Jump to content
zetazetadelta

Still Looking For Some Kritik Answers

Recommended Posts

Hey, I'm looking for answers to:

 

Deleuze Ks

 

Baudrillard Ks

 

Discourse Ks (specifically I want cards on substance first, rhetoric doesn't matter, and judge choice justifications)

 

I'm only interested in highlighted files with prewritten 2ACs.

 

PM, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with requests like this, and the reason they are perennially made, is because there's no such thing as "AT Deleuze" or "AT Baudrillard" because the decades of scholarship produced by these scholars is not reducible to a single argument. They have (understandably) made many diverse arguments that may have little to nothing in common with each other.

 

Baudrillard's writing spans literally thousands of subjects; how could something as generic as "AT Baudrillard" possibly exist? 

And scholars can't even agree on what is encompassed by the term "discourse". If they can't even get the definition straight, in what way could the singular argument "Discourse" exist such that an "AT Discourse" is even possible? 

 

For that reason, the only way to effectively respond to the plurality of these schools of thought is to read them, understand them, and formulate affirmative-specific blocks. 

 

That or, you know, go for framework. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you can't respond to every argument possible, but some arguments are more popular than others and can be anticipated. There are common themes that many arguments have, and many specific authors as well. By necessity, debaters must generalize their blocks, because not everyone has the resources to investigate every single author in depth. Stop with the intellectual elitism.

Edit: I misunderstood what you meant by "affirmative-specific". I do think that blocks specific to your affirmative and its assumptions are a good idea, but I still think that generalizing and essentializing the arguments various K authors make allows for better responses because then you can use them in conjunction with your affirmative-specific arguments to make a broader variety of claims and better tailor those arguments to your opponent's by virtue of your increased preparedness, so I think the point stands.

Edited by Hubris
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would also be useful for me too, I'm trying to create the ultimate ATK folder incorporating every K known to policy debate

hit me up when you're done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you can't respond to every argument possible, but some arguments are more popular than others and can be anticipated. There are common themes that many arguments have, and many specific authors as well. By necessity, debaters must generalize their blocks, because not everyone has the resources to investigate every single affirmative or possible affirmative. Stop with the intellectual elitism.

Tell me, hubris, what you think the main three arguments that Baudrillard levies are?

 

Its not intellectual elitism to say "you're referring to a nonexistent thing, read as much of the literature as you can to formulate specific blocks".  

 

The reason Deleuze and Baudrillard are so popular is because teams read "generalized blocks" which aren't even moderately responsive, then the Deleuze and Baudrillard teams laugh them off and win. Your advice is literally the best way to lose a round.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if an author can be boiled down to a "common theme" that's usually either far too gross of an oversimplification to represent the nuances of an argument (as snarf is saying) or it's so basic it can't be refuted (e.g., "sometimes information is different from reality" for baudrillard or "power exists" for foucault or "stuff is different from other stuff" for really any post-structuralist).  you're best off applying your "general" blocks (which really shouldn't exist, you should have case-specific applications of your aff to arguments which don't necessarily have to be pre-scripted) to the specific round--figure out what part of the aff they're applying the k to and then defend it.  that will guaranteed be more responsive than "heidegger had something to do with nazis rite" 100% of the time

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if an author can be boiled down to a "common theme" that's usually either far too gross of an oversimplification to represent the nuances of an argument (as snarf is saying) or it's so basic it can't be refuted (e.g., "sometimes information is different from reality" for baudrillard or "power exists" for foucault or "stuff is different from other stuff" for really any post-structuralist).  you're best off applying your "general" blocks (which really shouldn't exist, you should have case-specific applications of your aff to arguments which don't necessarily have to be pre-scripted) to the specific round--figure out what part of the aff they're applying the k to and then defend it.  that will guaranteed be more responsive than "heidegger had something to do with nazis rite" 100% of the time

this exactly, thank you. 

unfortunately (and for the first time ever) I got the message: "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this exactly, thank you. 

unfortunately (and for the first time ever) I got the message: "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

