Jump to content
MartyP

MartyP (A) vs. theparanoiacmachine (N) [oceans]

Recommended Posts

Cool aff - anybody wanna set a word count for us?

 

CX:

 

1- What is a hyper object? 

 

2 - Does the aff have a method? If so, what is it?

 

3 - What's the impact to not voting aff?

 

4 - Is the human a subject or an object? If a subject, what makes the human a subject and what IS the human?

 

5 - Why is the human subject uniquely key?

 

6 - Where's the evidence in the 1AC that talks about how "Oyster Reef Restoration" is key to changing our relationship to hyper objects?

 

7 - What is an object?

 

8 - Do we need an openness to objects? 

 

9th - What is the impact to a hyper object? What do we need to change about it?

 

10 - I guess, who implements the plan? (i.e. the Judge, the debaters, the USFG???) 

 

11 - How does your 1AC incorporate the planet Earth?

 

12 - Is the planet earth a hyper object?

 

13 - What is "anthrodecentrism"?

 

14 - Does the aff defend the human as the starting point?

 

Probably more questions but that'll do for now

 

F.Y.I. I don't run T or Framework because I'd rather debate on the substance of the Aff 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"it bears no material manifestation of human passage"

Hmmmm...

 

Anyways, I disagree on face with both hyper objects and a lot of the thesis behind the aff but I'll refrain until after the round has concluded.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool aff - anybody wanna set a word count for us?

2500/1500?

 

CX:

 

1- What is a hyper object? 

"An object massively distributed in time and space."

 

2 - Does the aff have a method? If so, what is it?

Our method is one of engagement with the object as a starting point for action.

 

3 - What's the impact to not voting aff?

A lot of destruction of a lot of different objects.

 

4 - Is the human a subject or an object? If a subject, what makes the human a subject and what IS the human?

The human is an object.  Everything is an object.

 

5 - Why is the human subject uniquely key?

Refer to four.  There's no ontological reason why we're key, the only thing that really sets us apart is our penchant for destruction out of ignorance.

 

6 - Where's the evidence in the 1AC that talks about how "Oyster Reef Restoration" is key to changing our relationship to hyper objects?

As of the 1AC my argument is that Oyster Reef Restoration is a good example of the Mesh, and a good way to coexist with hyper objects. I don't have a card that says oysters will revolutionize our relationship to objects, but I've presented a coherent criticism of the way we engage with objects and then present an advocacy that isn't like that as an example of how to act

 

7 - What is an object?

Everything, it's an entity.

 

8 - Do we need an openness to objects? 

Could you be more specific.  I'm reading that a couple different ways, and they each have different answers.

 

9th - What is the impact to a hyper object? What do we need to change about it?

Our status quo engagement with hyper objects is one in which we feel as if we can control them because we only perceive them in the here and now. That leads to accidents like Fukashima or our failure to resolve global warming.

 

10 - I guess, who implements the plan? (i.e. the Judge, the debaters, the USFG???) 

Probably the judge.  It's more of a thought experiment, not so much a fiated governmental action.

 

11 - How does your 1AC incorporate the planet Earth?

I'm not sure what you mean by that (if your trying to set up a Consult the Earth CP I'm going to be very disappointed).

 

12 - Is the planet earth a hyper object?

I suppose so.

 

13 - What is "anthrodecentrism"?

The process of disavowal of anthropocentric thought.

 

14 - Does the aff defend the human as the starting point?

The aff defends the object as the starting point

 

Probably more questions but that'll do for now

 

F.Y.I. I don't run T or Framework because I'd rather debate on the substance of the Aff 

 

 

"it bears no material manifestation of human passage"

Hmmmm...

 

Anyways, I disagree on face with both hyper objects and a lot of the thesis behind the aff but I'll refrain until after the round has concluded.

Honestly, I dislike this aff a lot.  My partner wrote it, and he's the 2A, but I also disagree with much of it.  IMO it's just a grab bag of philosophical bullshit (credit to Steve Pointer for that phrasing).  No offense to anyone that legitimately believes OOO, it's not the idea that's bullshit but the way we put it together. Still, it can lead to some fun debates.

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool aff - anybody wanna set a word count for us?

2500/1500?

 

CX:

 

1- What is a hyper object? 

"An object massively distributed in time and space."

Yeah, but how does that affect us?

 

2 - Does the aff have a method? If so, what is it?

Our method is one of engagement with the object as a starting point for action.

 

How does one "engage the object"

 

3 - What's the impact to not voting aff?

A lot of destruction of a lot of different objects.

 

4 - Is the human a subject or an object? If a subject, what makes the human a subject and what IS the human?

The human is an object.  Everything is an object.

 

5 - Why is the human subject uniquely key?

Refer to four.  There's no ontological reason why we're key, the only thing that really sets us apart is our penchant for destruction out of ignorance.

