to subvert its dogmatic image of itself."

 

what? WHAT?!?! "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..." "...to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" "Desire is never separable from complex assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from microformations already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations, semiotic systems, etc... a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and potentially gives desire a fascist determination... and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective." "...a social prejudice with the visible interest of maintaining us in an infantile state, which calls upon us to solve problems that come from elsewhere, consoling or distracting us by telling us that we have won simply by being able to respond..."

 

now, is this "an overdramatization"? i think not. i think it's already happening to some extent and examples like rove show the horrid consequences of dogmatism, self-certainty, and not consciously affirming anti-fascistic debating practices. already debate shapes the 'postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations' of debaters in potentially fascistic ways. for instance, are you really listening to me? isn't calling me "a mini-Stalin" a bit 'overly-dramatic' too?

 

"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." -- that's happening now, if you believe two 'qualified authors' - jurgen habermas and gordon mitchell, the latter of whom is a debate coach. so, in the immortal words of howard zinn, 'you can't be neutral on a moving train' : what are you doing to help 'rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism'? ...because if you're not doing anything except redundantly deriding those who are trying to do something, then you're part of the problem.

 

"...inherently more miscorfascist than any of us ... restricting the aff ... trying to force the judge to think, act, or believe however you feel is necessary ... just a mini-Stalin..."

 

all answered above. "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?"

 

_

 

rhizome: "Kevin uses the example of taking different pictures..."

 

just to shamelessly quote myself : http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=989810 : "...between the transcendent and the empirical, there's the pattern of their movement - that's the abstract machine.

 

i've thought of a good analogy for this: photosynth software. you enter in a bunch of photos of the same place and it spits out a 3-dimensional map of that place. what's empirical are all the individual photos, but no one photo - no transcendent image - can capture all the detail which the photos added together can. so what emerges isn't a top-down, imposed universal, but a bottom-up, internal composite - one that gets more and more detailed the more input is added, but one that is nevertheless abstract (it's not exactly the 'real' object)."

 

debate is an abstract machine, every round a picture which subtly alters the internal composite being created, one by one.

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

answered above: (1) don't assume what 'going aff' means, (2) it's absurd to hold us to inter-round consistency, (3) every round is a singular encounter that can't be erased by what occurs in future rounds.

 

No, it's not absurd. Without inter-round consistency you lose your supposed solvency mechanism. If you don't hold straight and true to your presumptions, then all anyone's going to see in this K is that it's a farce designed solely to win rounds, not change minds. It is at that point that you lose your solvency. Again. And, if every round is a singular event, then it's just one round, with five(+) people in the room. Outside of that single encounter, no one will care much for the K aside from the aff who might write up blocks for the K later, and then forget about it. The judge will write it off as another K (because that's what it is). And you lose solvency.

 

few kritiks question the risks inherent in the practice of critique itself, the dogmatic image of thought they perpetuate. read that massumi quotation again and ask yourself if most kritiks take that into account.

 

Dogmatic image of thought? Perpetuate? Hold on, you're saying that your K doesn't do that? Because it most certainly does. Just sayin'.

 

 

-- experiment in the banal sense of 'trying something new', not controlled, double-blind study.

 

If you were concerned about trying something new, you would now never run this in round because it's not 'something new' any longer. It's been exposed to hundreds of people and offered on Evazon as nothing more than a debate-winning K; nothing more, nothing less. Also, if you cannot garnish solvency with hundreds of people on an international forum, how can you hope to attain solvency with five people in a classroom?

 

not sure about that one, but the critique isn't out to change the world in any case - only to change debate.

 

My point still stands. If you want to change a game you don't play the game. You talk to the heads. And your K is pretty much attesting to world solvency. "Prevent sterilized, cold-hearted argumentation machines from being taken in by corporations for their own personal use". That's pretty world changing.

 

"a 'shell' is defined both as an 'explosive projectile' and a 'husk'. the above position is just a shell. it's a sketch of a possible direction. so it's up to you to fill it up and make it fly." : http://www.stuartgeiger.com/ossdebat...tle=Talk:Shell (that was deleted from the opening shell somehow after some hacker broke in to cross-x.com and altered all the thread titles.)

 

Thanks for the definition, but I have no idea what relevancy it has.

 

me too. like t-hacks.

 

Like Johnny 23.

 

burroughs' short story at the top satirizes 'activist' kritiks as well: "these unworthy vessels only increased his resolve to make a better world".

 

This is probably by far the most activist K I've ever seen. You're advocating a change, and that it has to be done, and you're attempting to gain followers to the cause in order to reject debate principles. If that's not activism, nothing is. You're satirizing your own K.

 

so you can't change debate by running arguments? 'the kritik' didn't change debate? nor 'the counterplan'? isn't running a new argument in itself a change?

 

i like your football analogy; let's use that. american football evolved from rugby and what americans call soccer, but at the beginning, both teams would put everyone at the line of scrimmage. then someone thought to introduce the forward pass. that didn't break the rules, but it drastically changed standard practice; it was a game changer.

 

The CP and the K were game-sanctioned arguments. They were decided by the NFL board as okay arguments. Preliminary "philosophical arguments ok" were allowed before the K was clearly defined. Same with the CP. This...however...has nothing to go off of. And sure, it's a change, but doesn't mean it's a good change.

 

I like my football analogy too, because my analogy still works. Football did not 'evolve' from rugby in the sense you're thinking/hoping will support your K. Football idealists didn't just run a rugby round and deliberately break the rules in order to 'show people a change'. No, they brought it forward to the officials and asked their opinion. They didn't want rugby bastardized, and they had rules they didn't want broken. So, instead, they created football; a completely separate sport. What you're advocating is Pufo, essentially. A completely different sport.

 

that's empirically false. in the course of the history of american football, a coach must've said: 'this whole cluster-fucking at the line thing - yeah, we shouldn't do that anymore, because it's stupid'. from that complaint came something new, see?

