Jump to content
KTricksfordays

Oceans Ks

Recommended Posts

Wow....... I am experiencing serious cognitive dissonance here. In one regards, I don't believe either of you two read ATP because you have been attacking strawman arguments and literally not bringing up a single counterargument against the substance of Deleuze, but on the other hand you are indeed providing quotes, so I suppose you have read the books. What I will say is that I do not care nor find the need to provide a defense of Deleuze as a philosopher, because as usual this is not a thread for Squirelloid and Edgehopper to espouse their highly dogmatic opinions on the merit of widely accredited philosophers that they know are objectively wrong simply because they have a superior knowledge of the world, but rather this is a thread to discuss kritikal arguments for next years topic and provide some clarification on them if the need arises. The reality is that people not only read Deleuze as an argument in debate, but a fuckton of people win on it. Whether or not you have a personal dilemma with whether or not Deleuze use's the word "rhizome" (which is absolutely asinine and nitpicky and links back to the entirety of Deleuze's criticism on the ontotheological nature of language, which I keep saying but evidently no one has read enough Deleuze to understand the most basic elements of his writing) is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is a valid debate argument. If you want to have a debate on the merits of his philosophy, start another thread for it.

 

If you really want someone to explain how brutally you have missed the point of Deleuze's analysis on Go and Chess (which I was about to concede as being potentially superfluous until I read Edgehopper's analysis, which literally does not attempt to understand what Deleuze/Guattari's point is at all; hint, the relation between Go and Chess for Deleuze is not that they both have rules and their pieces move but that Chess is a matter of codification where the piece is produced as a static subject in relation to 'the state' (defined by what they 'are') whereas Go pieces are defined relationally as desiring-machines (defined by what they do and how they relate to one another, not what they are), therefor conceptually the pieces in these two games 'achieve' their identity in different ways, which serves as a metaphor for Deleuze's political methodology), I suggest talking to Maury because he probably has more patience than I do. The reason I won't is not only because I think an actual attempt to engage Deleuze's text, as opposed to an approach coming in where one is convinced they aren't saying anything relevant, will MASSIVELY improve your understanding (especially in the context of the distinction between coded/encoded and deterritorialized/territorialized, which is like literally defined in that paragraph), but ultimately I do not care because based off my past attempts to have a dialogue on a kritikal argument with you two, there never seemed to be a desire for understanding/compromise in the first place.

 

I'm saddened that the attempt to seemingly deconstruct Deleuze with a 'superior and qualified' knowledge of Chess and Go instead appears to be whining about why it's so hard to understand. Like yeah, Deleuze wrote arcanely, no one is denying that. That doesn't make him objectively bad or good, rather, if you want help with his style of writing, ask someone on the thread instead of assuming he is not saying anything, producing a strawman argument based off 4 or 5 quotes you looked up out of context, and expect that to be a valid criticism. I feel like at a certain point, when he is the 9th most quoted philosopher of all time, you can believe he is right or wrong about things, but if you think he isn't saying anything at all, you are a little in denial.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you could use some Lacanian development... Too soon?

 

I wanted to work on a development aff similar to the one Poly read. Now if I do, everyone will just say I copied their idea..  :mellow: 

Edited by JosephOverman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic', because there's no dogma here.  I made a serious attempt to read and understand ATP.  Little understanding was gained, and that was mostly that their refusal to define terms made everything they said so nebulous that a reader could easily supply their own meaning.  My refusal to do that work for DnG is a lack of dogma.
 
When you don't define terms, people who get meaning out are the people who impute meaning in.  That is, they insert their own meaning into the terms.  This means what they're 'reading in the text' is actually what they put there.
 
There's a phrase: "garbage in, garbage out". It succinctly describes the situation.
 

Like yeah, Deleuze wrote arcanely, no one is denying that. That doesn't make him objectively bad or good, rather, if you want help with his style of writing, ask someone on the thread instead of assuming he is not saying anything, producing a strawman argument based off 4 or 5 quotes you looked up out of context, and expect that to be a valid criticism. I feel like at a certain point, when he is the 9th most quoted philosopher of all time, you can believe he is right or wrong about things, but if you think he isn't saying anything at all, you are a little in denial.

 
Actually, that does make it objectively bad.  The premier virtue of writing is clarity.  
 
Despite that, I'm willing to do some work.  For example, Kant was worth the effort.  But sometimes the emperor has no clothes, and I'm willing to call him on it.  ATP is naked - there's little to nothing there.
 