 

Cool - does that mean you claim to solve the subject object dichotomy?

 

6 - Where's the evidence in the 1AC that talks about how "Oyster Reef Restoration" is key to changing our relationship to hyper objects?

As of the 1AC my argument is that Oyster Reef Restoration is a good example of the Mesh, and a good way to coexist with hyper objects. I don't have a card that says oysters will revolutionize our relationship to objects, but I've presented a coherent criticism of the way we engage with objects and then present an advocacy that isn't like that as an example of how to act

 

The "mesh"? Do you mean the mix between the two or...? But why is the Oyster Reef Restoration a project (?) for us to coexist with hyper objects?

 

7 - What is an object?

Everything, it's an entity.

 

Is the object static? As in do you assume Platonic Forms? 

 

8 - Do we need an openness to objects? 

Could you be more specific.  I'm reading that a couple different ways, and they each have different answers.

 

Do we need to be open to an ethical encounter (whatever that means) with the object? 

 

9th - What is the impact to a hyper object? What do we need to change about it?

Our status quo engagement with hyper objects is one in which we feel as if we can control them because we only perceive them in the here and now. That leads to accidents like Fukashima or our failure to resolve global warming.

 

So our perception of hyper objects makes it seem as if we can control them and that leads to failure to resolve major problems...? How? I understand Morton says hyper objects affect our politics as such, but why is our perception of them not allowing us to tackle issues. I guess, what makes us unable to address major problems if the problem is a hyper object?

 

10 - I guess, who implements the plan? (i.e. the Judge, the debaters, the USFG???) 

Probably the judge.  It's more of a thought experiment, not so much a fiated governmental action.

 

 

11 - How does your 1AC incorporate the planet Earth?

I'm not sure what you mean by that (if your trying to set up a Consult the Earth CP I'm going to be very disappointed).

 

I meant more like, do you use the Earth to ground your project? Is the Earth only relational to our conceptions of it?

 

12 - Is the planet earth a hyper object?

I suppose so.

 

13 - What is "anthrodecentrism"?

The process of disavowal of anthropocentric thought.

 

14 - Does the aff defend the human as the starting point?

The aff defends the object as the starting point

 

Hmmm...does an object have agency? 

 

Probably more questions but that'll do for now

 

 

F.Y.I. I don't run T or Framework because I'd rather debate on the substance of the Aff 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cool aff - anybody wanna set a word count for us?

2500/1500?

 

CX:

 

1- What is a hyper object? 

"An object massively distributed in time and space."

Yeah, but how does that affect us?

Refer to my original answer to nine.  Plus, we interact with hyper objects all the time.

 

2 - Does the aff have a method? If so, what is it?

Our method is one of engagement with the object as a starting point for action.

 

How does one "engage the object"

There are a couple different parts to the answer.  1- understand that objects withdraw from human interaction. 2- Morton is really good on the ethics of engaging objects.  We need to love objects in their unknownness.  3- Bryant says we must acknowledge the object in itself, not something posited by human beings.

 

3 - What's the impact to not voting aff?

A lot of destruction of a lot of different objects.

 

4 - Is the human a subject or an object? If a subject, what makes the human a subject and what IS the human?

The human is an object.  Everything is an object.

 

5 - Why is the human subject uniquely key?

Refer to four.  There's no ontological reason why we're key, the only thing that really sets us apart is our penchant for destruction out of ignorance.

 

Cool - does that mean you claim to solve the subject object dichotomy?

I'm not really sure what that means.  I think that my aff would refute that the dichotomy even exists (at least intrinsically)

 

6 - Where's the evidence in the 1AC that talks about how "Oyster Reef Restoration" is key to changing our relationship to hyper objects?

As of the 1AC my argument is that Oyster Reef Restoration is a good example of the Mesh, and a good way to coexist with hyper objects. I don't have a card that says oysters will revolutionize our relationship to objects, but I've presented a coherent criticism of the way we engage with objects and then present an advocacy that isn't like that as an example of how to act

 

The "mesh"? Do you mean the mix between the two or...? But why is the Oyster Reef Restoration a project (?) for us to coexist with hyper objects?

Ok, so first the Mesh is addressed in my Morton 11 evidence.  It's the idea that everything is interconnected, as well as the idea that drawing distinctions between objects will always fail.  Next, Oyster Reef Restoration is an example of a way to coexist with hyper objects.  In this instance we'll talk about warming.  Warming is a hyper object that status quo efforts have focused on destroying.  Unfortunately, these efforts fail because our relationship to hyper objects like warming should be one of coexistence rather than destruction.  The advocacy is a way to adapt/coexist with warming as an example of how we can effectively engage with hyper objects.

 

7 - What is an object?

Everything, it's an entity.

 

Is the object static? As in do you assume Platonic Forms? 