 

well, what i'm saying is always focusing on the state - that's stupid. always dogmatically pretending to know the answer - that's stupid. and so forth. it isn't about self-righteously trying to change the whole wide world; it's about satirizing those kritiks and those affirmatives who pretend to do just that in what i agree is just a humble, useless game. you should've soaked in that oscar wilde preface to 'dorian gray' i quoted before: "We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

 

i know it seems that games come out of nowhere fully furnished with rules, ready-made like magic, but trust me, their the outcome of a long process of trial-and-error. maybe j23 is another error, and maybe another critique will make the moves i've failed to. i hope that happens. until then...

 

No, that is just emperical poppycock. No coach ever said that. A group of coaches? Maybe. A collective of sports enthusiasts bent on bettering the game? Sure. But one player does not decide randomly to break the rules and 'try something new just because'. That won't happen. They'd get their ass kicked off the team. If a football player runs out of bounds, claiming that it's a new rule he's trying, he'd get DQ'ed and his coach would probably bench him permanently.

 

"dogmatically pretending to know the answer - that's stupid". Isn't that what you're doing? You've stated you don't know if j23 is the right answer or not. So isn't that pretending to know the answer? And aren't you, so far, defending it to the bitter end? Seems a lot like that to me. So aren't you satirizing yourself?

 

freedom is a practice, not a right you possess once and for good. so in the context of this critique, here's what i take foucault to be saying there: to free debate from unitary and totalizing paranoia means to de-emphasize the central (i.e., unitary; e.g., 'u.s.f.g.') role played by the state and criticize those who engage in hyperbolic disaster scenarios (i.e., totalizing paranoia; e.g., 'recession, depression, and nuclear war').

 

...when you preface something with 'here's what I take [someone] to be saying', you're replicating the microfascism again; didn't you say that taking people's writings and warping them is bad? Then if you don't quote them directly, but instead paraphrase into 'here's what I think', that's microfascist. On another note: is totalizing paranoia the absolute fear of something to instill action in another? something like that? If that's the case, isn't your implication a totalizing paranioa? I'm sure it is.

 

nothing but love: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...70435669375327

 

That video, in all honesty, proves nothing to me. It's your actions and the diction in the K itself, not your semantics in retort.

 

what? WHAT?!?! <cut for the sake of space> now, is this "an overdramatization"? i think not. i think it's already happening to some extent and examples like rove show the horrid consequences of dogmatism, self-certainty, and not consciously affirming anti-fascistic debating practices. already debate shapes the 'postures, attitudes, perceptions, expectations' of debaters in potentially fascistic ways. for instance, are you really listening to me? isn't calling me "a mini-Stalin" a bit 'overly-dramatic' too?

 

"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." -- that's happening now, if you believe two 'qualified authors' - jurgen habermas and gordon mitchell, the latter of whom is a debate coach. so, in the immortal words of howard zinn, 'you can't be neutral on a moving train' : what are you doing to help 'rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism'? ...because if you're not doing anything except redundantly deriding those who are trying to do something, then you're part of the problem.

 

First, this is just another example that you link back into your 'totalizing paranoia' tyrade. That aside, I do think it is an overdramatization. As Gordon states, everything he says is based on a metaphor stretched to its limits. That means it's not happening in the squo, it's just a 'maybe'. Which means you lose your entire mechanism for the K: link, implication, and alt. Seriously, do you have any other example besides Rove? I kind of feel sorry for the guy now, you're ragging on him so much. Do you have any other data of debators going to the dark side of the human endeavor? Yes, I really am listening to you. I would not be able to respond to your arguments if I wasn't listening to you. I take everything you say into account, weigh pros and cons, and decide for myself. No, calling you a mini-Stalin is fairly accurate. I mean, if you speak microfascism, and you practice microfascism, and you admit to being microfascist...then you're a microStalin..."mini Stalin"

 

I'm not redundantly deriding anything. I'm just making a point. And I'm doing my share plenty. If two men sit next to a fire, and both decide that the fire has to go away, that's a baseline for action. But if one pours gasoline onto the fire, is that considered negative action towards the goal? If that's true, then wouldn't the person not doing anything be considered the only actor doing anything positive? If so, your K is fueling the fire by drawing attention to the fascism and multiplying it with the K. The aff would win on the sheer fact that they're being less fascist than you are.

 

"...inherently more miscorfascist than any of us ... restricting the aff ... trying to force the judge to think, act, or believe however you feel is necessary ... just a mini-Stalin..."

 

all answered above. "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?"

 

You still don't answer my argumentation of how you're being more fascist than the aff because you're forcing the judge to vote neg. And, as for an additional perm, if you're saying the judge doesn't have to agree with you, you're saying that you don't have to get a vote. Meaning perm: vote aff and then ponder the questions. Garnish solvency, decrease potential microfascism around the house. Best solvency in round.

 

And, on a side note, I'm still curious as to how you'd answer my perms I've mentioned in this post and previous ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last week of argument:

 

:x: This K is, like, not debate.

 

:confused:: Um, yes. What?

 

:x: (reasons), (half cocked analysis)

 

:confused:: You didn't read the thread where I have supported this thing for three years?

 

:x: I've thought of things that no one has before. Duh.

 

:confused:: Lets talk about it.

 

<repeat>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We don't provide a counter currency true, but at the point when your counter currency is made from the real currency, looks like the real currency, is read like the real currency, is made by the people who make the real currency, and wins like the real currency. It Is the Real Currency."

 

this is your best argument so far, and i like it ('if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...'), but what kind of currency prints a critique of the money system on its greenback? -- d&g are harsh here: "the only literature is that which places an explosive device in its package, fabricating a counterfeit currency...". in other words, if you admit to not 'providing a counter-currency', you're not moving debate forward and, ceteris paribus, shouldn't be upped over those teams who do.

 

 

And this is the point where this round would stop when All you do is explain what the counter currency is, not explain how you give the counter currency. Again if it does all the thing the currency does it's the equivilent of me getting a dollar from the bank and saying This single Dollar is going to bring down capitalism because I alone think it's fake with no basis what so ever.

