Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello debate community, noticing that a few camps have put out nomads/pirate deleuze and guattari affs I was wondering what the best way to argue these types of cases would be. They avoid a lot of the usual neg args and even outright counter some important ones. Thank you for your help!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen these affs and they all rely on an assumption that transcendence is inherently unethical and immanence is inherently ethical.  Neither of those terms (nor: deterritorialization, territorialization, striated, rhizomatic) have inherent ethical qualities.  In fact, Deleuze and Guattari are writing in a way that is specifically a-historical and sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  This is offense, because if immanence is the only ethical achievement then we turn inwards - we can only experience the most immanent, we can never move outside of ourselves or our habits.  More importantly, we close ourselves off from the inspiration which constitutes lines of flight.  This means politics can't even escape the bedroom let alone the classroom.  This obviously has tremendous implications for things like the Cap K (it proves the alt is a competing method and opens up a large number of link arguments), but it also has meaningful implications for race/identity positions which posit a transcendent theory of racial hierarchy (e.g. Wilderson).  

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the help, I understand what you're saying about how D&G didn't write their points with ethical qualities and sidestepped the whole plane, but I got lost when you mentioned Cap and Wilderson. Could you possibly explain those points a bit further?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the help, I understand what you're saying about how D&G didn't write their points with ethical qualities and sidestepped the whole plane, but I got lost when you mentioned Cap and Wilderson. Could you possibly explain those points a bit further?

I think he's saying that the affirmatives fail to utilize the abstract machine; which means theory is never turned into praxis and the whole theory of the 1AC will always already link back to itself since the only option we're left under the 1AC is immanence, since it's the ONLY ethical option under the 1AC; which means that the 1AC and the ballot fail to create lines of flight from the Apparatus of Capture that they criticize and the theory becomes enclosed in the text of the 1AC, never escaping the textual world. This means that you can offer counter methodologies through arguments such as a Cap K which offer a competing method to combat the capitalist-machine; the link stuff is found accordingly to what they think they're saying.

 

On the Wilderson K - If the argument of the 1AC is that transcendence is inherently bad and immanence is inherently good, then your Wilderson K, which criticizes a transcendent model of social hierarchies: racism; is able to offer a counter/competing methodology to dismantle something in the world that is transcendent, which the 1AC says is bad - links would probably be that Post-Modernism and the rhetoric of liberation aren't accessible to the black body because of the structural antagonisms that exist in the status quo and actually mess up the situation even more. It doesn't have to be strictly Wilderson though, I'm sure any Identity Politics K works, I personally run Queer Theory against DnG, as somebody did in these forums against Payton (?).

 

Does that make sense?

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen these affs and they all rely on an assumption that transcendence is inherently unethical and immanence is inherently ethical.  Neither of those terms (nor: deterritorialization, territorialization, striated, rhizomatic) have inherent ethical qualities.  In fact, Deleuze and Guattari are writing in a way that is specifically a-historical and sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  This is offense, because if immanence is the only ethical achievement then we turn inwards - we can only experience the most immanent, we can never move outside of ourselves or our habits.  More importantly, we close ourselves off from the inspiration which constitutes lines of flight.  This means politics can't even escape the bedroom let alone the classroom.  This obviously has tremendous implications for things like the Cap K (it proves the alt is a competing method and opens up a large number of link arguments), but it also has meaningful implications for race/identity positions which posit a transcendent theory of racial hierarchy (e.g. Wilderson).  

Primary reason why I don't like Open Evidence and prefer cutting my own evidence. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying that the affirmatives fail to utilize the abstract machine; which means theory is never turned into praxis and the whole theory of the 1AC will always already link back to itself since the only option we're left under the 1AC is immanence, since it's the ONLY ethical option under the 1AC; which means that the 1AC and the ballot fail to create lines of flight from the Apparatus of Capture that they criticize and the theory becomes enclosed in the text of the 1AC, never escaping the textual world. This means that you can offer counter methodologies through arguments such as a Cap K which offer a competing method to combat the capitalist-machine; the link stuff is found accordingly to what they think they're saying.