I'm not even the first person to say such things.  Bryant has a very germaine discussion
 

Deleuze and Guattari go a long way towards redeeming philosophy and rescuing it from postmodern skepticism and the claim that all is discursive constructions, yet, at the present moment in my thinking and understanding of their work, I do not think they go far enough. If we genuinely seek change, then actuality cannot be ignored in this way. My tendency has been to think Deleuze as a thinker of complex, emergent systems. Such systems, of course, pertain to the actual, not the virtual as understood by Deleuze. They are bodies with organs and in environment from which they differentiate themselves. They are emergent, but not from virtual singularities, but complex causal relationships. Hallward’s reading makes clear just why this is a significant misreading (something that could already be symptomatically sensed in DeLanda’s Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, as it’s never clear there what the virtual contributes or adds to the already fine accounts of phenomena he gives in terms of systems). As Hallward remarks,
 

There is no more an interactive relation between this virtual or composing power and its actual or composed result than there is between a given set of genes and the organism that incarnates them. Along the lines of this last analogy, it might be worth briefly cementing this point with one final illustration, the case of biological evolution. As Deleuze and Guattari understand it, biological evolution proceeds neither through the relations of struggle, competition or support that may exist between actual organisms, nor through the dialectical interaction between actual organisms and their actual environment. As opposed to an ‘orthodox Darwinism with its focus on discrete units of selection’, they maintain that ‘evolution takes place from the virtual to actuals. Evolution is actualisation, actualisation is creation’. As Mark Hansen has recently demonstrated in convincing detail [Hansen, 'Becoming as Creative Involution? Contextualizing Deleuze and Guattari's Biophilosophy', Postmodern Culture 11:1 (September 2000)], because they dismiss the actual ‘organism as a molar form that negatively limits life’, Deleuze and Guattari’s approach to biological individuation remains profoundly ‘alien to the conceptual terrain of current biology and complexity theory’. Rather than recent versions of complexity theory of post-Darwinian biology, the real models for Deleuzian individuation are again the theophanic philosophies of Spinoza and Leibniz. Spinoza’s account couldn’t be simpler. A human being, like any finite being, ‘has no power of its own except insofar as it is part of a whole [...]. We are a part of the power of God’ (Expressionism and Philosophy, 91-2). (OTW, 52-3)



For me this is the most damning aspect of Hallward’s critique. Here it becomes clear just why it is so fundamentally necessary to banish the imaginary (in the Lacanian sense) fantasy of the Whole or Totality from philosophy altogether, for wherever there is a whole the individual becomes powerless and a mere fractal iteration of the All. The question, for me, thus becomes that of what’s worth preserving in Deleuze? What was it that so captivated me about Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense when I first began studying them so many years ago? And what was I reading into these masterpieces of ontology that was already my own?

 

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/hallwards-critique-of-deleuze-updated/

 

Because Bryant is a systems thinker, he imputed his own ideas relating to systems into his original reading of Deleuze, and lo-and-behold, he got out ideas about systems.  I don't have the reverence for Deleuze Bryant does, but even he comes to the realization that at least some of what he 'understood' in Deleuze was actually from himself.

 

I might also note that if the response to critics is always "you're misreading it", that sort of begs the question of meaning in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....... I am experiencing serious cognitive dissonance here. In one regards, I don't believe either of you two read ATP because you have been attacking strawman arguments and literally not bringing up a single counterargument against the substance of Deleuze, but on the other hand you are indeed providing quotes, so I suppose you have read the books. What I will say is that I do not care nor find the need to provide a defense of Deleuze as a philosopher, because as usual this is not a thread for Squirelloid and Edgehopper to espouse their highly dogmatic opinions on the merit of widely accredited philosophers that they know are objectively wrong simply because they have a superior knowledge of the world, but rather this is a thread to discuss kritikal arguments for next years topic and provide some clarification on them if the need arises. The reality is that people not only read Deleuze as an argument in debate, but a fuckton of people win on it. Whether or not you have a personal dilemma with whether or not Deleuze use's the word "rhizome" (which is absolutely asinine and nitpicky and links back to the entirety of Deleuze's criticism on the ontotheological nature of language, which I keep saying but evidently no one has read enough Deleuze to understand the most basic elements of his writing) is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is a valid debate argument. If you want to have a debate on the merits of his philosophy, start another thread for it.

This being a debate forum, are responses off limits? This is a thread about ocean Ks. Many people, apparently, plan to run DnG, and posted some cards that might be relevant. I question the meaning and warrants of those cards--maybe with a bit more snark than is strictly necessary, but this is an Internet forum :)

 

If you really want someone to explain how brutally you have missed the point of Deleuze's analysis on Go and Chess (which I was about to concede as being potentially superfluous until I read Edgehopper's analysis, which literally does not attempt to understand what Deleuze/Guattari's point is at all; hint, the relation between Go and Chess for Deleuze is not that they both have rules and their pieces move but that Chess is a matter of codification where the piece is produced as a static subject in relation to 'the state' (defined by what they 'are') whereas Go pieces are defined relationally as desiring-machines (defined by what they do and how they relate to one another, not what they are), therefor conceptually the pieces in these two games 'achieve' their identity in different ways, which serves as a metaphor for Deleuze's political methodology), I suggest talking to Maury because he probably has more patience than I do. The reason I won't is not only because I think an actual attempt to engage Deleuze's text, as opposed to an approach coming in where one is convinced they aren't saying anything relevant, will MASSIVELY improve your understanding (especially in the context of the distinction between coded/encoded and deterritorialized/territorialized, which is like literally defined in that paragraph), but ultimately I do not care because based off my past attempts to have a dialogue on a kritikal argument with you two, there never seemed to be a desire for understanding/compromise in the first place.

