Jump to content
Coconuts

DnG

Recommended Posts

Why is it that a large amount of the people on the forum love DnG? Today, I saw someone post a DnG K that was never broken, and a VDebate that consisted of 3 DnG off case, not to mention people like DML and Steven Maury being members here. I get that it's a good kritik, just that there aren't many people here who love K's like Psychoanalysis (that I've noticed) thus the help here for it is severely lacking. (No pun intended)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that a large amount of the people on the forum love DnG? Today, I saw someone post a DnG K that was never broken, and a VDebate that consisted of 3 DnG off case, not to mention people like DML and Steven Maury being members here. I get that it's a good kritik, just that there aren't many people here who love K's like Psychoanalysis (that I've noticed) thus the help here for it is severely lacking. (No pun intended)

Nah, I doubt that that could be an accident. It's tooo good of a pun

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that a large amount of the people on the forum love DnG? Today, I saw someone post a DnG K that was never broken, and a VDebate that consisted of 3 DnG off case, not to mention people like DML and Steven Maury being members here. I get that it's a good kritik, just that there aren't many people here who love K's like Psychoanalysis (that I've noticed) thus the help here for it is severely lacking. (No pun intended)

If you're referring to me with the DnG K. I'll say this much--- I have large, blocked out DnG files and i don't have a psychoanalysis file.

 

I'm not especially familiar with pschoanalyis, but i don't know if its links that well to critical affs that defend state action.  I like DnG for that because the 1AC does half the work for me.  For regular policy affs, I usually run security (which to be fair, shares many similarities with psychoanalysis) and with this neg strat there isn't room for much else and i'd rather be good with a small number of k's than meh with a larger number.

 

I totally agree with you that this site is in love with DnG, i'm not entirely sure why.  When i first got onto this site, everyone seemed to talk about it as the pinnacle of K lit, which is possibly what got me interested in it in the first place

Edited by feldsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Links to everything.
2. Lots of jargon.
3. Steven Murray.
4. Debate culture is an echo chamber.

That's literally it. It's not like DnG are the pinnacle of intellectual criticism or anything else like that. In my opinion the authors who discuss biopower are far more interesting and in depth.

Edited by Umbrella
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It's a great pun lolololol

2. It's popular cause once you learn it really in depth Deleuze can link to almost any aff ever. I think that the Desire k is the most common one used but the becoming-minority k is also quite popular with affs like performative race, which is just saying the blacks aren't black but are becoming-black. But that's a different story.

3. Yeah where is said file? OMG do not use the one on open evidence cause it sucks in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, where is said file?

 

 

1. It's a great pun lolololol

2. It's popular cause once you learn it really in depth Deleuze can link to almost any aff ever. I think that the Desire k is the most common one used but the becoming-minority k is also quite popular with affs like performative race, which is just saying the blacks aren't black but are becoming-black. But that's a different story.

3. Yeah where is said file? OMG do not use the one on open evidence cause it sucks in my opinion

 

It was in the "Looking for a good K to run" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze and Guattari are an enigma, a mystery, and a boogeyman.  Even in higher academic planes their works are often mystified and made out to be simultaneously groundbreaking and ineffable.  They are particularly applicable to debate because they do not write with a particular time or place in mind.  Instead they are writing blue prints, general theoretical relationships that can be applied in many different contexts.  This is why something as simple as the Seem introduction to Anti-Oedipus can criticize both heg affs and identity affs.  

 

If I may air a grievance with how people have been recently deploying their work: Deleuze and Guattari do not make ethical judgments of territorialization, transcendence, immanence, etc.  They are merely providing movement relationships. Those terms are tools to be applied, lenses to evaluate and understand events.  Transcendence is not inherently bad and immanence is not inherently good, you have to use specific analysis of the points or curves where those terms apply. I think Claire Colebrook says it best:

"The emphasis on deterritorialisation is normative to an extent because they see deterritorialisation as immanent not just to capitalism but to life itself. This means that capitalism isn’t just an accident that befell us, such that if we had been smarter or better it wouldn’t have happened. There is a tendency towards both territorialisation and deterritorialisation in life itself, which is always a positively marked term for Deleuze and Guattari. That means I think the emphasis on deterritorialisation is strictly normative. According to their model, biological life only proceeds by differentiating itself and making connections that, as it were, do away with identity; but in order to create new identities. This process is going to create certain political formations. So then, from this perspective, the problem with capitalism is that it’s not ‘capitalist’ enough, it is not deterritorialising enough, and that’s why that quotation about how it comes against its own limit is so important. That’s where we find the possibility for analysis. For example, this framework would enable us to consider the political ambivalence of the situation wherein a capitalist organisation moves into an Aboriginal community in outback Australia. The people are completely destitute, and then there is this massive influx of benefit and material goods. But at the same time we see the complete evacuation of anything indigenous that would resist the system. At those points then you don’t need a stupid, reactive, anti-capitalism, which would say ‘it’s capitalism and therefore it’s bad’. You don’t need a distinction between good and evil. You need a very fine-tuned analysis of the relation between deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation and the ways in which, under conditions of accumulation, it all gets turned back into an axiom of profit, or capital." 

