Jump to content
cdolt

Affs you ran

Recommended Posts

We just had a policy and a k aff we broke halfway through the year 

 

Our policy aff was just the standard Guantanamo Bay aff 

Our K aff was an anti-topical neoliberalism aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We read Bangladesh Microfinancing and Autodefensa for policy, and Nietzsche for a critical one. I think we might have read Giroux also.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We read Bangladesh Microfinancing and Autodefensa for policy, and Nietzsche for a critical one. I think we might have read Giroux also.

Is "Bangladesh Microfinancing" the stupid Grameen bank thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "Bangladesh Microfinancing" the stupid Grameen bank thing?

I mean, you use the term "stupid", I use the term effective. Kinda got us to quarters at state.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, you use the term "stupid", I use the term effective. Kinda got us to quarters at state.

#shotsfired

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, you use the term "stupid", I use the term effective. Kinda got us to quarters at state.

I would agree that if it was effective if I could see a card that said "The US should assist Mexico in establishing a Grameen Bank for microfinancing." I doubt that exists. Again, I might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran Yippies, Zapatistas, Gitmo, and mexikan nuclear technology.

 

But I really want to know what Hauntology is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that if it was effective if I could see a card that said "The US should assist Mexico in establishing a Grameen Bank for microfinancing." I doubt that exists. Again, I might be wrong.

How would that card determine the validity and solvency of the 1AC? Do you not agree that if we change the mindset of the program, and prove that we have the ability to do that, would make the aff completely legit and effective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran Yippies, Zapatistas, Gitmo, and mexikan nuclear technology.

 

But I really want to know what Hauntology is.

 

Its the unnecessary jargon for the idea that 'the past never dies', pretty much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran Cuba travel embargo

and then acta that one time(that was a bad round(the lay judge thought I was cocky :( (so we got voted down))).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I ran "create a binational water market with Mexico", we only lost one round on Aff the entire year, it's a pretty solid case. If anyone wants it, PM me(: I also have a very untopical--with great blocks on T though--one on the Banking Secrecy act to stop money laundering in Mexico.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water Aid to Mexico, Cuba Baseball Diplomacy, Cuba Sugar Trade, Cap/Heidegger, Spanos/Heidegger, Yaqui Water Tribe Rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I ran "create a binational water market with Mexico", we only lost one round on Aff the entire year, it's a pretty solid case. If anyone wants it, PM me(: I also have a very untopical--with great blocks on T though--one on the Banking Secrecy act to stop money laundering in Mexico.  

Mmm your from NV aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their Heidegger/Cap aff was depressingly solid... 

wiki link?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsters aff was pretty funny. It had nothing to do with the resolution. For those wondering:

 

Many may ask who is the monster – it is not a question of who is the monster but what is it; the monster operates on a plane of inhabitability a zone of in-between that is both outside of law and recognition. Monsters are the perfect “domestic foreignerâ€. Daniel and I are Monsters in debate constantly pushed inside and outside the activity we love this gives a unique perspective on the community we’ve grown to love and hate. This has given us the tools to navigate this “in-between time†we are crafting a bestiary of debate a pedagogical technology that must be struggled over to provide the destructive force necessary to save us from the evils we try to purify. This bestiary provides an of perspective not only as the outsider-within but also the outside-outsider this is what we call exopedagogy a new form of education out of bounds where we deconstruct notions of the “ism†and affirm its monsters

Lewis Kahn 10 (Dr. Tyson E., Prof @Montclair State University Philosophy of Education Society¶ American Educational Research Association¶ American Educational Studies Association, Chair and founder of the special interest group in Existentialism and Phenomenology in Education for Philosophy of Education Society, ¶ and¶ Richard, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Research at the University of North Dakota, “Education Out of Bounds¶ REIMAGINING CULTURAL STUDIES¶ FOR A POSTHUMAN AGEâ€, 2010, pg. 8-16, Date Accessed: Jan 14, 2014) [iB]

 