While it is difficult to simplify their arguments into one "general" argument, it's much easier to make generic blocks to how these kritiks are normally run in DEBATE. Obviously, if a team knows what they are talking about, they will probably be running a nuanced argument, but a lot of times I always hit the same basic argument. For example, just basic blocks to that DebateNexis baudrillard file, because way too many people run that stuff (ie. Nuclear Hyperreality) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read one generic Deleuze block. I made this request because labels like Deleuze and Baudrillard are useful for organizing evidence. For example, when I cut/trade for new Deleuze cards, I organize them according to theme, and stick them in a file from which I pull the correct evidence for the argument at hand.

 

There's a point where specificity becomes impracticable. You can run Baudrillard a million different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you make an interesting point Snarf, but that doesn't mean you give up on getting cards/doing research.

I assume you agree on this question.

 

I think worldview, assumptions, methodology, etc... questions can often fit across multiple blocks on a given author.

 

Or the "if you really believe this author, you need structure/institutions, ethics, or their reps" type-card--would also likely

apply across frontlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you make an interesting point Snarf, but that doesn't mean you give up on getting cards/doing research.

I assume you agree on this question.

 

I think worldview, assumptions, methodology, etc... questions can often fit across multiple blocks on a given author.

 

Or the "if you really believe this author, you need structure/institutions, ethics, or their reps" type-card--would also likely

apply across frontlines.

I don't think you give up doing research. I think you customize the research to your affirmative, by examining the assumptions underlying your aff, then robustly defending them.

 

For example, if you use the state, you should have a robust defense of state-driven solutions. Then whether or not you're answering Deleuze's objection to state action or Baudrillard's objection to state action, you have something to defend your aff. 

 

That's also why I suggested reading the source literature - like Baudrillard or Deleuze - so that you can have offensive justification of your assumption, but can also defend against their objection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me, hubris, what you think the main three arguments that Baudrillard levies are?

 

I'm not very familiar with Baudrillard, but I think that a few of his arguments are common. For example, his work on nuclear deterrence is popular, his claims about hyperreality are likened to debate practices fairly often, the 'shadowboxing' argument tends to pop up a lot in the context of K alternatives, his writings on ecology are popular, and preparing answers to the "mirror/crystal" alternative card might be a good idea. Those arguments are all subject to various common misinterpretations, and probably don't deserve the popularity they've got, but they can be anticipated in advance.

 

Its not intellectual elitism to say "you're referring to a nonexistent thing, read as much of the literature as you can to formulate specific blocks".  

The reason Deleuze and Baudrillard are so popular is because teams read "generalized blocks" which aren't even moderately responsive, then the Deleuze and Baudrillard teams laugh them off and win. Your advice is literally the best way to lose a round.  

 

I don't advise that people read author specific blocks, you're misinterpreting me if you read my post that way. I don't think that a good AT: Deleuze block is possible, but I do think that AT: Deleuze files are both possible and desirable. The generalized file alone wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to win a debate against a good opponent, and would definitely benefit if it was tailored to a specific criticism or affirmative case, but it would help and be a good starting point.

 

It's intellectual elitism to claim that there are an infinite variety of arguments or that arguments can only be understood through reading vast swathes of literature. Generalized approaches are inevitable because no one is going to read the entire works of every critical theorist in the world. Accuracy might go down slightly if arguments are understood in general terms, but the efficiency of debate work goes up immensely. It's snobbish to act as though there's only one proper way to go about researching arguments or preparing for debates, not everyone has the luxury of a lot of free time or a large squad.