 

(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze and Guattari are an enigma, a mystery, and a boogeyman.  Even in higher academic planes their works are often mystified and made out to be simultaneously groundbreaking and ineffable.  They are particularly applicable to debate because they do not write with a particular time or place in mind.  Instead they are writing blue prints, general theoretical relationships that can be applied in many different contexts.  This is why something as simple as the Seem introduction to Anti-Oedipus can criticize both heg affs and identity affs.  

 

If I may air a grievance with how people have been recently deploying their work: Deleuze and Guattari do not make ethical judgments of territorialization, transcendence, immanence, etc.  They are merely providing movement relationships. Those terms are tools to be applied, lenses to evaluate and understand events.  Transcendence is not inherently bad and immanence is not inherently good, you have to use specific analysis of the points or curves where those terms apply. I think Claire Colebrook says it best:

"The emphasis on deterritorialisation is normative to an extent because they see deterritorialisation as immanent not just to capitalism but to life itself. This means that capitalism isn’t just an accident that befell us, such that if we had been smarter or better it wouldn’t have happened. There is a tendency towards both territorialisation and deterritorialisation in life itself, which is always a positively marked term for Deleuze and Guattari. That means I think the emphasis on deterritorialisation is strictly normative. According to their model, biological life only proceeds by differentiating itself and making connections that, as it were, do away with identity; but in order to create new identities. This process is going to create certain political formations. So then, from this perspective, the problem with capitalism is that it’s not ‘capitalist’ enough, it is not deterritorialising enough, and that’s why that quotation about how it comes against its own limit is so important. That’s where we find the possibility for analysis. For example, this framework would enable us to consider the political ambivalence of the situation wherein a capitalist organisation moves into an Aboriginal community in outback Australia. The people are completely destitute, and then there is this massive influx of benefit and material goods. But at the same time we see the complete evacuation of anything indigenous that would resist the system. At those points then you don’t need a stupid, reactive, anti-capitalism, which would say ‘it’s capitalism and therefore it’s bad’. You don’t need a distinction between good and evil. You need a very fine-tuned analysis of the relation between deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation and the ways in which, under conditions of accumulation, it all gets turned back into an axiom of profit, or capital." 

 

(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)

that is an *excellent* perm card to generic 1NC links. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze and Guattari are an enigma, a mystery, and a boogeyman.  Even in higher academic planes their works are often mystified and made out to be simultaneously groundbreaking and ineffable.  They are particularly applicable to debate because they do not write with a particular time or place in mind.  Instead they are writing blue prints, general theoretical relationships that can be applied in many different contexts.  This is why something as simple as the Seem introduction to Anti-Oedipus can criticize both heg affs and identity affs.  

 

If I may air a grievance with how people have been recently deploying their work: Deleuze and Guattari do not make ethical judgments of territorialization, transcendence, immanence, etc.  They are merely providing movement relationships. Those terms are tools to be applied, lenses to evaluate and understand events.  Transcendence is not inherently bad and immanence is not inherently good, you have to use specific analysis of the points or curves where those terms apply. I think Claire Colebrook says it best:

"The emphasis on deterritorialisation is normative to an extent because they see deterritorialisation as immanent not just to capitalism but to life itself. This means that capitalism isn’t just an accident that befell us, such that if we had been smarter or better it wouldn’t have happened. There is a tendency towards both territorialisation and deterritorialisation in life itself, which is always a positively marked term for Deleuze and Guattari. That means I think the emphasis on deterritorialisation is strictly normative. According to their model, biological life only proceeds by differentiating itself and making connections that, as it were, do away with identity; but in order to create new identities. This process is going to create certain political formations. So then, from this perspective, the problem with capitalism is that it’s not ‘capitalist’ enough, it is not deterritorialising enough, and that’s why that quotation about how it comes against its own limit is so important. That’s where we find the possibility for analysis. For example, this framework would enable us to consider the political ambivalence of the situation wherein a capitalist organisation moves into an Aboriginal community in outback Australia. The people are completely destitute, and then there is this massive influx of benefit and material goods. But at the same time we see the complete evacuation of anything indigenous that would resist the system. At those points then you don’t need a stupid, reactive, anti-capitalism, which would say ‘it’s capitalism and therefore it’s bad’. You don’t need a distinction between good and evil. You need a very fine-tuned analysis of the relation between deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation and the ways in which, under conditions of accumulation, it all gets turned back into an axiom of profit, or capital." 

 

(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)(Jeremy Gilbert, Éric Alliez, Claire Colebrook, Peter Hallward, Nicholas Thoburn - all have PhDs and whatever; "Deleuzian Politics? A Roundtable Discussion"; New Formations)

Here's a link to the site where they have the full PDF

 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lwish/nf/2010/00000068/00000001/art00011

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Links to everything.