 

On the Wilderson K - If the argument of the 1AC is that transcendence is inherently bad and immanence is inherently good, then your Wilderson K, which criticizes a transcendent model of social hierarchies: racism; is able to offer a counter/competing methodology to dismantle something in the world that is transcendent, which the 1AC says is bad - links would probably be that Post-Modernism and the rhetoric of liberation aren't accessible to the black body because of the structural antagonisms that exist in the status quo and actually mess up the situation even more. It doesn't have to be strictly Wilderson though, I'm sure any Identity Politics K works, I personally run Queer Theory against DnG, as somebody did in these forums against Payton (?).

 

Does that make sense?

 

The cap explanation is fine.  Basically, if the only value is immanence, then you can only strive for what is closest to you and you spiral infinitely because there is always something closer to you (it's like a parabola).  

 

That is not quite what I had in mind for Wilderson.  First, those link arguments are incredibly racist.  I don't care how many times debaters of color go for "we are literally incapable of understanding high theory because we are black" - that argument will be racist every time it is entered into a debate.  May I please remind the audience at home that Wilderson cites Lacan, Marx, and Fanon?  Those are hardly organic intellectuals.  

 

Aside from that, the argument would actually be a defense of transcendence.  Wilderson is pretty clear that the expanded semantic identity field is troublesome for blacks.  As we expand identities from the transcendent (conservative) demarcation of white and black, we encounter a nearly limitless number of identity categories which mediate conflict/antagonism/strife and dilute blackness.  An obese black queer woman is better off in 2014 than 1900.  A black is not.  Deleuze and Guattari's insistence on an ideal future in which the term "I" means nothing at all is an enormous link to the more conservative black thinkers like Wilderson who are criticizing the emergence of poliferant identities within the social and political.  In short: with Wilderson your argument is that transcendence is good and static identity is good.  Also, DnG's prophets tend to advocate a lot of negotiation and incrementalism which is pretty easy to impact turn with Wilderson

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap explanation is fine.  Basically, if the only value is immanence, then you can only strive for what is closest to you and you spiral infinitely because there is always something closer to you (it's like a parabola).  

 

That is not quite what I had in mind for Wilderson.  First, those link arguments are incredibly racist.  I don't care how many times debaters of color go for "we are literally incapable of understanding high theory because we are black" - that argument will be racist every time it is entered into a debate.  May I please remind the audience at home that Wilderson cites Lacan, Marx, and Fanon?  Those are hardly organic intellectuals.  

 

Aside from that, the argument would actually be a defense of transcendence.  Wilderson is pretty clear that the expanded semantic identity field is troublesome for blacks.  As we expand identities from the transcendent (conservative) demarcation of white and black, we encounter a nearly limitless number of identity categories which mediate conflict/antagonism/strife and dilute blackness.  An obese black queer woman is better off in 2014 than 1900.  A black is not.  Deleuze and Guattari's insistence on an ideal future in which the term "I" means nothing at all is an enormous link to the more conservative black thinkers like Wilderson who are criticizing the emergence of poliferant identities within the social and political.  In short: with Wilderson your argument is that transcendence is good and static identity is good.  Also, DnG's prophets tend to advocate a lot of negotiation and incrementalism which is pretty easy to impact turn with Wilderson

Sorry I haven't looked into much of Wilderson, just what I've hit in the rounds, and they made those link arguments against me when I ran DnG. Please excuse any racism, it was unintentional!

 

Actually, re-reading what you wrote; the argument wasn't that the black body can't understand high theory, it was that the black body doesn't have access to the rhizomatic politics of the 1AC because the squo relegates the black body to a form of exclusion - Everything you said regarding Wildersons argument makes sense, thanks for the info!

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I haven't looked into much of Wilderson, just what I've hit in the rounds, and they made those link arguments against me when I ran DnG. Please excuse any racism, it was unintentional!

I did not mean to imply you were racist, I'm very sorry if it came off that way.  I have also heard this argument made a lot and I just wanted to make clear my position.  Seriously, anyone who has ever cracked open a serious book on blackness would know that black studies is incredibly complex and cites dozens of highly theoretical authors.  Even bell hooks, who writes with the express purpose of accessibility, can get obtuse at times.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does striving for what's closest to you relate to capitalism? What specific links would you throw into that argument? And I'm sorry, but I'm probably the least learned in wilderson here, and everything you pointed out in that subject went right over my head. What does wilderson mean by "transcendence" and "static identity" and what do you mean by the term "I". Then at the end, when you mentioned "negotiation" and "incrementalism". 