 

"wow, so whatever label the negative team applies to the affirmative position can't be shook? that's new. what tremendous power! ...only, it's an utter farce. you're given equal speech-time; no one is 'not letting you argue"

 

I would be niceer to this if It wasn't 8:00 in the morning and I havent' had any coffee yet. It's not an utter farce. Everything the affirmative would say would be classified under "Micro-Facsist" and you know it. At that point, and as you say you concede it. You're no better than the "affirmative" when you say the Kritik is the only way to change anything. The Kritik will become a WASH and the judge would sooner look to something else to vote on.

 

As you say Debate needs steps to work up to. You've skipped about three in this Kritik.

 

Three things need to happen in Debate BEFORE this Kritik can take place and be considered effective.

 

1. More Acceptance of Framework as a Voter in round (Idk about down in "Tejas", but here framework isn't much of a big thing.

2. The Transition from Framework to Kritik

3. More acceptance of biting your own kritik (Again, where I am, it's not good to bite your own kritik, but that's just here.)

 

"if you have a better idea, i'm certainly open to suggestions."

Yea, packaging Capitalism or Socialism into a box labelled Communism isn't a great idea. This is why we have "Cap K's" with the "alternative" of Socialism and Communism.

 

so wait, the only alternative is to start dropping bombs?

 

I'll post more but I'm being kicked out of the library right now. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, a computer!

 

 

Anyways:

 

I want to mention somethign else on the "counter currency" the problem is that we don't need to prove we're counter currency to not lost the Kritik, all we have to do is prove that you aren't either and the Kritik doesn't matter to the judge anymore.

 

 

"So the only alternative is to start dropping bombs?"

 

The Action to change the holocaust was War that ended with the drop of the Atomic Bomb, yes. But it was one example.

 

Reading your cards is unuquely micro-fascistic because you uniquely define the Affirmative as the other and rule everything they say in a round as micro-fascistic. It's sort of a two step process that leads to either the affirmative being able to break out of the kritik, or you

 

The perfect example is Brown vs. The Board of education, it is at the top where change happens the most. The rules where changed at the top, with the Supreme Court. Not at a circuit level. Your trying to get something the equivilent of that case passed at a local level, instead of going to an NFL rules panel and argue the case there, you might get change. But at the point you still simply want to win is the point the whole kritik is a farce.

 

You keep missing the fact that when you concede your micro-fascist and run the kritik, what is left is the same thing that happened before, people want evidence to back claims with or without the Kritik and the rounds that led to the writing of this Kritik will always keep happening. The problem is when you can't prove your "counter-currency" is different from "real-currency" the outcome is the SAME. You haven't given a response to this the whole time I've been posting to this.

 

Another thing you haven't responded to was the embracing the inner fascist.

 

So on that the only thing left is to assume there's no difference between a world with the kritik and a world without the Kritik "We define fascism as an ideal system of total power which emphasizes disciplinary regimentation and seeks to suppress all criticism"

At that point under your own definition the Kritik as it is read is a system (The style of the kritik) that supresses all criticism (arguments made against it).

Another thing i must add, although I'm pretty sure you won't like it, is that when you ask in that manner

everyone, just tell me this: tell me (without extended diatribes on 'bacon-wrapped shrimp') how this critique links more to itself than the affirmative. (...and as a sub-request, tell me how reading our cards is uniquely micro-fascistic, as paper fork claimed.)

Your supressing the free thought you wanted to release in the first place because again, all you want to do is win.

Now the K links more to itself than the affirmative because of all the assumptions it makes, especially with the contradictions between the implication and the Alternative. Again the fact that even though you define the Affirmative as micro-fascist and you admit that your following current micro-fascisms you create new micro-facsisms that limit debate even more when you read this kritik and simply say that asking for the ballot is Key.

Second: At the point you call all literature pig-shit and yet extend yours with that knowledge, to a judge, not only are you skewing your entire 1NC and perpetuating current Micro-fascisms that you hope to avoid, you start to look very dumb getting stuck down a path that eventually leads to contradiction.

Third: At the point the affirmatives has Numbers something that proven does not lie and is always written, the affirmative has something tangible and charismatic to a judge that you do NOT.

All of my ciritisisms are something you have to make the judge understand. I'm trying to help make this a better Kritik, honestly!

How can this alternative be different from reject the aff?

Well the answer to that is simple, the rejection shows a clear difference that stops the implication of the kritik WITHOUT simply oral Advocation. (ie: resist the temptation to act, if you don't act the implication doesn't come about)

How is this different than a "vote neg" Alternative?

The same idea from a reject Aff applies that by voting negative you avoid the implications. The Problem with this Kritik is that no matter what, the alternative does NOT avoid the implications. This is the constructive part of the critisism I'm trying to give, the Kritik is amazing, except for the fact that you cannot garuntee that the alternative is not free of the current micro-fascisms and if anything the "False currency" you defined is the illusion that the Kritik alternative is anything different than a world without the kritik.

At this point the Kritik either is nothing, neither a win for you or the Affirmative, because it has no weight behind it (i.e. if all everyone reads in a debate round is literature pig-shit, which pig-shit should I listen to?)

Or you lose because you throw more pig-shit on the problem.(i.e. you create a new micro-fascism with no garuntee that the old pig-shit goes away. You don't even provide an explanation as to how it's likely to go away.)I'll put it this way, alot of judges say "I won't do the work for you" in other words you have to define what's different between a debate now with all of it's micro-fascisms, and a debate in the world of your alternative (like maybe the kritik is the only micro-facsism, and at that point the Kritik will be fufilled and go away or something.) Without this, all of the micro-fascisms exist, nothing is stopping an affirmative from pointing this out, and a judge will rather look at a flow that has less work on it. (UNTIL THE KRITIK IS FUFILLED YOU HAVE TO FIGHT AN UPHILL BATTLE EXPLAINING AND JUSTIFYING EVERYTHING) And because the affirmative is bound to have numbers that, while is grouped with literature pig-shit, is something that no judge will ignore when you say all LITERATURE NOT MATHEMATICS is pig-shit.