The object is static in the sense that it has a definite, intrinsic ontology independent of external influences.

 

8 - Do we need an openness to objects? 

Could you be more specific.  I'm reading that a couple different ways, and they each have different answers.

 

Do we need to be open to an ethical encounter (whatever that means) with the object? 

Well, sort of.  The ethical encounter is not so much an encounter as a letting-be.

 

9th - What is the impact to a hyper object? What do we need to change about it?

Our status quo engagement with hyper objects is one in which we feel as if we can control them because we only perceive them in the here and now. That leads to accidents like Fukashima or our failure to resolve global warming.

 

So our perception of hyper objects makes it seem as if we can control them and that leads to failure to resolve major problems...? How? I understand Morton says hyper objects affect our politics as such, but why is our perception of them not allowing us to tackle issues. I guess, what makes us unable to address major problems if the problem is a hyper object?

Re-reading my original response I just realized how shitty it was.  I'll try to be clearer.  1- our failure to understand how certain objects extend massively across space and time means that we don't really comprehend the damage that something like radiation can cause.  2- understanding hyper objects is critical because major [potential] catastrophes tend to be in that form (ecological, capitalist, etc.).  3- Many problems we are no experiencing are hyper objects that began centuries ago i.e. global warming.  The reason the aff is important is because it alters our understanding of these phenomenon in order to better engage/coexist with them.

 

10 - I guess, who implements the plan? (i.e. the Judge, the debaters, the USFG???) 

Probably the judge.  It's more of a thought experiment, not so much a fiated governmental action.

 

 

11 - How does your 1AC incorporate the planet Earth?

I'm not sure what you mean by that (if your trying to set up a Consult the Earth CP I'm going to be very disappointed).

 

I meant more like, do you use the Earth to ground your project? Is the Earth only relational to our conceptions of it?

I ground my project in materiality in general.  I oppose the idea that something like the Earth can be defined by our conception of it.

 

12 - Is the planet earth a hyper object?

I suppose so.

 

13 - What is "anthrodecentrism"?

The process of disavowal of anthropocentric thought.

 

14 - Does the aff defend the human as the starting point?

The aff defends the object as the starting point

 

Hmmm...does an object have agency? 

That's the wrong question.  An object can have agency, but whether or not it does is a different question

 

Probably more questions but that'll do for now

 

 

F.Y.I. I don't run T or Framework because I'd rather debate on the substance of the Aff 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be so much fun!

 

K

1- What is the solar anus?

2- What's so bad about securing ourselves from death?

3- "The emancipative project of the 1AC and its justifications imply a certain open-ness to the future as a good which we can always never afford" explain this.

4- What are you sacrificing and why is that good?

5- You say that we should embrace death. Why? What if I don't want to?

6- Status?

 

Case

1- If simulacra so perfectly resemble the Real, what's the difference?

2- What is the hyperreal?

3- How does embracing death solve?

4- Status?

 

EDIT:

1- why am I economic openness and not radical openness? What is the difference?

2- why am I survival and not life? What is the difference?

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the solar anus?

 

Ignorant friend: Oh, you debate? What do you debate about?

Debater: Oh, just solar anuses and sacrificial violence.

 

Dat highlighting, tho (on the Razinsky card)

Edited by jhiggins
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be so much fun!

 

K

1- What is the solar anus?

 

Unintelligibility and nothingness 

2- What's so bad about securing ourselves from death?

 

it's not death per se, rather it is that rationalism is a defense against the sea - your aff's invocation of philosophy is always already situated within the domain of "rational thought", thereby creating a defense against nothingness, the Unworld, against Death (since death is abject) - specifically doe, fearing death creates hierarchies where you want to do and experience some things above others, this drive to "live" just makes you a fascist with reactionary tendencies that makes the life of other miserable 

3- "The emancipative project of the 1AC and its justifications imply a certain open-ness to the future as a good which we can always never afford" explain this.

 

Your open-ness is not really open-ness because we're not the ones that are being open, rather it is the Unworld that possesses us and makes us a meal fit for the Druj, Mother of Abominations - your type of open-ness does nothing if attempted and serves only to securtize life (via your death impacts_

4- What are you sacrificing and why is that good?

 

We're sacrificing the 1AC as violent expenditure - you're an offering to the Druj, Mother of Abominations - it's good cuz then we're not securitizing against death, we create a fusion between subject and object that transcends static notions of being, and we embrace radical open-ness (which means the Unworld possess us)

5- You say that we should embrace death. Why? What if I don't want to?

 

Not you, per say, rather the judge should (by voting neg) - if you don't then your aff fails since you're not really an open-ness to anything - the 1st Negarestani card explains how open-ness is never directed towards the Outside, rather it is an invocation of the Outside to the interiority of ourselves - we don't become open the outside, rather the Outside takes hold over us; also the Irwin 02 evidence explains how sacrificial theater offers a moment of transfiguration that allow us to transcend static notions of being, anything else perpetuates the dichotomy 

6- Status?