I'm open to hearing an explanation for how true and profound Deleuze's analogy is about chess and Go. If someone would provide one that isn't circular and filled with jargon, I might be able to understand it. The whole point of my criticism is that Deleuze makes this analogy to these games, but he does not appear to have any idea beyond trivial superficiality of what's in these games. If someone wants to present an argument otherwise, rather than appeals to authority and ad hominems ("you just don't get it!"), I'm all ears.

 

I'm saddened that the attempt to seemingly deconstruct Deleuze with a 'superior and qualified' knowledge of Chess and Go instead appears to be whining about why it's so hard to understand. Like yeah, Deleuze wrote arcanely, no one is denying that. That doesn't make him objectively bad or good, rather, if you want help with his style of writing, ask someone on the thread instead of assuming he is not saying anything, producing a strawman argument based off 4 or 5 quotes you looked up out of context, and expect that to be a valid criticism.

I have better things to do than write a book deconstructing the entirety of Deleuze's philosophy. This is a policy debate forum, where we cut a few paragraphs from sources, tag it, and present it as evidence. Just as you don't get to import 700 pages of AO or ATP into a debate round by reference, I don't have to answer the entire book in one forum post. I'm just elaborating on Squirreloid's post, mainly because I have expertise in chess and was curious (incidentally, Ayn Rand's "Open Letter to Boris Spassky," also full of chess analogies, was much clearer and made many fewer mistakes about what chess is).

 

The point of the original Sokal quote and the joke I posted is that analogy is a method of explaining complex concepts by comparing them to something simpler and easier to understand. When you make an analogy, and then change the meaning of the subject of the analogy arbitrarily, the analogy is useless. Deleuze claims that the difference between striated and smooth can be analogized to the difference between chess and Go. I point out that the two games don't actually have those differences. Your answer is, "Yeah, but what Deleuze meant by chess and Go was...", where your definitions bear very little resemblance to chess and Go. Hence, "Nu, it's actually not like a herring."

 

I feel like at a certain point, when he is the 9th most quoted philosopher of all time, you can believe he is right or wrong about things, but if you think he isn't saying anything at all, you are a little in denial.

Flag on the play, appeal to authority and misrepresentation, 10 yards, automatic first down (btw, is football played on a smooth or striated space?). He's obviously saying something--namely, state and order bad, nomadism and chaos good. His reasoning and analogies, on the other hand, are often questionable.

 

If I wanted to be told I couldn't question a book full of arcane and difficult to understand language because it's so popular, and that I can only hope to interpret it, I'd be frequenting Christian forums rather than debate forums.

 

One more thing:

 

Whether or not you have a personal dilemma with whether or not Deleuze use's the word "rhizome" (which is absolutely asinine and nitpicky and links back to the entirety of Deleuze's criticism on the ontotheological nature of language, which I keep saying but evidently no one has read enough Deleuze to understand the most basic elements of his writing) is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is a valid debate argument.

1. Since when has being familiar with a philosopher's entire work been necessary to criticize it in a debate setting? How many of you have read all of Mill, Burke, Locke, Nozick, or Rand?

 

2. Whether an argument has flaws is irrelevant to whether it's a good debate argument? I know the community has abandoned logic and sense in a lot of ways, but I didn't think they had gone that far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a forum about potential Ks for the Oceans topic, NOT you two to circlejerk about the fact that the entirity of the left fails to understand your intellectual prowress and amazing objective grasp on reality, I hate to overlimit this topic but this has happened in several threads prior where the discussion on the OP or topic goes wildly away from explaining an argument to having pointless arguments between Squirelloid/Edgehopper and the rest of the forum where you two expect us to have to prove to you why something is objectively true when 90% of the time y'all just don't want to read the text or even attempt to acknowledge it as a potential legitimate viewpoint. This is not a place to discuss Deleuze's passages on Chess/Go. Period. I say this because I know that even though I'm saying this discussion ought to end here, we will continue down the rabbit hole and not go anywhere.

 

I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic', because there's no dogma here.  I made a serious attempt to read and understand ATP.  Little understanding was gained, and that was mostly that their refusal to define terms made everything they said so nebulous that a reader could easily supply their own meaning.  My refusal to do that work for DnG is a lack of dogma.
 