I strongly urge you to re-write the Alternative Text to one of the two more widely accepted alternatives because I believe the Admitting you CURRENTLY bite the Kritik covers you until the Kritik is fufilled. (Right now because you can't garuntee the Micro-Fascisms go away, The world in which the Kritik is fufilled bites the Kritik and creates a vicious cycle that will never fufill itself[You might use that to define the difference between you and the Aff to show how admitting your Micro-fascist is good]) It's much easier with the reject alt to define the difference between the world of the Alternative and the world of the Affirmative. Once you do that your golden. As opposed to right now your tripping over yourself multiple times to try to answer everyones arguments agaisnt it and on multiple occasions contradicting yourself already, or ignoring the key arguments that in a round would make you lose.

Again, I'm trying to help make this a better Kritik. All Kritiks can be better, (Except the Kritik found in the Lion King Aff, it just sucks in general)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

up front, a simple cross-examination question: does j23, in your view, 'break the rules'? if it doesn't, then you'll have to drop your football analogy ("If a football player runs out of bounds, claiming that it's a new rule he's trying, he'd get DQ'ed and his coach would probably bench him permanently"). if it does break the rules, then it's not 'just another kritik', is it? ...so, pick one.

 

on inter-round consistency, the only warrant i have here seems to be that it 'looks bad', that people will think teams running this are only out to win.

 

(1) cross-apply what's already been written about winning: nowhere is this position against it, so you're falsely attributing a stereotype to this critique that you've apparently gotten from more 'activist kritiks' which pretend to radically change the world ("ladies and gentlemen of planet earth introducing 'Johnny 23'").

 

(2) personal sincerity doesn't determine 'solvency': it's the material changes in the activity that count. for example, the kritik of all-masculine pronouns often compels debaters to edit their 'evidence' regardless of whether they personally believe in the substance of the argument, regardless of whether their phantom opponents do either. or take that greenhill round that i cited before: even if asher haig didn't believe a word he quoted from jim george, it moved me to investigate the literature further.

 

(3) this broaches a more fundamental issue - the concept of the subject you're using is flawed. what burroughs' referred to as 'word viruses' move through us; we're no more their authors than we're the conscious genetic engineers of whatever cold we catch. (or as heidegger put it, man doesn't speak language; language speaks man.) this is what d&g enact in the very first 'card': "...literature is like schizophrenia: ...a production and not an expression."

 

the practical implication of that is that us sinners can still do god's work - someone running this 'just to win' can still spread the word virus, thereby changing the way the game is played. your assumption to the contrary is a new link - yet another reason your 'perm' fails. in truth, nobody is wholly 'one with themselves' about hardly anything; or as d&g put it, "everyone is a little group and must live as such"....

 

the task of schizoanalysis is that of tirelessly taking apart egos and their presuppositions; liberating the prepersonal singularities they enclose and repress; mobilizing the flows they would be capable of transmitting, receiving, or intercepting; establishing always further and more sharply the schizzes and the breaks well below conditions of identity; and assembling the desiring-machines that countersect everyone...

 

that's 'anti-oedipus' (page 362). whereas what you're saying operates upon an obsolete model of subjectivity in which a clearly-defined person decides beforehand what beliefs they wish to collect. (if the post-structuralist talk makes your eyes roll, check out dan dennett's 'consciousness explained' - the chapter titled, how words do things with us.) foucault from the shell...

 

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.

 

on paranoia, i'll concede that at some point we must draw a matter-of-fact distinction between proper caution and paranoia based on some criteria for what counts as a legitimate fear. nevertheless, the danger of nuclear war breaking out as a direct result of poverty-reduction programs seems to me less than the danger that tolerating such hyperbolic rhetoric might pose for political debates surrounding poverty. ...does that make sense? i don't think passing most any affirmative plan i've heard will cause nuclear winter (despite many disadvantages i have heard which claim exactly that). however, i do think such talk isn't entirely innocuous: mitchell claims that, when taken to its extreme, it can erode our compassion, but even if not taken to the limit, it's a threat to discursive realism, not to mention an insult to our intelligence. the question is, how do we raise that point in the context of a debate round?, and my answer is this critique. but even if you hate it, the point isn't that one can never isolate a danger on pain of being called paranoid (d&g/foucault isolate the danger of fascism, after all). rather the point is sometimes propagating fear is the main danger.

 

"Dogmatic image of thought? Perpetuate? Hold on, you're saying that your K doesn't do that? Because it most certainly does. Just sayin'."

 

and this critique agrees with you. that's its distinguishing feature. if i write a book critiquing capitalism, can i still sell it without being a hypocrite? i say, no, you can't. what you can do is admit your hypocrisy and publish anyway (if there's no better alternative). perhaps this is what zizek means when he writes that sometimes 'the ethical is the temptation to be avoided' - that is, sometimes 'staying pure' leaves intact an intolerable status quo. (see again the hypothetical about the monarch who advocates free elections.)

 

in post #107, i advised debaters running this...

 

what you need to emphasize is ethos, more than a logocentric view of arguments on the flow. also your opponents are probably not going to go as far as you; the critical distance between you and them is why you're better suited to run with the ballot.

 

there's two steps: as in most kritiks, you've got to construct round-specific arguments by scrutinizing their discourse, looking at the reasoning of their evidence, pressing them on their assumptions, citing their rhetoric, etc. - so you've got to turn their counter-arguments into links. you're not engaging in schizoanalysis in general, but in a particular context.

 

then you've got to take a step back and see how even your own knee-jerk reactions are feeding certain discursive practices, how the adversarialism and the violence of judging, for examples, are themselves shaping the debate in anti-intellectual ways. that's your ethos - you're critical enough to insert a third term into a traditionally biunivocal axiomatic; you're creating an auto-critical process through your speech-acts, helping it grow through your reasoning, and sharing it with everyone in the room. the round belongs to no one - you don't own it because its a singular experience that belongs to itself. but it's your ability to [bring this to light...] which is the justification for the ballot. that way it'll spread.