 

Condo 

Case

1- If simulacra so perfectly resemble the Real, what's the difference?

 

Both pieces of Baudrillard evidence describe the precession of simulacra - it's not that the Real is literally non-existent, rather that it's Metaphysical principle is dead; there is no referent (or object though which the semantic field is contingent upon) anymore, there is only the sign - what we see around us is just a sorcery conjured up by the fourth order of simulacra (precession of simulacrum)

2- What is the hyperreal? 

 

Hyperreal is the condition that we live in - when there is no referent, no metaphysical principle anymore; when there is only a precession of simulacra - the Borges fable explains it really well, there was a map that was a replica of the Empire, this map was a simulacra. However, over time the people got fed up with this massive map and threw it in the desert where it was torn and shredded (thus the simulacra was only available in certain vestiges). This is not the case, anymore, however, the Desert is not longer a Desert of simulacra  rather it is a desert of the Real where it is the Code that produces the "reality principle" around you and this Code explains why it is that every movement fails and serves only to give energy to the semiocapitalist system 

3- How does embracing death solve?

 

The REAL death of your 1AC's impacts - we're confronted with either transforming them into just another object of consumption to maintain the simulated "reality principle" of the squo, OR we use their REAL death as a form of invoking reversibility  and symbolic exchange 

4- Status?

 

Unconditional (SWEG)

 

EDIT:

1- why am I economic openness and not radical openness? What is the difference?

 

You're type of open-ness assumes we're being open to the Outside (economic openness), when in reality it is the Unworld that takes hold us (radical openness)

2- why am I survival and not life? What is the difference?

 

Because you want to live and that creates hierarchies - living is sorta like existing in immanence, whereas survival is always already contingent upon transcendent signifiers (this is not always the case, but in this instance, your aff operates like that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is going to be so much fun!

 

K

1- What is the solar anus?

 

Unintelligibility and nothingness 

2- What's so bad about securing ourselves from death?

 

it's not death per se, rather it is that rationalism is a defense against the sea - your aff's invocation of philosophy is always already situated within the domain of "rational thought", thereby creating a defense against nothingness, the Unworld, against Death (since death is abject) - specifically doe, fearing death creates hierarchies where you want to do and experience some things above others, this drive to "live" just makes you a fascist with reactionary tendencies that makes the life of other miserable 

3- "The emancipative project of the 1AC and its justifications imply a certain open-ness to the future as a good which we can always never afford" explain this.

 

Your open-ness is not really open-ness because we're not the ones that are being open, rather it is the Unworld that possesses us and makes us a meal fit for the Druj, Mother of Abominations - your type of open-ness does nothing if attempted and serves only to securtize life (via your death impacts_

4- What are you sacrificing and why is that good?

 

We're sacrificing the 1AC as violent expenditure - you're an offering to the Druj, Mother of Abominations - it's good cuz then we're not securitizing against death, we create a fusion between subject and object that transcends static notions of being, and we embrace radical open-ness (which means the Unworld possess us)

5- You say that we should embrace death. Why? What if I don't want to?

 

Not you, per say, rather the judge should (by voting neg) - if you don't then your aff fails since you're not really an open-ness to anything - the 1st Negarestani card explains how open-ness is never directed towards the Outside, rather it is an invocation of the Outside to the interiority of ourselves - we don't become open the outside, rather the Outside takes hold over us; also the Irwin 02 evidence explains how sacrificial theater offers a moment of transfiguration that allow us to transcend static notions of being, anything else perpetuates the dichotomy 

6- Status?

 

Condo 

Case

1- If simulacra so perfectly resemble the Real, what's the difference?

 

Both pieces of Baudrillard evidence describe the precession of simulacra - it's not that the Real is literally non-existent, rather that it's Metaphysical principle is dead; there is no referent (or object though which the semantic field is contingent upon) anymore, there is only the sign - what we see around us is just a sorcery conjured up by the fourth order of simulacra (precession of simulacrum)

 

I guess my question is, if the sign is all that there is, what makes it less Real than the object?  Also, even if signs and signifiers pervade everything, what makes the objects themselves any LESS real?

2- What is the hyperreal? 

 

Hyperreal is the condition that we live in - when there is no referent, no metaphysical principle anymore; when there is only a precession of simulacra - the Borges fable explains it really well, there was a map that was a replica of the Empire, this map was a simulacra. However, over time the people got fed up with this massive map and threw it in the desert where it was torn and shredded (thus the simulacra was only available in certain vestiges). This is not the case, anymore, however, the Desert is not longer a Desert of simulacra  rather it is a desert of the Real where it is the Code that produces the "reality principle" around you and this Code explains why it is that every movement fails and serves only to give energy to the semiocapitalist system 

3- How does embracing death solve?