No, your discussion isn't about what the K says or what it's strategic benefit is in debate, it is about whether or not YOU think Deleuze has any merit at all, but the thing is is you do not at all seem to be willing to have a discussion on Deleuze, rather, you want to convince people that Deleuze is not only wrong but void of value and show no interest in changing that opinion, which is, you know, just ideological.

When you don't define terms, people who get meaning out are the people who impute meaning in.  That is, they insert their own meaning into the terms.  This means what they're 'reading in the text' is actually what they put there.
 
There's a phrase: "garbage in, garbage out". It succinctly describes the situation.
 

I refuse to answer this post until you read Dialogues II. One of the reasons I think you miss a lot of the 'reasoning' behind K args is that you refuse to step out of your ideological blinders and consider that different thinkers have different starting points/conceptualizations about things like language. Like you are acting like Deleuze just does this, wheras he provides a robust defense of this form of wordplay and it is not only the cornerstone of his approach to language, but most intros to the text make it clear the text performs the type of auto-deconstructive approach to language that it's content says is good. You think Deleuze doesn't define terms, but Deleuze is a CRITICISM of defining terms, it is literally the most basic aspect of Deleuze and the fact you don't even acknowledge this shows me you don't understand the text. If language is tautological and meaning is ontotheological, then having a desire for a definition is pointless because under Deleuze's conception that is literally not how language works. Language can ONLY be describe in context and arbitrary approximations in meaning.

 
Actually, that does make it objectively bad.  The premier virtue of writing is clarity.  
 

No, it is not, a lot of poets would actually make fun of you for saying that. You THINK the premier virtue of writing is clarity, that is an opinion. I think that different types of writing have different purposes; an instruction guide is probably striving for clarity, a text on aesthetics or philosophy or poetry can exist for a thousand other reasons. I see no reason why language has to exist explicitly to convey meaning in the simplest possible form and neither do most philosophers/writers.

Despite that, I'm willing to do some work.  For example, Kant was worth the effort.  But sometimes the emperor has no clothes, and I'm willing to call him on it.  ATP is naked - there's little to nothing there.

 

At what point can you convince yourself that this book is vacuous when it has had a massive impact on every major profession or division of academia? Like I think Ayn Rand is full of shit but I know people probably wouldn't dedicate their lives to studying her work if she literally did not say anything. Your inability to find meaning in the text does not mean that a text is meaningless, especially because a text is auto-deconstructive.
 
I'm not even the first person to say such things.  Bryant has a very germaine discussion
 

 

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/hallwards-critique-of-deleuze-updated/

 

Because Bryant is a systems thinker, he imputed his own ideas relating to systems into his original reading of Deleuze, and lo-and-behold, he got out ideas about systems.  I don't have the reverence for Deleuze Bryant does, but even he comes to the realization that at least some of what he 'understood' in Deleuze was actually from himself.

 

I might also note that if the response to critics is always "you're misreading it", that sort of begs the question of meaning in the first place.

 

That Bryant post said NOTHING that proved or backed up your argument, it literally just talks about how Deleuze's approach to evolution was similar to Spinoza's (big whoop, anyone who seriously has studied Deleuze knows its not like he existed in a vacuum and his arguments are 100% original), that is missed a few things (which is not only a dumb look at philosophy to except to find the absolute truth in AO, but the authors' point is that the text is a starting point for thought that should be expanded on, which is what DeLanda does with his Neo-Deleuzean approach to evolution), and that IS THE POINT OF DELEUZE. They EXPLICITLY SAY that the text is meant to both provide the foundation for other's ideas and the conceptual/discursive tools in the book are meant to be territorialized in other's political projects, which would differ in both interpretation and meaning (another reason they often wrote arcanly).

 

Also that last post is not a real answer. I know I spout a bunch of shit about deconstruction and the subjective meaning of a text but I don't understand how you draw these conclusions of Deleuze because literally any secondary source will tell you that what you are saying is totally besides the point.

 

This being a debate forum, are responses off limits? This is a thread about ocean Ks. Many people, apparently, plan to run DnG, and posted some cards that might be relevant. I question the meaning and warrants of those cards--maybe with a bit more snark than is strictly necessary, but this is an Internet forum :)

 

See the top of this post

I'm open to hearing an explanation for how true and profound Deleuze's analogy is about chess and Go. If someone would provide one that isn't circular and filled with jargon, I might be able to understand it. The whole point of my criticism is that Deleuze makes this analogy to these games, but he does not appear to have any idea beyond trivial superficiality of what's in these games. If someone wants to present an argument otherwise, rather than appeals to authority and ad hominems ("you just don't get it!"), I'm all ears.
 