 

(just to preempt a possible misunderstanding, i don't mean 'ethos' as any kind of personal sincerity, but simply as values characteristic to this critique: its distinguishing feature.) these two levels (win the argument; take a step back) were skillfully enacted by the other two respondents recently 'on my side' in this very thread: first, rhizome took one sentence to do what took me entire paragraphs (http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1688716&postcount=233) and then kunzelman wrote a mock back-and-forth to satirize the discussion (http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1689195&postcount=242).

 

so, i know i sound dogmatic, and i'm responding in debate-like fashion to all your arguments. if i wrote you a poem instead, it'd go one ear and out the other. i'm caught between doing a little wrong to do a little right and doing nothing at all. it's necessary for me to get under your skin and a good way to do so is by winning. still my hope is you'll take a step back and see how this very conversation demonstrates the thesis in question. for instance...

 

"If you were concerned about trying something new, you would now never run this in round because it's not 'something new' any longer. It's been exposed to hundreds of people..."

 

...see how you keep defining my words in the strictest way possible? when the shell says 'experiment', you insist on holding it to scientific standards, instead of giving it the benefit of common usage as 'trying something new'. then the only definition of 'new' you'll accept relies on how many times it's been run or how many people have seen it, when it's not difficult to discern that 'something new', in context, was synonymous with 'something different' - i.e., unlike the rest, unusual. how many kritiks have you run across that openly admit to linking to themselves?

 

"if you cannot garnish solvency with hundreds of people on an international forum, how can you hope to attain solvency with five people in a classroom?"

 

here, despite my cautionary remarks about 'solvency-talk', you insist on the reign of 'all-or-nothing'. vigilance against the fascist inside is never finished once and for all, and cultural transformations follow the order of 'one by one'. the photosynth guy i linked earlier puts it in brilliant deleuzian fashion at the end of his t.e.d. lecture...

 

so what the point here really is is that we can do things with the social environment, uh, this is now taking data from everybody, from the entire collective memory of visually what the earth looks like, and link all of that together, all of those photos become linked together and they make something emergent that's greater than the sum of its parts. you have a model that emerges of the entire earth (...) and this is something that grows in complexity as people use it and the benefits become greater to the users as they use it - their own photos getting tagged with meta-data that somebody else entered. (...) and, of course, a by-product of all that is immensely rich virtual models of every interesting part of the earth collected not just from overhead flights and satellite images and so on but from the collective memory.

 

 

this is a wonderful example of what d&g map out as 'rhizomes'. and to grow rhizomes in debate entails not viewing every round as the last judgment but as contributing, however trivially, to the richness of the community. it's not 'either you solve or you don't'; it's 'let's keep this going and see'. whereas you say...

 

"If you want to change a game you don't play the game. You talk to the heads."

 

oh, and what would an advocate of this critique ask for? what do you think 'the heads' can do? (incidentally, this entrenches a top-down model of power relations. you just lost to foucault.) :)

 

"The CP and the K were game-sanctioned arguments. They were decided by the NFL board as okay arguments."

 

umm, not really. they were highly controversial, especially the kritik. many tournaments, squads, camps, and leagues tried various kinds of restriction, repression, punishment, and censorship. you should ask some folks who've been around a while about the history. in the a.d.a., you're still not allowed to run 'kritiks without alternatives' (which contradicts your 'philosophical arguments ok'-claim, since philosophical arguments are sometimes without alternatives: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-August/063068.html ).

 

"your K is pretty much attesting to world solvency. "Prevent sterilized, cold-hearted argumentation machines from being taken in by corporations for their own personal use". That's pretty world changing."

 

meh. it's only concerned with debate, but to the extent debate socialization has a broader effect on other disciplines or public discussion, i suppose. if it contributes in a small way to softening the shrill tone which pervades many political debates today, that'd hardly be 'world changing', though it'd still outweigh the imaginary benefits of pretending to pass an affirmative plan.

 

"You've stated you don't know if j23 is the right answer or not. So isn't that pretending to know the answer?"

 

how is stating 'i don't know the answer' pretending to know the answer?

 

"when you preface something with 'here's what I take [someone] to be saying', you're replicating the microfascism again; didn't you say that taking people's writings and warping them is bad?"

 

ugh. for what i hope is the last time, the link there IS NOT misrepresentation. foucault and deleuze specifically encouraged people to treat their theories like a box of tools, to use their work in practice instead of pulling one's hair out over correct interpretations. obviously foucault never did our genre of academic debate, but that doesn't mean he has nothing helpful to say about it. so when he counsels us to counter fascism by freeing ourselves from "all unitary and totalizing paranoia", i apply his words to this activity as i did above. i fail to see the micro-fascism there, and indeed see your reply here as (paraphrasing foucault) 'a retreat into representation'. ...like judges who obsess over 'what the card says' instead of whether it makes any sense.

 

"As Gordon states, everything he says is based on a metaphor stretched to its limits. That means it's not happening in the squo, it's just a 'maybe'."

 

now who's distorting? "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." -- 'debaters SHOW a tendency'. NOT 'debaters MIGHT ONE DAY show a tendency'. debaters RIGHT NOW ARE SHOWING a tendency. "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." -- IS highlighted. that's present tense. no maybes.

 

now, it's true that the next 'card' does outline a possible scenario, but the tag-line accurately reflects that fact by using the word 'may'. also, simply because this scenario is only a possibility doesn't mean it isn't worth doing something to prevent it. so to claim this "means you lose your entire mechanism for the K: link, implication, and alt" is to dismiss mitchell's article without warrant.

 

"Seriously, do you have any other example besides Rove?"

 

do i need another one? here's someone who was trained as a debater and used those skills to do exactly what mitchell worries about above. i've already told you i'm not going to start listing names of debaters who've gone on to do questionable things; i make an exception for rove because he's already been so thoroughly called out:

 

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-March/047297.html

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-March/047682.html

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-March/074120.html

 

"calling you a mini-Stalin is fairly accurate."

 

come back to this slur in two years and tell me if you still stand by it.