Once again sorry for the ignorance haha. Thank you for the answers provided.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. YAY!!!! Theparanoiacmachine mentioned me, I feel validated.

 

2. You don't argue against DnG affs, you just lose

 

3. I found a couple cards that link fluid identity to racism, I can PM you if you want

 

4. I agree with Maury on the "we're black we don't understand high theory" link, but I think that the point some people make (usually running other authors than Wilderson) is that due to inferior education( I.e. black schools have old shifty books and chalk/whiteboards, white schools have smart boards and Ipads) and lack of time to read/process high theory(I.e. can't read DnG while working all day and night) makes postmodernism less accessible to blacks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An obese black queer woman is better off in 2014 than 1900.  A black is not

Please explain.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An obese black queer woman is better off in 2014 than 1900.  A black is not.  

 

This may be way off but YOLO:

 

I think that what Maury is trying to say is that because of all these new movements that advocate for a form of fluidity in identity, a lot of new identities are produced infinitely that attempt to footnote the suffering of the black body. From his example; if you were a black queer woman back in 1900 you would probably be at the bottom of Civil Society since all those axioms were hated fervently back in the 1900, as was the black body. However, as times changed, the queer identity and those whom suffer from health problems, such as being overweight, started to become much more acceptable. This is because other people that weren't part of the black body were able to access the queer identity and the being overweight so there had to be a change in the squo to mitigate the suffering of these groups. However, the black body remained in the same position that it was in 1900, at the bottom of civil society. So when an obese black queer woman, who has access to other identities that are not part of the black body is said to be better of in 2014, it is because the squo has changed the way in which we look at obese and queer woman - BUT IT HAS DONE NOTHING TO ADDRESS ANTI-BLACKNESS - that's the problem with fluidity, it always ignores the black body and instead creates an infinite number of identities that become in themselves an a priori issue which means that blackness will never be addressed.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An obese black queer woman is better off in 2014 than 1900.  A black is not.  

 

This may be way off but YOLO:

 

I think that what Maury is trying to say is that the because of all these new movements that advocate for a form of fluidity in identity, a lot of new identities are produced infinitely that attempt to footnote the suffering of the black body. From his example; if you were a black queer woman back in 1900 you would probably be at the bottom of Civil Society since all those axioms were hated fervently back in the 1900, as was the black body. However, as times changed, the queer identity and those whom suffer from health problems, such as being overweight, started to become much more acceptable. This is because other people that weren't part of the black body were able to access the queer identity and the being overweight so there had to be a change in the squo to mitigate the suffering of these groups. However, the black body remained in the same position that it was in 1900, at the bottom of civil society. So when an obese black queer woman, who has access to other identities that are not part of the black body is said to be better of in 2014, it is because the squo has changed the way in which we look at obese and queer woman - BUT IT HAS DONE NOTHING TO ADDRESS ANTI-BLACKNESS - that's the problem with fluidity, it always ignore the black body and instead creates an infinite number of identities that become in themselves an a priori issue which means that blackness will never be addressed.

That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen these affs and they all rely on an assumption that transcendence is inherently unethical and immanence is inherently ethical.  Neither of those terms (nor: deterritorialization, territorialization, striated, rhizomatic) have inherent ethical qualities.  In fact, Deleuze and Guattari are writing in a way that is specifically a-historical and sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  This is offense, because if immanence is the only ethical achievement then we turn inwards - we can only experience the most immanent, we can never move outside of ourselves or our habits.  More importantly, we close ourselves off from the inspiration which constitutes lines of flight.  This means politics can't even escape the bedroom let alone the classroom.  This obviously has tremendous implications for things like the Cap K (it proves the alt is a competing method and opens up a large number of link arguments), but it also has meaningful implications for race/identity positions which posit a transcendent theory of racial hierarchy (e.g. Wilderson).  