I'm going to go ahead and leave this for Maury, Snarf, or anyone who feels more of a need to engage this because truthfully I am wasting a ton of my time typing this post now. I don't think you have read any other Deleuze, so I don't expect you to be able to understand those passages immediately, but they probably would involve explaining large parts of Deleuze's other philosophy that take up chapters and books (as opposed to Squirelloid's characterization that "they can be explained in minutes") and even a watered down explanation wouldn't do it justice. The main reason I don't want to, however, is that I have seen you two react to leftist thinkers before, and I have yet to see an instance where explaining to you what you chose not to read has done any good or actually changed your opinion, mostly because from what I see, you two enter these discussions with serious preconcieved notions about the merit and truth value of kritikal arguments.

 

I actually did attempt to provide a basic explanation of his point in the last post; the point of the Chess/Go analogy is to demonstrate the different means of conceptualizing the subject (or lack therof). Chess pieces are defined and then move in relation to the definition, whereas Go pieces exist in their function as opposed to their definition, which is operates machinically (based off what it does, not what it is). This difference in the subject (the pieces) enables a particular understanding of how the board is able to operate as space, as the straited space is can only expand into space and outside of space, whereas Go pieces (by nature of the game) spontaneously produce zones that are not strictly defined, but rather are able to disrupt the normative ordering of space by their ability to create territorialities. None of this was at all addressed in your supposed criticism. (that was probably not the best explanation because I have not read that chapter in years and I'm only going off the quotes provided, but that kind of is the point, a basic understanding of Deleuze makes understanding those specific passages way easier.

I have better things to do than write a book deconstructing the entirety of Deleuze's philosophy. This is a policy debate forum, where we cut a few paragraphs from sources, tag it, and present it as evidence. Just as you don't get to import 700 pages of AO or ATP into a debate round by reference, I don't have to answer the entire book in one forum post. I'm just elaborating on Squirreloid's post, mainly because I have expertise in chess and was curious (incidentally, Ayn Rand's "Open Letter to Boris Spassky," also full of chess analogies, was much clearer and made many fewer mistakes about what chess is).

 

That's cool, then please don't come into K threads with a "holier than thou" attitude assuming you have an objectively absolute knowledge about Deleuze especially when you concede you haven't read him. For the same reason, I have better things to do than explain Deleuze to you if you both don't want to learn him or don't care to read the text.

The point of the original Sokal quote and the joke I posted is that analogy is a method of explaining complex concepts by comparing them to something simpler and easier to understand. When you make an analogy, and then change the meaning of the subject of the analogy arbitrarily, the analogy is useless. Deleuze claims that the difference between striated and smooth can be analogized to the difference between chess and Go. I point out that the two games don't actually have those differences. Your answer is, "Yeah, but what Deleuze meant by chess and Go was...", where your definitions bear very little resemblance to chess and Go. Hence, "Nu, it's actually not like a herring."

 

No, I think you just don't understand Deleuze and attempted to understand Deleuze from your understanding of Chess and Go. That's cool that you think that is what an analogy should be, Deleuze uses it as a means of contextualizing his conceptual tools to a particular locality. I'll concede that this is probably a matter of opinion, but no one gives a shit if you think his definitions bear little resemblance to Chess or Go, he is not using criticizing Chess for being microfascist, he is simply using these two games as conceptual tools.

Flag on the play, appeal to authority and misrepresentation, 10 yards, automatic first down (btw, is football played on a smooth or striated space?). He's obviously saying something--namely, state and order bad, nomadism and chaos good. His reasoning and analogies, on the other hand, are often questionable.

 

What the fuck? This is childish. Like cool, you think his reasoning and analogies are questionable. No. One. Gives. A. Fuck.

If I wanted to be told I couldn't question a book full of arcane and difficult to understand language because it's so popular, and that I can only hope to interpret it, I'd be frequenting Christian forums rather than debate forums.

 

You are missing the entire god damn point: this particular thread is not for you two to circlejerk about Deleuze being an idiot who lacks your amazing clairvoyance and at a certain point you have to realize it is way more productive to discuss the content of Deleuze than bitch about not being able to understand him. I do not understand quantum physics. I do not expect quantum physicists to remove their jargon or make anything simplier for me, I expect that out of science communicators like NDT. If you want Deleuze without the fancy language, which the majority of people in this forum who have taken the time to work through have no problem with, then read a secondary source like Colebrook or Deleuze for Architects.

One more thing:


1. Since when has being familiar with a philosopher's entire work been necessary to criticize it in a debate setting? How many of you have read all of Mill, Burke, Locke, Nozick, or Rand?

 

It isn't, but you coming in here talking about how Deleuze is stupid simply after reading one passage and not actually ever engaging with the substance of his thought is strawmanning.

2. Whether an argument has flaws is irrelevant to whether it's a good debate argument? I know the community has abandoned logic and sense in a lot of ways, but I didn't think they had gone that far!