 

"you're being more fascist than the aff because you're forcing the judge to vote neg."

 

HOW? what does 'force' even MEAN here? if debaters running this position are walking into their rounds with loaded weapons, and making threats on the physical well-being of their judges, then okay, i'm against that. but so far as i'm aware, they're respecting their opponents' equal time and merely using their own to advance this kick-ass critique. (preempt: 'kick-ass' not to be taken literally.) even if i fully granted that the separation between verbal communication and physical force isn't as hard-and-fast as it seems, why wouldn't this hold for those who don't run this critique as well as those who do? why when you make an argument is it a 'presentation of a good idea' (as i.c.a. had claimed) but when we make an argument it's 'mini-stalinism'? why aren't you just as guilty, except perhaps worse for not admitting it openly?

 

on your campfire analogy, you're still refusing to acknowledge that gas is continually being poured on the fire, i.e., the status quo is not free from micro-fascism. so if you're clear on the harms, yet still loath my solvency, what's your alternative?

 

the perm falters because you don't have one (an alternative). you borrow ours. but you can't perm a style. pretending you can is a new in-round discursive link. all the reasons why you link (and we don't) are reasons why the perm fails. (all this i've written before, so i'm being intentionally brief.) also, counter-perm: run case as a 'we demand'-affirmative; captures '(not) focusing on the state' net benefit. additionally, you're (unnecessarily) entrenching the very assumptions you claim to critique (and not admitting it) - that's like perming a critique of homicidal mania with 'kill a bunch of people, then ponder why it's wrong'. (you'll say, that's what we say about you, and i'll say, we slim down to what zizek might call a 'minimal difference', keeping only 'the evil' that's necessary to do some good, whereas you hang on to case.) furthermore, there's no chance of you running this in future rounds; if teams running this win on it, then that may alter their tournament strategy and increase the odds they'll run it again - not so for an affirmative team that's throwing out the word 'perm' in hopes of making the critique go away (cross-reference all your comments on this thread). ((i could go on.))

 

"You're satirizing your own K."

 

FINALLY, HE GETS IT!!!

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominordrian on March 7th : your being even more fascist than Debate was ever before

 

Dominordrian on March 9th : You're no better than the affirmative

 

maybe in another two days i'll get, 'okay, i guess you're slightly better, but you still lose because x,y,z'. :)

 

(...promise to get to the rest tomorrow.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dominordrian on March 7th : your being even more fascist than Debate was ever before

 

Dominordrian on March 9th : You're no better than the affirmative

 

maybe in another two days i'll get, 'okay, i guess you're slightly better, but you still lose because x,y,z'. :)

 

(...promise to get to the rest tomorrow.)

 

Exuse me if i came across as bull-headed or anything in previous posts, I tend to post when I'm doing work, this particular weekend was a frustrating technical paper on Nuclear Physics....:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exuse me if i came across as bull-headed or anything in previous posts, I tend to post when I'm doing work, this particular weekend was a frustrating technical paper on Nuclear Physics....:P

SERIOUSSSSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first, let me sincerely thank dominic for helping to make this critique better with constructive criticism.

 

of course this critique could guarantee that its alternative is free from any micro-fascism; however, i agree that this critique doesn't avoid all the implications of what it tries to critique. so, why is critiquing critique worth doing?, and how is this different from the norm?

 

because pointing out this conundrum has positive value. being honest about our situation is crucial, if we're not to get lost in the illusion of seemingly radical change - like burroughs' doctor lee. admittance is the first step, and this is the step those opposed to this critique seem unwilling to make. it has little to do with "embracing the inner fascist", but acknowledging how in warring against the fascist inside there are no final battles. a single debate round won't 'solve' for it, although we might be closer to fully appreciating the problem after two hours of debate than before.

 

"if all everyone reads in a debate round is [...] pig-shit, which pig-shit should I listen to?"

 

the one that admits itself to be pig-shit; the one that places within this pig-shit the 'explosive package' of such an admission. in anti-oedipus, d&g write: "when [the schizo] is more or less forced into it and is not in a touchy mood, [they] may even accept the banal oedipal code, so long as [they] can stuff it full of all the disjunctions that this code was designed to eliminate" (page 16). dominant practices of debate socialization (or 'oedipalization') teach us to feign certainty; therefore, to reinsert doubt into debate-speech means 'stuffing debate full of the disjunctions it was designed to eliminate'. on the other hand, 'throwing more pig-shit on the problem', to use your words, means spewing another standardly self-certain kritik.

 

given this, i haven't been given a direct answer to the question of how this critique 'links more to itself than the affirmative'. i'm told this is due to 'all the assumptions it makes', but it assumes less than the average bear: it doesn't assume the central importance of the state, doesn't assume the self-evident goodness of typical debating practices (such as uncritical subservience to resolutional framers), it doesn't even assume the irrefutable rightness of its own position.

 

"Reading your cards is unuquely micro-fascistic because you uniquely define the Affirmative as the other and rule everything they say in a round as micro-fascistic."

 

well let's qualify this argument so as to refine it: the hypothetical runners of j23 needn't rule out everything their opponents say as micro-fascistic; we can isolate specific instances of their discourse. second, isn't 'defining the affirmative as other' inherent to the format? ...indeed, this is one of the 'implicit presuppositions' of debate which this critique can shed some light on, and possibly try to overcome. in any case, the shell doesn't impact this - the only 'other' partially brought up are those who suffer from real-world tragedies that debaters cheer ("news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the 'uniqueness of a disadvantage' or bolster the 'inherency of an affirmative case'"). so you'd have to connect the otherization of the opposing team to micro-fascism - certainly not impossible, but then the question flips back, how is the affirmative team less otherizing?

 

"you create new micro-facsisms"

 

which micro-fascisms? ...i think you're attempting to say that contradicting oneself is micro-fascist, but isn't a defining trait of fascists that they don't contradict themselves? ...reading hitler's second book, you get the feeling that hitler is the most rational policymaker who ever lived. it's a little like the disturbing fact that sociopaths have no lack of self-esteem.