 

even if an author can be boiled down to a "common theme" that's usually either far too gross of an oversimplification to represent the nuances of an argument (as snarf is saying) or it's so basic it can't be refuted (e.g., "sometimes information is different from reality" for baudrillard or "power exists" for foucault or "stuff is different from other stuff" for really any post-structuralist).  you're best off applying your "general" blocks (which really shouldn't exist, you should have case-specific applications of your aff to arguments which don't necessarily have to be pre-scripted) to the specific round--figure out what part of the aff they're applying the k to and then defend it.  that will guaranteed be more responsive than "heidegger had something to do with nazis rite" 100% of the time
 

I'm talking about "common themes", plural. Having arguments against solely micropolitical approaches or against historical genealogies as K alternatives, for example, is neither obvious nor dependent on oversimplification, but could be very useful in a Foucault debate. That's also the sort of thing that you won't think to research if you only research things in terms of your own affirmative case.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm talking about "common themes", plural. Having arguments against solely micropolitical approaches or against historical geneologies, for example, is neither obvious or dependent on oversimplification, but could be very useful in a Foucault debate.

 

only gonna respond to this part bc i don't wanna get involved in the rest of it

 

while those might be useful to some degree it definitely still suffers from the reductionism problem--like, foucault could be described as micropolitical, sure, but so could deleuze or really any poststructuralist, and often the literature will be responding to one vein of "micropolitics" which most half-decent k debaters will be able to differentiate from theirs (honestly i think that the concept of "micropolitical approaches" suffers more from my argument than anything, in that it's really hard to craft an argument that refutes "sometimes stuff changes stuff on a local level which may effect more change").  similarly, genealogical approaches have been used by everyone from libertarians to frank wilderson.  my argument is just that it's hard to have a generic refutation of any of your "common themes" without either being nonresponsive or just plain dumb ("lol lets not look at the past this time guyz").  there is literally no disadvantage to pursuing an approach that focuses more on the application of the aff to the k rather than refuting the individual parts of the k--it's much more strategic to see the forest from the trees in that looking at how the k interacts with the aff will be much more productive than seeing the phrase "ontology" in the context of a wilderson debate and pulling out your "heideggerian ontological approach wrong" frontline.

 

by the way, you should know that taleb's name is actually "nassim nicholas taleb", and not "nicholas nassem taleb"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending reading nonresponsive arguments, and I agree that an overreliance on blocks is bad. I don't understand why you believe that it's so difficult to generalize arguments that other people make, or why prewritten arguments will inevitably be either nonresponsive or dumb. Even if there's not a fully generic response to micropolitics, there are some good arguments about how engaging the state is important, which can be written in the context of various authors' worldviews. You claim that it would be dumb to ignore the past completely, and I agree, but that doesn't mean that geneological critiques don't have their limits or that those limits can't be understood in advance. You seem to want debaters to improvise the entirety of the K debate, based on their familiarity with their affirmative and whatever of the K literature they're familiar with. I think that can be productive, but that having some prewritten arguments is also a good idea as long as you don't apply them stupidly. I'm a bit surprised anyone would disagree.

 

by the way, you should know that taleb's name is actually "nassim nicholas taleb", and not "nicholas nassem taleb"


I guess the sparkles weren't enough to clue you in, but my signature is not at all serious. It actually works better misspelled.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discourse Ks (specifically I want cards on substance first, rhetoric doesn't matter, and judge choice justifications)

 

no, fuck you, cunt-beaner.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trolls on this forum have been getting progressively more and more aggressive.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is literally no disadvantage to pursuing an approach that focuses more on the application of the aff to the k rather than refuting the individual parts of the k

 

I'm not defending reading nonresponsive arguments, and I agree that an overreliance on blocks is bad....you believe that it's so difficult to generalize arguments that other people make, or why prewritten arguments will inevitably be either nonresponsive or dumb.

 

Is there any clash here? Or do both of you think the other misunderstands your argument?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any clash here? Or do both of you think the other misunderstands your argument?

 

I don't think there's much clash. Initially I thought he just missed the plural, now I don't know what he's thinking. I guess in the most charitable light possible, we just differ on questions of emphasis, while agreeing with each other on what the ideal is.