 

faceplam. NO. I want you to very clearly understand something, there is no such thing as an absolute truth. If there was, debate would not be possible. Every argument has flaws and answers, that's what makes debate possible. People run ice age turns on global warming. You are going to encounter answers to an argument as you read about it and answers to those answers and then answers to those answers. Just because you do not think an argument is true does not mean it is an invalid argument or one that ought not exist in debate (with very few exceptions).

 

 

Some one else can answer the rest of the posts. This is unproductive.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to work on a development aff similar to the one Poly read. Now if I do, everyone will just say I copied their idea..  :mellow: 

Is running an embargo aff copying?????  Cause I doubt it was your original idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ganondorf, out of respect for the fact this is an Ocean K thread, I'll end the substance there.  I'd just note that if understanding a text requires weeks of contemplating through hundreds of pages of arcane writing, I don't see how it can make an impact on a judge in 26 minutes of speed reading unless the judge is (1) biased in favor of the argument in allowing the team running it to incorporate hundreds of pages of unread material by reference, or (2) unwilling to vote against an argument not answered well even though the argument was never explained in a way the other team can understand.  Obviously, since DnG keeps winning rounds, my view is in the minority.

Edited by Edgehopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ganondorf, out of respect for the fact this is an Ocean K thread, I'll end the substance there.  I'd just note that if understanding a text requires weeks of contemplating through hundreds of pages of arcane writing, I don't see how it can make an impact on a judge in 26 minutes of speed reading unless the judge is (1) biased in favor of the argument in allowing the team running it to incorporate hundreds of pages of unread material by reference, or (2) unwilling to vote against an argument not answered well even though the argument was never explained in a way the other team can understand.  Obviously, since DnG keeps winning rounds, my view is in the minority.

Just adding my two cents, I think the reason you can win rounds with DnG is that you can focus down specifically what you're talking about. DnG may have hundreds of pages of primary lit, but their books talk about a huge range of different topics. For instance, it's fairly easy to explain striation or the nomadic war machine vs the state's appropriation of it in a round. You don't have to talk about desiring machines (necessarily) with a K like that. Or, for instance, on the Latin America topic, the card I posted about the striation of the ocean, while a part of DnG's philosophy would almost certainly never have come up in most rounds (obviously if it was something like Cuban Oil it would be different).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just adding my two cents, I think the reason you can win rounds with DnG is that you can focus down specifically what you're talking about. DnG may have hundreds of pages of primary lit, but their books talk about a huge range of different topics. For instance, it's fairly easy to explain striation or the nomadic war machine vs the state's appropriation of it in a round. You don't have to talk about desiring machines (necessarily) with a K like that. Or, for instance, on the Latin America topic, the card I posted about the striation of the ocean, while a part of DnG's philosophy would almost certainly never have come up in most rounds (obviously if it was something like Cuban Oil it would be different).

That's fair. My problem is still that if you reduce it down to a simple explanation like that, you're still left with the question of why exactly striation/state is bad and why smooth/nomad is good. If I buy DnG's premises, the application is easy enough to explain quickly, but the premises appear to be too difficult to explain in the short time of a policy debate. However, since debaters so rarely question the premises of arguments (I imagine the vast majority of teams fighting DnG try to either perm out of it, argue no link, or ignore it through weighing of impacts--I base this on the fact that the vast majority of teams arguing against Cap and Neolib Ks prefer those tactics to the much easier impact turns there), this probably only rarely comes up in rounds. DnG is run very rarely in my circuit, but how many rounds have you seen where the Aff makes a strong effort to question the warrants in a DnG K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. My problem is still that if you reduce it down to a simple explanation like that, you're still left with the question of why exactly striation/state is bad and why smooth/nomad is good. If I buy DnG's premises, the application is easy enough to explain quickly, but the premises appear to be too difficult to explain in the short time of a policy debate. However, since debaters so rarely question the premises of arguments (I imagine the vast majority of teams fighting DnG try to either perm out of it, argue no link, or ignore it through weighing of impacts--I base this on the fact that the vast majority of teams arguing against Cap and Neolib Ks prefer those tactics to the much easier impact turns there), this probably only rarely comes up in rounds. DnG is run very rarely in my circuit, but how many rounds have you seen where the Aff makes a strong effort to question the warrants in a DnG K?

No one on my circuit read DnG. When I've used it in a V-Debate, the common thing was cards basically attacking them as a whole (like Stupid Undergrounds, which has practically no warrants for anything is says, but I digress). And in the case of the example I used, the thing about striation bad is usually addressed in the 'chain' of 1NC evidence.