 

The REAL death of your 1AC's impacts - we're confronted with either transforming them into just another object of consumption to maintain the simulated "reality principle" of the squo, OR we use their REAL death as a form of invoking reversibility  and symbolic exchange 

4- Status?

 

Unconditional (SWEG)

 

EDIT:

1- why am I economic openness and not radical openness? What is the difference?

 

You're type of open-ness assumes we're being open to the Outside (economic openness), when in reality it is the Unworld that takes hold us (radical openness)

 

I guess, why is being open to the Outside so bad?  And what's so good about having the Unworld take hold of us (and what exactly does that mean)?

2- why am I survival and not life? What is the difference?

 

Because you want to live and that creates hierarchies - living is sorta like existing in immanence, whereas survival is always already contingent upon transcendent signifiers (this is not always the case, but in this instance, your aff operates like that)

The 2AC is ready.  Just waiting on cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is going to be so much fun!

 

K

1- What is the solar anus?

 

Unintelligibility and nothingness 

2- What's so bad about securing ourselves from death?

 

it's not death per se, rather it is that rationalism is a defense against the sea - your aff's invocation of philosophy is always already situated within the domain of "rational thought", thereby creating a defense against nothingness, the Unworld, against Death (since death is abject) - specifically doe, fearing death creates hierarchies where you want to do and experience some things above others, this drive to "live" just makes you a fascist with reactionary tendencies that makes the life of other miserable 

3- "The emancipative project of the 1AC and its justifications imply a certain open-ness to the future as a good which we can always never afford" explain this.

 

Your open-ness is not really open-ness because we're not the ones that are being open, rather it is the Unworld that possesses us and makes us a meal fit for the Druj, Mother of Abominations - your type of open-ness does nothing if attempted and serves only to securtize life (via your death impacts_

4- What are you sacrificing and why is that good?

 

We're sacrificing the 1AC as violent expenditure - you're an offering to the Druj, Mother of Abominations - it's good cuz then we're not securitizing against death, we create a fusion between subject and object that transcends static notions of being, and we embrace radical open-ness (which means the Unworld possess us)

5- You say that we should embrace death. Why? What if I don't want to?

 

Not you, per say, rather the judge should (by voting neg) - if you don't then your aff fails since you're not really an open-ness to anything - the 1st Negarestani card explains how open-ness is never directed towards the Outside, rather it is an invocation of the Outside to the interiority of ourselves - we don't become open the outside, rather the Outside takes hold over us; also the Irwin 02 evidence explains how sacrificial theater offers a moment of transfiguration that allow us to transcend static notions of being, anything else perpetuates the dichotomy 

6- Status?

 

Condo 

Case

1- If simulacra so perfectly resemble the Real, what's the difference?

 

Both pieces of Baudrillard evidence describe the precession of simulacra - it's not that the Real is literally non-existent, rather that it's Metaphysical principle is dead; there is no referent (or object though which the semantic field is contingent upon) anymore, there is only the sign - what we see around us is just a sorcery conjured up by the fourth order of simulacra (precession of simulacrum)

 

I guess my question is, if the sign is all that there is, what makes it less Real than the object?  Also, even if signs and signifiers pervade everything, what makes the objects themselves any LESS real?

 

The sign is what is real, but it's all contingent upon the semantic field, not the referent which means there iS NO OJBECT - I mean, you can win that the sign is as real as the object, but that doesn't prove that the object is still part of the Real. 

 

It's not that signs and signifiers pervade everything, rather its that they ARE everything, there's only like a few vestiges of the Real scattered around the world (hence the Desert of the Real), the 2nd piece of Baudrillard evidence, for example, outlines how the Tasaday were part of the Real, but "discovering" them meant only the death of their metaphysical principal - "For ethnology to survive, the object must be sacrificed" which means that even if you do find the object (somehow) it will immediately be sacrificed to maintain the simulacrum of the Real

 

2- What is the hyperreal? 

 

Hyperreal is the condition that we live in - when there is no referent, no metaphysical principle anymore; when there is only a precession of simulacra - the Borges fable explains it really well, there was a map that was a replica of the Empire, this map was a simulacra. However, over time the people got fed up with this massive map and threw it in the desert where it was torn and shredded (thus the simulacra was only available in certain vestiges). This is not the case, anymore, however, the Desert is not longer a Desert of simulacra  rather it is a desert of the Real where it is the Code that produces the "reality principle" around you and this Code explains why it is that every movement fails and serves only to give energy to the semiocapitalist system 

3- How does embracing death solve?

 

The REAL death of your 1AC's impacts - we're confronted with either transforming them into just another object of consumption to maintain the simulated "reality principle" of the squo, OR we use their REAL death as a form of invoking reversibility  and symbolic exchange 

4- Status?