 

There might be some clash regarding whether or not it's possible to generalize arguments, but I can't identify where his warrant for why that's either impossible or oversimplifying is, if he has one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But someone told me clash was good Tambakaki 12 [Paulina, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, September 18, “Agonism in International Relations?†http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/18/agonism-in-international-relations]

Central to agonistic theory (and its different versions) is the assumption that differences and disagreements are constitutive of politics, and strife plays a vital, nourishing, role. Elicited by plural interpretations of the socio-political imaginary, strife challenges hegemonic ways of being and, according to agonistic theorists, ensures that democratic politics remains dynamic and alert at instances of closure. On one level, then, strife is central to the agonistic vocabulary because it instantiates the agon or contest necessary to ‘undo’ the given and the hegemonic. On another level, it is central because it attests to the pluralism constitutive of democratic life. Neither dispensable then, nor a problem to be solved, strife means politics for agonistic theorists, and points to the idea that a vibrant democracy might not simply call for the creation of an institutional haven, but for the cultivation of such ethos of contestation. Can agonistic theory with its emphasis on dissensus and suspicion of institutional politics contribute to international relations theorising? And the reverse: can international relations theorising with its twin focus on institution building and harmonious being-together give agonistic theory flesh and bones? With critical approaches increasingly being integrated into international relations thinking, it comes as little surprise that agonistic theory is rising into prominence – to influence, challenge and expose hegemonic readings of the ‘international’. The irony is inescapable, perhaps even inevitable. While agonistic writings resist the primacy of institutionalisation, international relations theorising does not just invite, but also promotes the very institutionalisation which agonistic theorists are sceptical about – especially if we consider that, ironically, it is in peace-building studies that agonistic theory appears to be most influential. Then, there is the issue of conflict. Although it would appear in the first instance that the focus which agonistic theorists place on the constitutivity of conflict chimes well with the pluriverse of international relations, with the post-conflict and conflict-prone zones that international policy makers are keen to grasp and address, on closer inspection we notice an interesting difference. While agonistic theorists emphasise dissent, critique and contestation, with the aim of securing political openness (an emphasis which attests to the radical credentials of agonistic theory), peace-building theorising inasmuch as international policy making acknowledges dissent and contestation with the aim of securing reconciliation or ‘harmony of selves’. To be sure, openness and reconciliation/harmony of selves are not mutually exclusive objectives, but they are different – one hints to an eventual end state (reconciliation/harmony of selves), the other to incompletion, to the constant interplay between fixity and rupture (openness). By thus diminishing the difference between the two, between openness and reconciliation, we diminish and perhaps even underplay the radical import of agonistic theory. This radical import does not simply consist in the assumption that we need to politicise (pacify) premodern types of conflict, but that we need to conflictualise politics, to subject liberal democratic politics to interrogation and critique. Indeed, liberal democracy is, ironically, the key site for agonistic politics – ironically, because it is precisely the western focus on liberal democracy that critical theorisations of the international confront through recourse to agonism. This is not only because democracy means critique in the agonistic vocabulary, but also because critique (ideally) thrives in liberal democracy. Although, it could certainly be objected that by moving away from the one-dimensional focus on state institutions, agonistic theory does hold open the possibility for local variations of liberal democracy – especially if we accentuate the attention given to the ethos or attitude of contesting the given and hegemonic – the critical acceptance of liberal democracy is unmissable. For it is not institutions (state, inter- or non-governmental) which instil citizens with the ethos of critique, as state builders would like us to believe, but citizens who exercise this ethos of critique. Does this mean then that agonism, has little to contribute to international relations theory? The answer to this question depends not on the version of agonism we adopt, Connolly’s [ii] ethico-political version or Mouffe’s [iii] institutionally friendly conception of the agon, but rather on the type of politics we endorse. For what agonistic theory teaches us above all is that politics, and international politics for that matter, is not out there set, fixed and closed, calling for institutional blueprints that would give solutions to ‘real’ problems. But it is collectively constructed, contingent, and incomplete. To return therefore to the second question we set at the beginning, whether international relations theorising can give flesh and bones to agonistic theory, it could be argued that by seeking to institutionally translate agonism, as peace-building theorising does, we miss not only the point of agonism, but also of politics. For uncertainty is both the lure and risk of agonistic politics.

  • Upvote 2

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...