For instance, a DnG K against a Cuba Oil case on here might go like this:

The Aff causes striation 

Striation increases state control

State control bad

Alt

 

There you've explained what striation is (hopefully), why it's bad, and why the Aff causes it. It's a self contained thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to work on a development aff similar to the one Poly read. Now if I do, everyone will just say I copied their idea..  :mellow: 

I based my Heidegger Aff on Oklahoma GW's Visa Aff from 2011 and their Heidegger Aff from 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Real ly not a big deal

this got an audible, extended laugh from me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any opnions on Wilderson Perfomance ?? possible also any Queer Theory possibilities?

What does this even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any opnions on Wilderson Perfomance ?? possible also any Queer Theory possibilities?

Wilderson and queer theory will literally always link.  People will run it until they get tired of it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilderson and queer theory will literally always link.  People will run it until they get tired of it.

Ugh. I hate how arguments like this have become so coopted. (Sorry if I'm throwing off this thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. I hate how arguments like this have become so coopted. (Sorry if I'm throwing off this thread)

tbh if you are running arguments in a competitive environment and that argument starts to win rounds cooption is inev.

 

and don't worry, this thread was never on rails in the first place

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh if you are running arguments in a competitive environment and that argument starts to win rounds cooption is inev.

Hmmm... in the national circuits near where I live one would usually just lose against actual Black and/or queer debaters if you tried to read Wilderson or Queer theory.

Round usually goes something like this:

tumblr_inline_mqpqztaIsr1r80p9c.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... in the national circuits near where I live one would usually just lose against actual Black and/or queer debaters if you tried to read Wilderson or Queer theory.

Round usually goes something like this:

tumblr_inline_mqpqztaIsr1r80p9c.gif

Against black/queer whatever yeah.

 

tbh i think running identity politics when you aren't that identiy is pretty unstrategic, but teams will always do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against black/queer whatever yeah.

 

tbh i think running identity politics when you aren't that identiy is pretty unstrategic, but teams will always do it.

Yeah, a large large percentage of debates where I live are race debates, I think it has to do with the demographics of the different regions- my city for example, is 50% Black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Im asking just out of others opnion - just looking around and making sure reading up on the lit would actually work, just not be useless , once you learn oopps really doesnt apply to the topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjectfreakingtivity. 

Granting subjectivity and rights to nature is handing it a poisoned chalice, entering it into a competition it can never effectively play, which inevitably results in disaster, and the more we are reconciled with nature, the less we can be reconciled with ourselves, resulting in mass extermination through nuclear or biological means.

Baudrillard 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End†p. 80-84, certified badass]

Hence the recent proposal, following this same logic, from the moment it achieved the status of virtual waste-product, to accord nature international recognition of its rights, to elevate it to the status of a subject in law. Thus the 'contrat nature/"" amounts to a definitive recognition of nature as waste. Just as, in bygone days, the recognition of the rights of the unfortunate meant not their emancipation as citizens, but their liberation as the unfortunate. It is always the same with rights: the right to water, the right to air, the right to existence, etc. It is when all these fine things have disappeared that the law arrives to grant their disappearance official recognition. The law is like religious faith. If God exists, there is no need to believe in Him. If people do believe in Him, this is because the self-evidence of his existence has passed away. Thus, when people obtain the right to life, the fact is that they are no longer able to live. When nature is recognized as a subject in law, as it is by Michel Serres, we have objectified it to death, and this ecological cover merely asserts our right to go on doing soAll this has been brought about by the highly dubious way in which the concept of nature has evolved. What was initially matter became energy. The modern discovery of nature consists in its liberation as energy and in a mechanical transformation of the world. After having first been matter, and then energy, nature is today becoming an interactive subject. It is ceasing to be an object, but this is bringing it all the more surely into the circuit of subjection. A dramatic paradox, and one which also affects human beings: we are much more compromised when we cease to be objects and become subjects. This is a trick that was pulled on us long ago, in the name of absolute liberation. Let's not pull the same one on nature. For the ultimate danger is that, in an interactivity built up into a total system of communication, there is no other; there are only subjects - and, very soon, only subjects without objects. All our problems today as civilized beings originate here: not in an excess of alienation, but a disappearance of alienation in favour of a maximum transparency between subjects. An unbearable situation, all the more so for the fact that, in foisting on nature the status of a subject in law, we are also foisting on it all the vices of subjectivity, decking it out, in our own image, with a bad conscience, with nostalgia (for a lost object which, in this case, can only be us), with a range of drives - in particular, an impulse for revenge. The 'balance' we hear so much of in ecology ('out of balance') is not so much that of planetary resources and their exploitation as the metaphysical one between subject and object. Now, that metaphysical subject object balance is being upset and the subject, armed as he is with all the technologies of advanced communication (technologies on whose horizon the object has disappeared), is the beneficiary Once that balance is disrupted, it inevitably sparks violent reactions on the part of the object. Just as individuals counter the transparency and virtual responsibility inflicted on them as subjects with unexplainable acts, acts of resistance, failure, delinquency and collective disorder, so nature counters this enforced promotion, this consensual, communicational blackmail, with various forms of behaviour that are radically other, such as catastrophes, upheavals, earthquakes and chaos. It would seem that nature does not really feel a sense of responsibility for itself, nor does it react to our efforts to give it one. We are, admittedly, indulging in" a (bad) ecological conscience and attempting, by this moral violence, to stave off possible violence on nature's part. But if, by offering it the status of subject, we are handing it the same poisoned chalice as we gave to the decolonized nations, we ought not to be surprised if it behaves irrationally merely so as to assert itself as such. Contrary to the underlying Rousseauist ideology, which argues that the profound nature of the liberated subject can only be good and that nature itself, once emancipated, cannot but be endowed with natural equilibrium and all the ecological virtues, there is nothing more ambiguous or perverse than a subject. Now, nature is also germs, viruses, chaos, bacteria and scorpions, significantly eliminated from Biosphere 2 as though they were not meant to exist. Where  are the deadly little scorpions, so beautiful and so translucent, which one sees in the Desert Museum not far away, scorpions whose magical sting certainly performs a higher, invisible – but necessary - function within our Biosphere 1: the incarnation of evil, of the venomous evil of chance, the mortal innocence of desire (the desire for death) in the equilibrium of living beings?