2. Lots of jargon.

3. Steven Murray.

4. Debate culture is an echo chamber.

 

That's literally it. It's not like DnG are the pinnacle of intellectual criticism or anything else like that. In my opinion the authors who discuss biopower are far more interesting and in depth.

 

RTRTRTRT This is the truest post ever made in this forum now and forever (except the last part which is an opinion but still). I would tattoo this on my back if I was stupid.

.

 

In debate, it's for the above reasons and also because once the basics are acquired, it is a very useful K in terms of it's functionality and utility. It isn't just that Deleuze links to everything, but Deleuze can be used in an infinite amount of forms and has an exhaustive literature base behind it. Also keep in mind that DnG is also very popular in actual academic circles as well. They manage to create an intellectual toolbox out of a bunch of previous theorists that links different approaches to knowledge, politics and organization in a seamless way

 

There will always be a part of high school K debate that is just a circlejerk over an argument like Deleuze, just like how too many kids are trying to run OOO without ever even opening up Levi Bryant's blog or learning an author besides Levi Bryant. I'm a high schooler, I'm a k debater, and I specialize in DnG, but I'll be the first to say that it's a little annoying that every person who enters policy debate thinks they have to learn DnG and run it in order to be a good debater. That's not true at all but it is a weird internalized belief amongst most high school K debaters, especially those that enter this forum.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the incredibly few debaters (maybe 2-3 in the last 4 years) who have a strong understanding of schizoanalysis tend to win a boatload of rounds.  That's more likely correlation than causation because of how smart you have to be to get a firm grasp of the literature base, but there you go.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the incredibly few debaters (maybe 2-3 in the last 4 years) who have a strong understanding of schizoanalysis tend to win a boatload of rounds.  That's more likely correlation than causation because of how smart you have to be to get a firm grasp of the literature base, but there you go.  

Who were some of the good DnG debaters in the last 4 years?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who were some of the good DnG debaters in the last 4 years?

Sam Gustavson, Josh Nabors, Chris Leonardi, DKP, and Michael Leap all come to mind.  That's not to dismiss other people who read the argument, these are just the people that stand out in my mind.  I can't judge EVERY Deleuze debate, no matter how much you people try and make me.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Gustavson, Josh Nabors, Chris Leonardi, DKP, and Michael Leap all come to mind.  That's not to dismiss other people who read the argument, these are just the people that stand out in my mind.  I can't judge EVERY Deleuze debate, no matter how much you people try and make me.  

What about that guy that looks like Simone Weil that debated for Michigan(?) in college?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that guy that looks like Simone Weil that debated for Michigan(?) in college?

Edmund Zagorin. My awesome lab leader.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that guy that looks like Simone Weil that debated for Michigan(?) in college?

I was listing high school debaters, but obvi Edmond was an absolute genius when it came to everything, including DnG.  

 

pre-edit: I guess I never saw Leap in HS, but he was/is still baller.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listing high school debaters, but obvi Edmond was an absolute genius when it came to everything, including DnG.  

 

pre-edit: I guess I never saw Leap in HS, but he was/is still baller.

And Leap is the guy with the dreads right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but the incredibly few debaters (maybe 2-3 in the last 4 years) who have a strong understanding of schizoanalysis tend to win a boatload of rounds.  That's more likely correlation than causation because of how smart you have to be to get a firm grasp of the literature base, but there you go.  

 

I think you're missing the point of my argument, not that Deleuze isn't a powerful argument once you grasp it, but that there are a series of younger debaters entering debate that think the only means to be a good debater is to read a bunch of Deleuze Ks, which I think is a very wrong assumption.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best deleuze team last year (in my humble opinion) besides anyone coached by Stephen Murray (like CE Byrd) was Head Royce Manley Pease. The type of shit they ran was inspirational they ended up downing in quarters of the TOC to CK McClatchy (who won the TOC). They are the epitome of K debate and seemed to me like the absolute best D and G debaters (once again, aside from those that were coached by Murray or Zagorin). From their Pirates Aff to their Hitchikers aff, and don't even get me started on their neg strats. There was a thread very recently that was asking about the pirates K, go there and look at the links under the critiques section, the type of stuff they run is beautiful. 

 

Also, Stephen if you are reading this, just know you are going down in history as one of THE Deleuze debaters, not just because of your file but because of the extensive knowledge you possess on D and G, which is unrivaled by almost everyone except Edmund. The fact that everyone on this site jumps at the mention of Murray is proof enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think idolizing people for running a K like Deleuze is pretty counter-intuitive, but I will say Head Royce is a truly talented team and Robbie in particular is probably the best high school Deleuze debater I can think of. I partnered with him at Xylum and it was a pretty amazing experience, especially since that was the first time I have partnered with someone who also enjoys Deleuze. I think he quit debate this year because he had trouble finding the commitment necessary for the activity, which is a massive shame.

  • Upvote 1

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...