Jump to content
vismaypandia

Cut Up The 1Ac?

Recommended Posts

Thinking about running this Cut up the 1AC arg soon. Wondering if anyone can give me a good and correct explanation on this -- have to tell me team about it as well. This involves the Burroughs evi, fyi. Any tips or potential args I will see would help too. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a huuuuuuge cross-x discussion on the cut-up about 5 years ago. Search function that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean this is an argument you should be able to figure out yourself if you want to run it. As in, it's not exactly an argument that's I can explain in a single cross X post and expect a team that (as far as I know) hasn't ran complicated args or anything in pseudo-Deleuzian lit. Cut the evidence, I remember the Goddard evidence being the most 'clear' of those. The perm card is BS, but fun to read.

 

This argument is way better for more post-modern affs, particularly things DnG and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've already started cutting the evidence. I get the idea of it, for me, I just like being explained what the arg is in simple terms. That's just my learning style; the the perm card is BS, pretty lulzy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've already started cutting the evidence. I get the idea of it, for me, I just like being explained what the arg is in simple terms. That's just my learning style; the the perm card is BS, pretty lulzy though.

dude do you have the original threads? links?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i worked at millard south when we put this together. you should pm to discuss the file. the suggestion that you should just be able to figure it out for yourself is one i wouldn't take, if i were you. figure it out, yes. by yourself, i wouldn't. i think the previous discussion should be a sufficient starting point for those of you with only a passing interest or curiosity, so if it becomes clear you've come to me with questions before attempting to engage that already existing explanation or discussion i will be less than an ideal educator probably (or more so than usual). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion for 'learning for yourself' was more that it's better to try to grasp the argument yourself and then PM someone like TLF for specfic questions about ev or application instead of having the whole argument simplified. I would of course offer him an explanation if he was hitting it or wanted to see how correct his interpretation is, I just have become hesitant to explain complicated arguments to people who seem intent on running them where I don't know if they have any understanding than what I have provided them, I feel like I have to at least let people know no cross-x post can prepare you enough to run a K, especially from post-modern literature.

 

Read the original threads but mostly read the evidence, it's only slightly useful to know the argument but not how the cards make the argument. Also any explanation or interp of the arg given to you would depend on how much experience you have with like Deleuze and other post-modern writers.

 

Also TLF, I know MS ran the immortality version of this, but did you guys read the math class perm card? If so how was it applied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't recall there being a card about math class, and i didn't find one upon my quick look back at the version of that file i have. but that file (and no i'm not being cute) changed a lot and went through a ton of versions and whatnot, so it's very possible we did at some point. By and large though, i think we were all about stuff from the 1NC, maybe another one or two more from murphy/burroughs, and the ole' counterperm. we also read the argument as an aff, so maybe you mean an aff. perm card, but sort of same answer. don't remember one, didn't find one on my hard drive, not necessarily a hard "no we didn't read it ever". 

i could attempt to apply it if you had a copy i could look at, but i wouldn't be speaking at all to how it has been applied in debate rounds in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't recall there being a card about math class, and i didn't find one upon my quick look back at the version of that file i have. but that file (and no i'm not being cute) changed a lot and went through a ton of versions and whatnot, so it's very possible we did at some point. By and large though, i think we were all about stuff from the 1NC, maybe another one or two more from murphy/burroughs, and the ole' counterperm. we also read the argument as an aff, so maybe you mean an aff. perm card, but sort of same answer. don't remember one, didn't find one on my hard drive, not necessarily a hard "no we didn't read it ever". 

 

i could attempt to apply it if you had a copy i could look at, but i wouldn't be speaking at all to how it has been applied in debate rounds in the past. 

that card is from a camp 1 or 2 years ago that cut a similar counterplan. i have a copy of that file somewhere

 

the card that he's referring to is:

 

 
Permutations are mathematically impossible in the instance where selection of a resulting equation is variable as in a debate round—searching for a permutation only causes frustration that results in classroom violence
Cook ‘9 John, math teacher “Classroom violence, combinations, and permutations†September 2
A woman nearly became violent ... for 12 students and five grades.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow...uh, i don't think you should read that card as part of a burroughs argument. what you have there is a justification for a permutation that is explicitly based on mathematics. burroughs cut up understands language as a system of control, he takes the method from gysin (this like, surrealist pseudo-dadaist). the whole point is to disorder the system of language, to let some uncontrollable random "magic" shine through what is created, and when we argued immortality it was from this moment of rupture that we intended to blur the lines between fiction and reality (lines we said were violent and controlling). so while we didn't explicitly make a "math bad" argument, hopefully you can see how there might be some uh...tension there. 

so no, we did not read that card nor would we have entertained doing so. 

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...