What they have forgotten is that what binds living beings together is something other than an ecological, biospherical solidarity, something other than the homeostatic equilibrium of a system: it is the cycle of metamorphoses. Man is also a scorpion, just as the Bororo are araras and, left to himself in an expurgated universe, he becomes, himself, a scorpion. In short, it is not by expurgating evil that we liberate good. Worse, by liberating good, we also liberate evil. And this is only right: it is the rule of the symbolic game. It is the inseparability of good and evil which constitutes our true equilibrium, our true balance. We ought not to entertain the illusion that we might separate the two, that we might cultivate good and happiness in a pure state and expel evil and sorrow as wastes. That is the terroristic dream of the transparency of good, which very quickly ends in its opposite, the transparency of evil. We must not reconcile ourselves with nature. It seems that the more the human race reconciles itself with nature, the less it is reconciled with itself. Above and beyond the violence it inflicts on others, there is a violence specific to the human race in general, a violence of the species against itself in which it treats itself as a residue, as a survivor - even in the present - of a coming catastrophe. As if it too were ready to repent of an evolution which has brought it such privileges and carried it to such extremes. This is the same conjuncture as the one to which Canetti refers, in which we stepped out of history, except that here we have not stepped out of history, but have passed a point beyond which nothing is either human or inhuman any longer and what is at stake, which is even more immense, is the tottering of the species into the void.

It is quite possible that, in this process, the species itself is commencing its  disappearance, either by disenchantment with - or ressentiment towards - itself, or out of a deliberate inclination which leads it here and now to manage that disappearance as its destiny. Surreptitiously, in spite of our superiority (or perhaps because of it), we are carrying over on to our own species the treatment we mete out to the others, all of which are virtually dying out. In an animal milieu which has reached saturation point, species are spontaneously dissuaded from living. The effects produced by the finite nature of the earth, for the first time contrasting violently with the infinity of our development, are such that our species is automatically switching over to collective suicide. Whether by external (nuclear) violence or internal (biological) virulence. We are subjecting ourselves as a human species to the same experimental pressure as the animal species in our laboratories. Man is without prejudice: he is using himself as a guinea-pig, just as he is using the rest of the world, animate or inanimate. He is cheerfully gambling with the destiny of his own species as he is with that of all the others. In his blind desire to know more, he is programming his own destruction with the same ease and ferocity as the destruction of the others. He cannot be accused of a superior egoism. He is sacrificing himself, as a species, to an unknown experimental fate, unknown at least as yet to other species, who have experienced only natural fates. And, whereas it seemed that, linked to that natural fate, there was something like an instinct of self-preservation - long the mainstay of a natural philosophy of individuals and groups - this experimental fate to which the human species is condemning itself by unprecedented, artificial means, this scientific prefiguring of its own disappearance, sweeps away all ideas of a self-preservation instinct. The idea is, indeed, no longer discussed in the human sciences (where the focus of attention would seem, rather, to be on the death drive) and this disappearance from the field of thought signals that, beneath a frenzy for ecological conservation which is really more to do with nostalgia and remose, a wholly different tendency has already won out, the sacrificing of the species to boundless experimentation.

 

>"It's not generic!"

>Pulls unfinished K from the most overused baudrillard backfile in all of debate

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"It's not generic!"

>Pulls unfinished K from the most overused baudrillard backfile in all of debate

What? I fail to understand how that makes it any less of a valid argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...