 

Unconditional (SWEG)

 

EDIT:

1- why am I economic openness and not radical openness? What is the difference?

 

You're type of open-ness assumes we're being open to the Outside (economic openness), when in reality it is the Unworld that takes hold us (radical openness)

 

I guess, why is being open to the Outside so bad?  And what's so good about having the Unworld take hold of us (and what exactly does that mean)?

 

It's not that it's bad rather that it's the wrong starting point cuz it never accomplishes anything other than a hierarchization of life and it's not that we need to be Open to the Outside, rather it's the Outside that consumes us. It's also not that the Unworld consuming us is good - no Negarestani agrees it's bad, but he says that survival is nothing more than a sorcerous ritual meant to produce a meal for the Druj, Mother of Abominations 

 

2- why am I survival and not life? What is the difference?

 

Because you want to live and that creates hierarchies - living is sorta like existing in immanence, whereas survival is always already contingent upon transcendent signifiers (this is not always the case, but in this instance, your aff operates like that)

The 2AC is ready.  Just waiting on cross-x.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you stealing those cards from Xlyum. Personally I think there are better criticisms of openness to the outside in that chapter but meh.

Yeah I was gonna use recycled evidence for both of the Vdebates cuz I don't like using my own stuff (as does every other Vdebater) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting 2AC Frontline against the K

 

Right, Cross - Ex 

 

Case - 

 

1 - You seemed to be more of a critique of the way in which we relate to hyper objects than correlationsim - the fuck? What are you critiquing with the 1AC? 

 

2 - Where's the warrant in the Byrant 11 evidence? It seems to be talking about marxist ideology, last I CHECKED, Baudrillard was a critique of that?

 

3 - If there is no metaphysical presence in the squo - why is correlationism still a thing? 

 

4 - Can correlationism exist in a world without a referent? 

 

5 - Isn't the squo a non-correlationist world? I mean, if theres no referent for a signifier, doesn't that mean that the squo is already immanent? 

 

6 - The Bryant 12 evidence seems to talking about how we need to incorporate not just the semantic field within our analysis - 1st. What if the semantic field is the only thing left? 2nd - Baudrillard extends his critique of simulacrum to the Code (or semiocapitalism), how are we NOT a critique of what your Bryant 12 evidence outlines? 

 

7 - GREAT YOU CONCEDE UNIQUENESS FOR MY K - now, why is your strategy at combating simulacrum key if Byrant and Mortons theories are contingent upon a metaphysical world that is no longer there? 

 

8 - The Leonardo 97 evidence seems to be talking about how our fatal strategy should be focused on the objectified (that is, those reduced to what Agamben would call "bare life") where in the 1AC did you say that we should focus on communities that have been reduced to mere commodities and WHY can't symbolic exchange solve that?

 

9 - Why is radical passivity bad? 

 

10 - The Sardar evidence seems to be talking about how we need to take a stance against systems of oppression - where in the 1AC did you say systems of oppression were bad? You just talked a lot of hot water about ontology

 

11 - If we win that symbolic exchange solves oppression - do we win?

 

Kritik 

 

1 - What's the purpose of the poem?

 

2 - K, so you fight against death to affirm life - yes? My question is then, do you claim to spill over? Our argument was that squo forms of life are just survival and survival (or what you call a fight against death) just leads to a hierarchization of life and is a sorcerous ritual for you be sacrificed to the Druj, Mother of Abominations) - how is your "fight against death" not survival?

 

3 - When did we say "No value to life" in the 1NC?

 

4 - Our Razinsky 09 evidence explains how encountering death via watching your 1AC die allows us to experience a moment of joy in which we can create an immanence between subject and object and learn how to live ethically with the world around us - HOW ARE WE NOT your Solomon 99 evidence?

 

5 - When did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? The Razinsky 09 evidence clearly states we remain as spectators in the sacrificial theatre 

 

6 - K, so most of your Camus evidence seems to position us as (existential) nihilist - where did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? 

 

7 - Are we not in positions of privilege? Does the mere fact that we have the luxury to be online debating and have access to so many philosophical inquiries not prove that we're privileged? 

 

8 - WHERE DID WE SAY LITERALLY KILL YOURSELVES (or die via sacrifice) ? Your Minkoff 07 evidence seems to be saying that, and it's also taking sacrifice very literally - what do you define as sacrifice? 

 

9 - The last analytic at the bottom makes the argument that we need to be open to the outside - our Negarestani evidence says that just bullshit; where is the uniqueness evidence that talks about how openness is always contingent upon exteriority (what a weird-worded question) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting 2AC Frontline against the K

 

Right, Cross - Ex 

 

Case - 

 

1 - You seemed to be more of a critique of the way in which we relate to hyper objects than correlationsim - the fuck? What are you critiquing with the 1AC? 