Finally, the last quadrant represents that maximal intensification of zoömorphic and savage vectors of the imagination. Here the system is coded as monstrously set against life and in turn life itself is considered as a monstrous terrain of struggle of humans and a host of literal and figurative animal-becomings against Power. As a plateau of maximum insurgency, this final quadrant occasionally arises in order to open up a new location for a democratic politics of life. Moving from an anthropocentric logic of immunization, both quadrants on the left of the graph embrace contamination—yet with a key difference. Rather than anger or fear/temptation, these quadrants promote desire (as with commodification of the monster in the state of exception) or outrageous love [as the radical potentials for a new, democratically zoöphilic community (see the conclusion to this book)].3 If, as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2004) argue, the monster is an “ever present possibility that can destroy the natural order of authority in all domains, from the family to the kingdom† then today the “the monster effect has only multiplied†(195). Rather than simply a supplement to the law (Cohen) or an a-political indetermination of the law and its outside (Agamben), the monster becomes a model of exodus from a relation to the law (Hardt and Negri)—a figuration of absolute democracy itself as a force that cannot be fully territorialized.  In fact, this construction of the monster is defined by two important features: becoming-ontological and formal immeasurability. For Negri (2007), the multiplication of the monstrous is a “becoming-ontological†in the sense of an embrace of the biopolitical production of life without recourse to qualifications of an “essence†or an “authentic identity,†and it is immeasurable in the sense of infinite innovations and generations of new modes and forms of living. The monster in its most radical potentiality therefore brings “the hope for and the choice of a life that is not hierarchically ordered or prefigured by forms of measure†(52). This is a monster truly out of bounds.¶ If Cohen (1996) proposes that we “read cultures from the monsters they engender†(3), then we further suggest that the bestiary is an important technology for organizing and evaluating the various monsters (political, pathological, economic, etc.) emerging from the present moment. Agreeing with Frances Bartkowski (2008), we need a new kinship bestiary that enables us to recognize the zoömorphic and savage possibilities of a monstrous imagination for redefining social, political, economic, and ecological activism.4 The bestiarum vocabulum is a compendium of beasts, some imagined and some real, others a strange hybrid between the two. Made popular in the Middle Ages, the bestiary is more than simple natural history.  Rather it is a unique text that transforms nature into culture—where the word of God imbued every creature in heaven and earth with a particular meaning—and culture into nature. They are, as Bartkowski argues, “fables of the human-animal borderlands†(60) where monsters dwell. As the bestiary testifies, the monster does not exist simply on the outside of the boundaries of community, class, or public. It is a complex externality that is outside as much as it is inside, both mythical and natural, both simultaneously close and distant. In a zone of in-between that suspends the law of recognition, identification, and belonging (to a particular class, race, gender, species), monsters are a form of “domestic foreigness†(Braidotti 1996, 141) that are both strange and familiar. As Debra Hassig argues, medieval bestiaries explored the zones of indistinction between the known and the unknown, the human and the animal, the divine and the natural, creating an imaginative space that inevitably transgressed the boundaries which they upheld. For Hassig (1995), bestiaries were a politically contested genera that simultaneously perpetuated anti-Semitism by casting the Jew as the idolatrous hyena and provided an imaginative space for medieval feminist critique (see, for instance, the Response du bestiarie written by an anonymous woman as a critique of the misogynous message of Richard of Fournival’s Bestiarie d’amour) (8). Bestiaries are collections of our narrative constructions of monsters and as such help us navigate the zone of uninhabitability—the bestiary is a zoömorphology.