 

"Your supressing the free thought you wanted to release in the first place because again, all you want to do is win."

 

well, first, i don't see how you can accurately test debaters' desire; how can you be sure what they want? secondly, i don't see the connection between wanting to win and suppressing free thought; isn't it possible to free thought as a result of competitive motivation? isn't that debate's great gamble? and finally, there's a bit of a hegelian 'cunning of reason' at work here: in similar fashion to the fact that a bunch of neo-conservative imperialists may have liberated the people of iraq from dictatorship (keep your fingers crossed), it's possible that a bunch of debaters whose sole desire is to win debate rounds might liberate debate from the tyranny of state-centricism and dogmatism. you might return to what i wrote about the irrelevance of personal sincerity. it's the material practices of debate that this position is concerned with.

 

i'm not sure if this stance exhibits a real contradiction or simply a counter-intuitive resolution of a seemingly real contradiction: the monach who must accept being king in order to institute free elections; the marxist who must sell her critique of capitalism; the rortyean liberal who clings to the west in an ethnocentric fashion in order to make possible multiculturalism. i'll leave that for you to decide, but i continue to think that such tension is often the price we must pay for 'not making the perfect the enemy of the good'. this position isn't perfect, but it's still better than the alternatives its critics have not been presenting.

 

"The perfect example is Brown vs. The Board of education, it is at the top where change happens the most. The rules where changed at the top, with the Supreme Court. Not at a circuit level. Your trying to get something the equivilent of that case passed at a local level, instead of going to an NFL rules panel and argue the case there, you might get change."

 

to me this a perfect illustration of the illusion of top-down change. brown v. board of education came out of an entire movement for civil rights; it was the tip of an iceberg composed of tens of thousands of people and millions of smaller acts of defiance, inspiration, resistance, criticism, and change. those nine justices were teed up by decades of protest, but textbook-views of history obscure this fact. it's like foucault says of 'reform' (in politics, philosophy, culture - pages 155-6)...

 

to say to oneself at the outset: what reform will i be able to carry out? that is not, i believe, an aim for the intellectual to pursue. [their] role, since [they work] specifically in the realm of thought, is to see how far the liberation of thought can make those transformations urgent enough for people to want to carry them out and difficult enough to carry out for them to be profoundly rooted in reality. ...out of these conflicts, these confrontations, a new power relation must emerge, whose first, temporary expression will be a reform. if at the base there has not been the work of thought upon itself and if, in fact, modes of thought, that is to say modes of action, have not been altered, whatever the project for reform, we know that it will be swamped, digested by modes of behavior and institutions that will always be the same.

 

to apply this to your suggestion, to say to oneself at the outset 'what new rule could a n.f.l. panel enact?' is not the task of critique debaters. their work is the work of thought. if this process doesn't do the legwork round-by-round, then whatever new rule is enacted won't liberate; it'll mask the same ol' same ol'. for instance, just because the framers write a resolution doesn't mean debaters have to interpret it as they do, as limiting legalistic language; it can be a suggestion for further discussion, and no rule would have been violated. in a nutshell, it's the discursive practices that matter, the (oft-unsaid) social conventions, not the explicit rules. if the supreme court had tried to desegregate the schools in the absence of the cultural movement for civil rights, it wouldn't have cut the mustard, and indeed, its 'solvency' was mixed, as m.l.k. lamented, since practices of re-segregation quickly filled in - so-called 'white flight' schools, for one example, or racially placing students in higher or lower tracks, for another. to return to mitchell's key questions...

 

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? ... 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. ... The undercultivation of student agency in the academic field of argumentation IS a particularly pressing problem[.]
Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978535

 

daniel coffeen recommended lecture 30 to me; it uses william s. burroughs as a launching pad; it's a line-for-line discussion of burroughs' essay, 'immortality' - available here: http://www.interpc.fr/mapage/westernlands/immortality.html (lots of typos there if someone can link a better version; it's also missing important sections, it seems).

_

 

some notes... coffeen discusses the technique of "affirmative reading" as opposed to wholly negative criticism. he draws a distinction between 'the ugly spirit of the vampire' versus 'the ethics of the johnsons': "the vampires have taken over the world" versus "'The Johnson family' was a turn-of-the-century expression to designate good bums and thieves. It was elaborated into a code of conduct. A Johnson honours his obligations. His word is good and he is a good man to do business with. A Johnson minds his own business. He is not a snoopy, self-righteous, troublemaking person. A Johnson will give help when help is needed. He will not stand by while someone is drowning or trapped under a burning car."

 

burroughs deploys in an argument less words per se, and logic, than scenes, possibilities, images; he deploys gestures, he sees everything always as gestural. so he'll never just give you a straight, clear, logical argument - although he does deploy logic; at the end of this essay, we'll track his logic at the end of this, is so exquisite and hilarious, at the same time. but he doesn't, i'd argue, he doesn't argue with words. for him this basic unit is an image; he gives you this image: 'the colonel beaming at the crowd', right?, 'he wears the satified expression of one who has just sold the widow a fraudulent peach orchard'. he gives you a whole inhabited being. nothing's not inhabited for him. so he is making an argument about immorality. there is a whiff of science in here. he's making claims about society, about a science, about how the two interrelate, about the possibilities of immortality. but what it means: he's talking about life it-freakin'-self. and he deploys fragments of life, fragments of possible life - these sort of hyper-caricaturized demented scenes, rather than strictly logic, or even words. i'd argue that he doesn't even use words. he'll claim that words are a virus from outer space, that words occupy us, and you gotta break the word to form the image. the image is more free; the image can go forwards and backwards; the image has a kind of multiplicity all at once - that the word doesn't have. the word he sees as a kind of death. image is a kind of life.

 

in deleuze and guattari's vocabulary (from the first excerpt in the shell), 'the word' "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" and 'the image' "trac[es] flows and caus[es] them to circulate, flows that split asunder the catholic and despotic signifiers... and that necessarily nourish a revolutionary machine on the horizon". both burroughs and d&g value "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". this is the full weight of the idea that literature, like schizophrenia, is "a production and not an expression" (or again in burroughs' terms, 'an image and not a word').