I mean, we're critiquing the way in which we relate to hyper objects.  Obviously a part of that is correlationism.  Read the 1AC.  Morton, Bryant, even Batra and Messier to an extend are addressing the issue of correlationism.

 

2 - Where's the warrant in the Byrant 11 evidence? It seems to be talking about marxist ideology, last I CHECKED, Baudrillard was a critique of that?

"The problem is that correlationism tends to render non-signifying differences in social assemblages invisible because it begins from the axiom that nonhuman things are just blank slates awaiting our inscription." "Correlationism tends to draw our attention to one type of actor-the signifier- and while this is a real actor it is not the only one." The idea is that focusing on signs and signifiers is flawed because objects cannot be reduced to something upon which humanity can inscribe meaning upon.

 

3 - If there is no metaphysical presence in the squo - why is correlationism still a thing? 

I think that I pretty blatantly refuted the idea that there is no longer any metaphysical presence. That materiality can EVER be reduced without denying the equal ontological gravity to which every object is due.

 

4 - Can correlationism exist in a world without a referent? 

I don't think that that is really a valid question.  Assuming that there is a world without a referent is inherently correlationist.  That's kinda one of my links.

 

5 - Isn't the squo a non-correlationist world? I mean, if theres no referent for a signifier, doesn't that mean that the squo is already immanent? 

No, I think 4 will clear things up.

 

6 - The Bryant 12 evidence seems to talking about how we need to incorporate not just the semantic field within our analysis - 1st. What if the semantic field is the only thing left? 2nd - Baudrillard extends his critique of simulacrum to the Code (or semiocapitalism), how are we NOT a critique of what your Bryant 12 evidence outlines? 

1- So Bryant goes on at length on this issue.  The problem for Bryant is that the semantic field CANNOT be the only thing left.  For example, Bryant problematizes the extension of social constructivism posited by Baudrillard to rocks by delineating between the way in which we interact and the way in which rocks interact.  Your concept of the hyperreal as posited in the 1NC makes no sense when extended to the object (as traditionally perceived).  That's why the aff is so key, and is also a reason why the perm is best.

2- I'm not well read in Baudrillard so I'm confused by what you're asking.

 

7 - GREAT YOU CONCEDE UNIQUENESS FOR MY K - now, why is your strategy at combating simulacrum key if Byrant and Mortons theories are contingent upon a metaphysical world that is no longer there? 

1- Didn't concede uniqueness.  That's above.  2- Sardar says that we should be able to reject oppression regardless of hyperreality.  To use it as an excuse not to act is to serve as a buffer and an insulator from suffering that allows us to not confront what is going on in the world.  3- Raffel says that we can act even in the world of hyperreality.  There are degrees of falsity, and we can search for more or less reliable signs.  Also, because signs and signifiers so perfectly resemble reality, Raffel quotes Baudrillard to prove that even he concedes that the way in which signifiers resemble reality can serve as such, thus allowing action.

 

8 - The Leonardo 97 evidence seems to be talking about how our fatal strategy should be focused on the objectified (that is, those reduced to what Agamben would call "bare life") where in the 1AC did you say that we should focus on communities that have been reduced to mere commodities and WHY can't symbolic exchange solve that?

For the first part, I talked about it in my 1AC James evidence.  Symbolic exchange MAY solve for certain communities, but the oppression those in the position of ABSOLUTE ALTERITY i.e. the rock certainly cannot be resolved by the neg, and my 1AC would say that that is a pretty enormous solvency deficit.

 

9 - Why is radical passivity bad? 

Um, check out the K flow.  It's pretty cool.

 

10 - The Sardar evidence seems to be talking about how we need to take a stance against systems of oppression - where in the 1AC did you say systems of oppression were bad? You just talked a lot of hot water about ontology

Our whole aff was about the oppression of the object.  But I thought I made it pretty clear in the cross-x of the 1AC that everything is fundamentally an object, so my philosophy is not exclusive to that of say the rock.

 

11 - If we win that symbolic exchange solves oppression - do we win?

I mean, maybe.  It depends.  If it resolves the oppression of the object, I suppose so. If not, then nah.

 

Kritik 

 

1 - What's the purpose of the poem?

I think that it affectively describes very well the thesis of my argument.

 

2 - K, so you fight against death to affirm life - yes? My question is then, do you claim to spill over? Our argument was that squo forms of life are just survival and survival (or what you call a fight against death) just leads to a hierarchization of life and is a sorcerous ritual for you be sacrificed to the Druj, Mother of Abominations) - how is your "fight against death" not survival?

First, the fight spills over in the sense that anything else in this debate is going to spill over.  Second, my fight against death IS survival, but my argument is that survival is an internal link to life I suppose.  The fight reaffirms our love of life- it's life affirming.