Also becomes a problem when debaters conflate the notion of immanence ethics with the idea that what is immanent is necessarily ethical.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, Deleuze and Guattari are writing in a way that is specifically a-historical and sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.

 

 

I should say...I appreciate Maury's contributions to this and other threads on D & G.  That said...I have two key questions/concerns.

 

A-historical?  Isn't that a bit like clean slate "objectivity" of the enlightenment.  Does that mean they don't care or pay attention to history or historical movements?

 

Are they utilitarians or consequentialist?  No one is amoral or sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  Ethics is embuded in everything we do.  Not talking about it doesn't make this amoral.  For instance, shoulds, oughts, norms, being against something or being for something....all are forms of ethics.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they utilitarians or consequentialist?  No one is amoral or sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  Ethics is embuded in everything we do.  Not talking about it doesn't make this amoral.  For instance, shoulds, oughts, norms, being against something or being for something....all are forms of ethics.

It's entirely possible to sidestep ethics.  They're describing how the world works, not claiming that it should work some way.  Any attempt at an objective description of the world (though I don't think DnG defend the notion of objective descriptions) is amoral (is the first law of thermodynamics ethical or unethical?).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say...I appreciate Maury's contributions to this and other threads on D & G.  That said...I have two key questions/concerns.

 

A-historical?  Isn't that a bit like clean slate "objectivity" of the enlightenment.  Does that mean they don't care or pay attention to history or historical movements?

 

Are they utilitarians or consequentialist?  No one is amoral or sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  Ethics is embuded in everything we do.  Not talking about it doesn't make this amoral.  For instance, shoulds, oughts, norms, being against something or being for something....all are forms of ethics.

Only when speaking in normative terms.

 

Also, quick note, I'm sick of people saying that nomads aren't violent or don't go to war. That's not what the text says.

People see this and call it a day:

 

ATP

Page 417

"To the extent that war

(with or without the battle) aims for the annihilation or capitulation of

enemy forces, the war machine does not necessarily have war as its object..."

 

And ignore this:

 

(Same page)

"But more generally, we have seen that the war machine

was the invention of the nomad, because it is in its essence the constitutive

element of smooth space, the occupation of this space, displacement

within this space, and the corresponding composition of people: this is its

sole and veritable positive object (nomos). Make the desert, the steppe,

grow; do not depopulate it, quite the contrary. If war necessarily results, it

is because the war machine collides with States and cities, as forces (of

stri-ation) opposing its positive object: from then on, the war machine has as

its enemy the State, the city, the state and urban phenomenon, and adopts

as its objective their annihilation. It is at this point that the war machine

becomes war: annihilate the forces of the State, destroy the State-form."

 

Necessarily =/= can't or doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only when speaking in normative terms.

 

Also, quick note, I'm sick of people saying that nomads aren't violent or don't go to war. That's not what the text says.

People see this and call it a day:

 

 

Lol who said this? Through my first reading of A Thousand Plateaus I was able to understand that nomads were violent, you don't even need to read the text to understand this. If the war-machine is a concept of purely nomadic origin and has the dismantling of the state as it's primary objective, why would it be peaceful? It's not like the Glorious Revolution in Britain back in the 17th century was symptomatic of the war-machine. If you want to destroy the State-form, then you sure as hell need to be violent about; you're not gonna march in and say "Yeah, he guys, I started reading DnG the other day and I'm now a nomad and I proclaim this pencil my war-machine, and their books say that it's capable of dismantling the State-form, so if y'all could do me a solid and just get rid of this arborescent government, that'd be great...k?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol who said this? Through my first reading of A Thousand Plateaus I was able to understand that nomads were violent, you don't even need to read the text to understand this. If the war-machine is a concept of purely nomadic origin and has the dismantling of the state as it's primary objective, why would it be peaceful? It's not like the Glorious Revolution in Britain back in the 17th century was symptomatic of the war-machine. If you want to destroy the State-form, then you sure as hell need to be violent about; you're not gonna march in and say "Yeah, he guys, I started reading DnG the other day and I'm now a nomad and I proclaim this pencil my war-machine, and their books say that it's capable of dismantling the State-form, so if y'all could do me a solid and just get rid of this arborescent government, that'd be great...k?" 