¶ Uncovering the catalogue of monsters that constitute these monstrous times is an aesthetic, political, and pedagogical project. As a technology for organizing the monstrous, the bestiary reveals the difficulty of maintaining the coordinates of a zoömorphic and savage imagination in the face of superstitious beliefs in the legitimacy and universality of Power. If certain valences of the monster can be progressive, helping to enliven imaginative critiques of Power, then others might very well be put in the service of extending the Power of capitalism and the nation-state to control and police. Emerging from within this crisis, the contemporary bestiary is a pedagogical technology that must be struggled over, for the creatively productive and destructive force of the imagination is what is at stake. In this sense, our use of the bestiary is meant to cut across two extreme positions in educational philosophy: the rejection of the imagination as inherently dangerous—leading to an imbalance between powers and desires (Rousseau 1979)—or the imagination as inherently linked to freedom (Greene 2000). Both positions ultimately miss the complexity of the imagination as composed of contradictory vectors of force that can be intensified or depleted through interactions with affects and social determinants. Our bestiary is an attempt to organize various permutations of this imaginative diagram in order to better understand how imagination is both dangerous and liberatory.¶ In particular, the bestiary is a function of a particular kind of pedagogy—a pedagogy that we call “exopedagogy.†Here the prefix “exo†designates the beyond, an education out of bounds, whose location resides at the very limits of the recognizable—where we learn to study the zone of uninhabitability that indicates the untimely arrival of a swarm of monsters and strangers. It is, in other words, a pedagogy that concerns the sudden appearance of “strange facts†(Daston and Park 2001) that exist beyond the field of common sense. If monsters have traditionally been banned from philosophy as dangerous obstructions to be sacrificed or as mere illusions (Kearney 2003), then so too has education more often than not been involved in projects that (a) repress the monstrous within or ( B) project the monstrous onto the outside world. Drawing on Althusser’s theory of the school as an Institutional State Apparatus, Badmington (2004) argues that schools attempt to naturalize the human in order to conceal the historical, “profoundly non-original†(126) origin of the human within the unformed of the monstrous. Either way, the uncanny relation between the self and other, the animal and human, the foreign and familiar is misplaced, and our interior alterity is sacrificed in order to achieve a false presence or identity that substantiates the formation of a community predicated on mutual belonging. Schools betray the monstrous multitude as an unruly beast that must be tamed and gentrified through either sacrifice or separation.¶ Exopedagogy helps us navigate the various narratives of the monstrous emerging from our state of phantasmagoria—reactionary monsters, commodified monsters, and creative/constituting monsters. At its best, exopedagogy utilizes the bestiary in order to intensify the savage and zoömorphic vectors of a radical imagination beyond the law of the community (the sacrificial strategy), the law of capitalism (the expropriation of surplus-value), and the law of the human (the anthropocentric valorization of human creative power, linguistic production, and cognitive capacity). In this sense, exopedagogy is both savagely critical and creatively posthuman—producing new political narratives emerging from seemingly uninhabitable terrains.¶ Exopedagogy intensifies the zoömorphic and savage vectors of the imagination through imaginative play between the human and the animal, leading to new political narratives. While posthumanist scholars such as Norris (1985) and Davide Panagia (2009) remain critical of narrative—in the first place as a gentrification of zoocentric thought and in the second as the territorialization of sensation—what we want to argue is that narrative as such is not the enemy, but rather the type of narrative. Certain forms of monstrous narration, animated by zoömorphic and savage vectors of imaginative force, produce uncanny events for the further generation, acceleration, and intensification. Drawing on Deleuze and Guatarri’s distinction (1987) between “order†and “organization†(158), we could argue that a narrative organization remains a hierarchical and centralized stratification of imaginative vectors of force whereas a narrative order promotes momentary rest before increasing experimentation and savagely zoömorphic involution (innovation beyond hybridization of two species or evolution of a single species). A critical bestiary is essential in charting the imaginative valences of the monstrous in order to build new narratives that are democratic and creatively open.