 

the word virus (burroughs) = the oedipal form (d&g).

 

Doctor Lee is substitutable with Mr. Hart: "Mr. Hart embodies the competitive, acquisitive, success-minded spirit that formulated American capitalism. The logical extension of this ugly spirit is criminal. Success is its own justification. He who succeeds deserves to succeed; he is RIGHT." -- note the anti-dogmatism; opposition to the ugly spirit equates to opposition to micro-fascism: "This is a parable of vampirism gone berserk. ... The vampire converts quality-live blood, vitality, youth, talent-into quantity-food and time for himself. He perpetrates the most basic betrayal of the spirit, reducing all human dreams to his shit. And that's the wrongest wrong a man can be".

 

coffeen: "this is an essay on ethics".

foucault: "Anti-Oedipus... is a book of ethics".

 

{in a digression, coffeen mentions richard linklater's film, 'slacker'. ...neat film.}

 

burroughs is showing us what's at stake. if we think about immortality, which presumably is the ultimate 'more', the ultimate call to quantity - does that make sense? immortality is the fundamental call to quantity: 'i need more of this; i want this infinitely'. he's shown that a quantitative answer to this 'infinite more' will always... you'll always be getting less and less. 'you want this enzyme? at some point it's going to exhaust itself'. so by the end of this essay he's going to shift the argument, and say the way to immortality is in fact qualitative.

 

[burroughs] makes an argument akin to nietzsche's: that the will to say 'i'm meeeee' or 'i know the truth' is born out of weakness - it's something gone awry; it's sickly; it's a defensive reaction of the weak.

 

to return to our particular language-game, if "what we think of as our ego is defensive reaction, just as the symptoms of an illness" and "our beloved ego ... has no more continuity that a fever sweat", that is, if this goes for the person, how much more should it go for debate personas? so why then do we demand 'continuity' (i.e., consistent advocacy) from debaters (e.g., paper fork: "without inter-round consistency you lose your supposed solvency mechanism")? if burroughs is right, not doing so "opens many doors". this calls to mind d&g's concept of 'nomads' - or burroughs' 'roger the lodger'.

 

"The illusion of a separate, inviolable identity limits your perceptions and confines you in time. You live in other people and other people live in you..." - and we have to learn to be strong enough to face this. that's true immortality.

 

surf all these voices that come through you

-- coffeen's maxim for rhetoricians like we.

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questions, commentary and discussion on this K is fantastic.

 

However, the discussion has strayed relatively far from the actual 1NC (or deeper considering how you look at it) I only say far because in an actual debate round the discourse will never delve this deep into the rabbit hole that is D+G, intricacies of the forms of knowledge production and justifications for being ever vigilant against micro-fascistic policies in a specific context such as debate.

 

I know this because I've been to quarters at CEDA and qualified for the NDT this year. I've debated against some of the best teams in the country. I've been in 8 off debates, Lacan vs. Haraway debates, etc. and the issues never really go beyond... hmm... I'd say the questions posed UP TO page 6/7 of this thread.

 

The issues I think are driving the questions into page 9, 10 and beyond are these:

 

1.) The K is a non-critique (as Kafka would say) or a post-critical notion (as Baudrillard would consider it). So the way it functions in round is confusing.

 

2.) It clearly links to itself by reading cards and attempting SOME FORM of change while claiming that modernity's tendencies lead to micro-fascism. The concept of sneaking creative grenades through the back door posed as a normal position is confusng.

 

3.) As debaters we always ask: "so what does the world look like post-AFF or post-K?" and the answer to this question in regards to this case is inconclusive and unsure at best. What's making everyone trip balls is that that is exactly the point. Questioning certainty and absolute truth. Taking the gamble of an unchartered position to kindle critical fires.

 

I really really like this post-K. I really do. I'm creating a file out of my 163 pages of notes from reading maybe 1200 pages of D+G, Foucault (lectures, not books, I finished those freshmen year of college), Deleuze essays, Massimo, Baudrillard and some more. I'm creating this file so that I can use it next year.

 

So after all that I think I have one main question that I just can't come to terms with and kind of have a solution for (albeit a personal solution, I think anyone who runs this case has to find their own way of running it, as is the case with all kritiques. K's aren't supposed to be run like DAs, every team has to add their own flavor). Okay here we go:

 

If it's not the misinterpretation but the reduction of content (1NC #2): then why is it okay that we, who run this non-kritik, choose to share the information through commodified literature, cards?

 

I understand the concept of acting to sneak explosive creativities through the back-door, using the appearance of a legitimate carded position in order to further illegitimate questions. I also understand the fact that we are self-critical and aware of the self-link.

 

But seeing how the discussion has strayed so far off of the actual K in the Johnny 23 thread and seeing as how approximately 45% of varsity inter-collegiate policy judges (let alone high school) will NOT understand this literature at face value (if they can't adequately understand Foucault's concept of the fluidity of power or Heidegger's notion of dystopian Dasein [which they don't, I know from experience], then they won't get D+G) I wonder this:

 

Can't all of this be settled/avoided if I bring, instead of tubs of evidence, tubs of books including: Exterminator, A Thousand Plateaus, Anti-Oedipus, the Literature+Rhetoric magazine the Mitchell article was published in, a collection of Deleuze's works, Foucault's works, etc. and bookmark them and read from them so that we are not reducing the literature, presenting it ALL to be shared and accepted and to make the argument of changing debate practices one round a time more clear for the judge?

 

I've already started doing this. I have a few pieces of paper titled: Answers To, Links, Impact, Perm, Alternative Extensions and I just numbered the pages and paragraph its on and when I get up to make my argument I will read from the book.

 

I implications of this small modification is, I believe, extremely significant in not only expressing what the fault of the AFF is, what the point of the NEG is but it also eliminates alot of this "self-link" arguments.

 

What do y'all think?

 

- Babyface

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...