I've seen it expressed enough times to be annoyed by it.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure if people are actually losing to this or not, but the wealth of arguments still included in AT: DnG files that say "lol, deterritorialized space will be reterritorialized super easy, you lose" leads me to think not many people cut answers to this (I could be wrong). For those aspiring DnG debaters out there, check between Axiom II, Proposition V, and Axiom II, Proposition VI in A Treatise on Nomadology (ATP) for an answer straight from the Frenchmen's mouth(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's entirely possible to sidestep ethics.  They're describing how the world works, not claiming that it should work some way.  Any attempt at an objective description of the world (though I don't think DnG defend the notion of objective descriptions) is amoral (is the first law of thermodynamics ethical or unethical?).

 

 

If there is an alternative....there is a should.

 

The debaters in this case are creating shoulds about how the judge should or should not act.

 

No use of normativo words?  Fairness, justice, ethics, etc.. at all???  What exactly is the terminal impact of these harms they are describing?  Why is their terminal impact more important than other potential terminal impacts? (that is to say why are their values--that there analysis assumes more important than others).

 

Thats challenging for me to wrap my head around because it flies in the face of the debate round and resolutional reality in a couple of ways....you can't have a debate argument without an ethical call of some sort that contexualizes the evidence to the ballot.  Even topicality the most descriptivist argument in debate has shoulds & ethical standards that is it based on and/or creates/established/perpetuates.

 

If it was just a factual argument it would be a harms takeout.

 

At a minimum that implicitly sounds utilitarian, consequentialist, or like pragmatism.  If that is the default framework in which they are using to analyze.

 

The inclusion/exclusion of subject matter also speaks to ethics/value.  They clearly value education and truth and a methodology of truth discovery.  Thats a worldview--thats ethics.

 

The lack of explicitness doesn't mean its not there.  Thats the nature of hidden premises and worldviews.  Worldviews and ethics are often acting beneath the surface.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say...I appreciate Maury's contributions to this and other threads on D & G.  That said...I have two key questions/concerns.

 

A-historical?  Isn't that a bit like clean slate "objectivity" of the enlightenment.  Does that mean they don't care or pay attention to history or historical movements?

 

Are they utilitarians or consequentialist?  No one is amoral or sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.  Ethics is embuded in everything we do.  Not talking about it doesn't make this amoral.  For instance, shoulds, oughts, norms, being against something or being for something....all are forms of ethics.

They're not a-historical in the sense that they ignore all history prior to the things that they experience on the daily basis, rather it's that they reject the notion of history that has encapsulated the world writ large; they're saying not to view history through a linear fashion where A led to B because A set of a chain of events that led to B, for example the correlation between the French Revolution and the Central/South American Revolutions are taught to us to be interconnected, instead we ought to view history as a series of different events that happened independently from each other. That's what they mean by being a-historical. So, no they don't reject any of history, rather the linearity of history; although through my readings of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus I didn't find a lot of normativity, the only places I found it would be in the introduction or the translators notes, which were usually done by other people. It's not normative because the reader is encouraged to create something out of their theories, I think this allegory has been give multiple times, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus are like a tool-box and we're the builders. And a lot of people have given normativity to their theories, any Deleuzian scholar that has published works regarding their theories have either given it normativity basing their own arguments off of their interpretations of the books OR they have been like Walter Mignolo and have mixed Deleuze's concept of the war-machine and the assemblages, the abstract machine, with the post-colonial struggles of Latin America. 

 

Also - disjunctive syllogisms are fascist, that either/scenario you put up there forces their theories to be essentialized under a single axiom of ethics; "They'e either utilitarians or they're consequentialists, they're not utilitarians, so they must be consequentialists," and vice versa. It ignores the possibility that there may be other fields of ethics that they want to identify with, not to mention that their texts are, as they gave an example in the beginning of A Thousand Plateaus of the book, an assemblage which means that there are different axioms within their texts that can fall under the realm of consequentialist/utilitarian ethics but can also fall under another branch of ethics that may have not been created yet. Indeed, in their texts they say that either/or scenarios ignore other axioms, which doesn't make them bad, rather it prioritizes some things over others, for example the black/white binary, rich/poor binary. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...