¶  In this sense, pedagogy is the re-presentation of the example (the model citizen, the fully humanized subject, the revolutionary proletariat, or the “A†student) whereas exopedagogy is the re-presentation of the exceptional (the monster that emerges from the uninhabitable hinterlands of the community and of capitalist production). In fact, our project focuses on the bestiary as an aesthetic pedagogy organizing the study of the exceptional —a technology for producing new literacies of the monstrous through the intensification of both the zoömorphic and savage dimensions of the imagination. It is an aesthetic alternation of consciousness that releases the subject from habituated patterns of thought in order to construct an intensive thought feeling out of bounds of common sense. In this sense, the critical bestiary is a “monstrous curriculum†immanent to the development of a posthuman form of intelligence, stimulating zoömorphic and savage imaginative vectors for new political narratives beyond the capture of the communal law or the desires of the capitalist marketplace.5¶ Exopedagogy exists in an unhomely home—an uncanny, imaginary location that is neither inside nor outside, self nor other. For Freud (2003), the uncanny is a misidentification of a difference that turns out to be the self—an estrangement of self and other in a moment of indistinction. The uncanny is not a state of recognition but is rather a dwelling in the suspension of recognition, belonging, and common sense when confronted with the extimate—or as Freud would say “something that should have remained hidden and has come into the open†(148). What is this “somethingâ€? It is the surplus common that exists in excess of the political or economic community.6 ¶ Because there is no position outside the monstrous (outside of the real subsumption of society and ecology by capitalism) we cannot find a “safe†location that legislates judgments from the position of authoritative knowledge or inherited/pre-organized values, and in this sense, we must struggle to reclaim the monster from within the monster as a form of uncanny dwelling. We cannot, in other words, simply transcend various permutations of monstrous forms.  The uncanny home of exopedagogy is the zone of indistinction, disfiguration, and deformation that profanes the sacred parameters of community and self precisely by exposing the subject to potentiality to be or not to be this or that—the monster whose flesh is a “pure potential, an unformed life force†that “constantly expands social being, producing in excess of every traditional political-economic measure of value†(Hardt and Negri 2004, 192). Education is no longer as John Dewey (1980) once described an “embryonic society†but is rather—to appropriate the title of Bhanu Kapil’s poetic dislocations—an “incubation†machine for “humanimal†monsters.¶ In this sense, the exopedagogical “classroom†(whether imaginary or material) is a home, but not a “safe†or “comforting†retreat where the human subject can find privacy and repose with other likeminded friends and family against the noise of the rabble outside. The dangers of this concept of the home for educational theory and practice are clearly outlined in Helen Marie Anderson’s call (2007) for a radical pedagogy of homeplace. The home as exclusive private property and interiority are always, as Anderson argues, predicated on an exclusion that limits responsibility to those within a finite circle of close acquaintances. Also agreeing with Anderson, this criticism does not mean a complete rejection of the home for absolute nomadism—a claim that undermines the work of the oppressed to form new notions of the home (and homeland) in opposition to oppression, marginalization, and exclusion. What we would call a monstrous home is a locality that always includes an uncanny confrontation with its repressed excess: the monstrous contaminant that undermines notions of public/ private dichotomy. The “dirty home†(Lewis and Cho 2006) is an alternative spatial topography that suspends the public and the private by exposing the remnant of the monstrous other within the most private and autonomous places—realizing the political potential of homeplace by revealing the foreign kernel that remains lodged in the most intimate of spheres. Thus the home is no longer static and sanitized but rather is dynamic and contaminated—a location that is always a dislocation and thus an opening to exodus and the coming community. As Roberto Esposito (2010) demonstrates, the original meaning of the common emphasized “dirtiness†or “contamination†over and against immunizing logics of purity and chastity. In this sense we choose to read the home of exopedagogy as a castle or landscape full of intrigue, suspense, and uncanny close encounters of the third and fourth kinds—a location of struggle to reclaim the monster over and against capitalist separation or political scapegoating. If exopedagogy lacks a proper object (the example), then it also lacks a proper location/place/homeland. It is joyously dirty, filthy!¶ In sum, exopedagogy can be summarized in relation to the following dimensions:¶ 1. Location: Out of bounds of community sacrifice or capitalist separation (the uncanny home).¶ 2. Curriculum: The organization of the exceptional (the critical bestiary as a zoömorphology).¶ 3. Operation: The intensification and acceleration of zoömorphic and savage dimensions of the imagination.¶ 4. Goals: New narratives of absolute democracy and new practices of posthumanist politics.¶ Exopedagogy means that we have to move beyond the prescribed limits of educational cultural studies, which more often than not relegate themselves to the critical analysis of film, television, and Internet (Giroux 1994, 2001; Kellner 2003b). Certainly the media spectacle of capitalism circulates through the monstrous—both in terms of form (the bloated information highways of the Internet, blockbuster spectacles, and supersaturated technophilic cultural productions) and in terms of the content—and it is also clear that young adults are clamoring for monstrous curricula based on best-selling monster novels such as Twilight and The Host (both by Stephanie Meyer). Authors such as Annalee Newitz (2006) persuasively argue that monsters in the media are a powerful allegory for the violence of capitalism. She writes, “Mutated by backbreaking labor, driven insane by corporate conformity, or gorged on too many products of a money-hungry media industry, capitalism’s monsters cannot tell the difference between commodities and people†(2). Her analysis of movie monsters such as zombies and robots as articulating the fears of capitalist crisis and postcolonialist haunting is a powerful reminder that monsters speak to very real social, political, and economic concerns within global capitalism. Henry Giroux (2010) provides a similar argument in his recent analysis of the zombie as a defining monster of capitalism. Broadening the scope of this research we turn to natureculture assemblages whose linguistic, affective, and social productions form the narrative materials for organizing the contemporary bestiary. Through an analysis of these monstrous narratives we hope to find new resources for an exopedagogy that continually moves beyond boundaries set between human and nonhuman animals, beyond the exclusivity of the humanist community, and beyond the historical specificity of class while not abandoning the problematic of labor, exploitation, and commodity fetishism. In other words we are proposing an exo-public pedagogy dwelling in the uninhabitable realm of the monsters at the edge of the map of the imagined world.¶ Looking toward exopublic spheres, we pose the questions: What is the contemporary bestiary that defines the monstrous antagonism of counter-revolution and revolt? What pedagogies, literacies, and imaginative curricula do these natureculture assemblages deploy? Here we argue that figures such as the feral child, the alien, and the faery are important monsters for examining various intensities that arise when the social/political and biomorphic vectors of the imagination cross, collide, and accelerate. These figures rest on three different thresholds that define the contemporary posthuman age:¶ 1. Feral Child: between the human animal and the nonhuman animal, the state of nature and the nature of state. This monster is the result of a humanist paradigm fueled by an anthropocentric and superstitious imagination. As we will demonstrate in chapter one, the feral child is a pathological monster tainted or infested with animal gesticulations and desires that rupture the divisions between human and nonhuman producing equal mixtures of fear and desire that haunt the ontological purity of the community.¶ 2. Alien: between inside and outside, inner-space and outer-space. Our analysis of David Icke’s alien reptoid hypothesis as a form of exopedagogy (chapter two) will illustrate the complexity of Icke’s monstrous imagination. While exhibiting certain zoömorphic and savage qualities, ultimately his work is ambiguous, sliding into a superstitious fear of the animal other (now located as the ultimate space-traveling alien) while simultaneously singing the praises of posthumanist becomings.¶ 3. Faery: between nature and culture, premodernity and postmodernity. Another example of exopedagogy, faery faith attempts to break free from anthropocentric paradigms by promoting certain zoömorphic and savage critiques of capitalism. Yet at the same time, there are residual imaginative elements that compromise the potential of faery faith to move beyond commercialization. By looking at media culture, human-nonhuman actor networks, and educational practices emerging from countercultures we will examine multiple dimensions of the feral, the alien, and the faery in order to provide new affective, cognitive, and linguistic tools to intensify the generative, creative, and democratic powers of the monster against communal temptation/fear and capitalist desire. If exopedagogy is monstrous, let us all become monsters and in this way experiment with new forms of democratic imagination.

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsters aff was pretty funny. It had nothing to do with the resolution. For those wondering:

 

Many may ask who is the monster – it is not a question of who is the monster but what is it; the monster operates on a plane of inhabitability a zone of in-between that is both outside of law and recognition. Monsters are the perfect “domestic foreignerâ€. Daniel and I are Monsters in debate constantly pushed inside and outside the activity we love this gives a unique perspective on the community we’ve grown to love and hate. This has given us the tools to navigate this “in-between time†we are crafting a bestiary of debate a pedagogical technology that must be struggled over to provide the destructive force necessary to save us from the evils we try to purify. This bestiary provides an of perspective not only as the outsider-within but also the outside-outsider this is what we call exopedagogy a new form of education out of bounds where we deconstruct notions of the “ism†and affirm its monsters

Lewis Kahn 10 (Dr. Tyson E., Prof @Montclair State University Philosophy of Education Society¶ American Educational Research Association¶ American Educational Studies Association, Chair and founder of the special interest group in Existentialism and Phenomenology in Education for Philosophy of Education Society, ¶ and¶ Richard, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Research at the University of North Dakota, “Education Out of Bounds¶ REIMAGINING CULTURAL STUDIES¶ FOR A POSTHUMAN AGEâ€, 2010, pg. 8-16, Date Accessed: Jan 14, 2014) [iB]

 

[Card Followed]

Dude. WHY COULD YOU NOT DEBATE JOSLIN WITH THIS!? That would have been priceless! (I would literally run a CP built on the premise of expanding the influence of those who would be considered "monsters" and just had a ball with this.) Also: Seems like I'm not the only one with issued with T, huh?

Edited by Temporal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. WHY COULD YOU NOT DEBATE JOSLIN WITH THIS!? That would have been priceless! (I would literally run a CP built on the premise of expanding the influence of those who would be considered "monsters" and just had a ball with this.) Also: Seems like I'm not the only one with issued with T, huh?

 

You notice the plan he actually ended up running did attempt topical action, though. xP  And I'm sure that made it more kosher with lots of judges.  I know hearing his Marijauna aff was one of the highlights of the debate season for me.  It was original, it was clearly his work, and it addressed a realistic policy possibility.

 

That said, I'd love to see a copy of the full Monsters Aff, if you wouldn't mind glg1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. WHY COULD YOU NOT DEBATE JOSLIN WITH THIS!? That would have been priceless! (I would literally run a CP built on the premise of expanding the influence of those who would be considered "monsters" and just had a ball with this.) Also: Seems like I'm not the only one with issued with T, huh?

We never ran this at a CDL Tournament. We definitely think T is an issue, I just feel comfortable with my ability to debate it. Especially when taking a critical approach to it.

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You notice the plan he actually ended up running did attempt topical action, though. xP  And I'm sure that made it more kosher with lots of judges.  I know hearing his Marijauna aff was one of the highlights of the debate season for me.  It was original, it was clearly his work, and it addressed a realistic policy possibility.

 

That said, I'd love to see a copy of the full Monsters Aff, if you wouldn't mind glg1995.

I'll PM it, I may turn it into a kritik. Yeah I loved the weed aff it's probably my second favorite aff I wrote next to the disabilities aff I wrote for the TI topic. It was probably one of the more successful affs I've written although I think it could've been a ton better if I would've hit some teams with good strategies against it and been able to develop it more, but we only ran it at CDL tourneys.

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never got to debate the marijuana aff, either! Life isn't fair. Quite frankly, I would ask for an online debate, but I got hit with too many essays at the wrong time. Though I do have the same concern as you, with hitting better strats earlier in the season. I wish we had gone to other tournaments other than CDL ones, because I'd feel better prepared for college debate. Right now, I'm past nervous into downright terrified territory. 

 

T6 was pretty good, though. The teams that beat Edward and I ran some solid strats. Plus. I got my first attempt at a philosopher K (Kant) to deal with T, rather than try to prove topicality in the first place. And the judges were absolutely amazing. Every last one was super knowledgeable, and the first one we had with the debate aff straight-up told us that finding a middle ground between T and extra-T is a bad idea. 

 

I still want to see that weed aff too, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...