 

3 - When did we say "No value to life" in the 1NC?

Did I claim that you did?

 

4 - Our Razinsky 09 evidence explains how encountering death via watching your 1AC die allows us to experience a moment of joy in which we can create an immanence between subject and object and learn how to live ethically with the world around us - HOW ARE WE NOT your Solomon 99 evidence?

​Right, so the distinction is rooted in how the two would define facing the absurd (or death, or whatever).  Razinsky would say that facing death would be to witness it, to experience it, to embrace it.  Solomon says that facing death is understanding that it's going to happen, but then says that we should never succumb, never become complacent, "we can't just let it happen."

 

5 - When did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? The Razinsky 09 evidence clearly states we remain as spectators in the sacrificial theatre 

C'mon, don't screw with me.  You know as well as I do that Negarastani is not talking about theatre.  It's an ethic that I am very clearly refuting.

 

 

6 - K, so most of your Camus evidence seems to position us as (existential) nihilist - where did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? 

That's above.  And even if you're not saying that we should literally kill ourselves, your ethic is an embrace of death that is still life negating.

 

7 - Are we not in positions of privilege? Does the mere fact that we have the luxury to be online debating and have access to so many philosophical inquiries not prove that we're privileged? 

I think you're misunderstanding my argument.  True, we're all privileged here, but that's not really the privilege I'm talking about.  I'm saying that yours is a uniquely privileged position that has never had to encounter death that says it should be embraced.  Go to the south side of Chicago with me and tell the people there that they should embrace their death.

 

8 - WHERE DID WE SAY LITERALLY KILL YOURSELVES (or die via sacrifice) ? Your Minkoff 07 evidence seems to be saying that, and it's also taking sacrifice very literally - what do you define as sacrifice?

First, that's above.  Second, I don't think that Minkoff is being entirely literal, rather that even symbolic death leads to real death.  Which I think is hilarious because you're claiming that this isn't Real sacrifice but rather Symbolic sacrifice.  Huh, do I sense a little tension with something?

 

9 - The last analytic at the bottom makes the argument that we need to be open to the outside - our Negarestani evidence says that just bullshit; where is the uniqueness evidence that talks about how openness is always contingent upon exteriority (what a weird-worded question) 

Not quite sure what you're asking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting 2AC Frontline against the K

 

Right, Cross - Ex 

 

Case - 

 

1 - You seemed to be more of a critique of the way in which we relate to hyper objects than correlationsim - the fuck? What are you critiquing with the 1AC? 

I mean, we're critiquing the way in which we relate to hyper objects.  Obviously a part of that is correlationism.  Read the 1AC.  Morton, Bryant, even Batra and Messier to an extend are addressing the issue of correlationism.

 

Why you no say this in 1NC cx? >:( But really, I guess does that mean you do claim to solve the subject/object dichotomy? 

 

2 - Where's the warrant in the Byrant 11 evidence? It seems to be talking about marxist ideology, last I CHECKED, Baudrillard was a critique of that?

"The problem is that correlationism tends to render non-signifying differences in social assemblages invisible because it begins from the axiom that nonhuman things are just blank slates awaiting our inscription." "Correlationism tends to draw our attention to one type of actor-the signifier- and while this is a real actor it is not the only one." The idea is that focusing on signs and signifiers is flawed because objects cannot be reduced to something upon which humanity can inscribe meaning upon.

 

I guess, but this seems to come down to whether or not the referent is still part of the signifier - If we win no metaphysical presence, does that mean we win the debate?

 

3 - If there is no metaphysical presence in the squo - why is correlationism still a thing? 

I think that I pretty blatantly refuted the idea that there is no longer any metaphysical presence. That materiality can EVER be reduced without denying the equal ontological gravity to which every object is due.

 

I guess, where's the evidence that claims that the object is STILL part of the world?

 

4 - Can correlationism exist in a world without a referent? 

I don't think that that is really a valid question.  Assuming that there is a world without a referent is inherently correlationist.  That's kinda one of my links.

 

5 - Isn't the squo a non-correlationist world? I mean, if theres no referent for a signifier, doesn't that mean that the squo is already immanent? 

No, I think 4 will clear things up.

 

6 - The Bryant 12 evidence seems to talking about how we need to incorporate not just the semantic field within our analysis - 1st. What if the semantic field is the only thing left? 2nd - Baudrillard extends his critique of simulacrum to the Code (or semiocapitalism), how are we NOT a critique of what your Bryant 12 evidence outlines? 

1- So Bryant goes on at length on this issue.  The problem for Bryant is that the semantic field CANNOT be the only thing left.  For example, Bryant problematizes the extension of social constructivism posited by Baudrillard to rocks by delineating between the way in which we interact and the way in which rocks interact.  Your concept of the hyperreal as posited in the 1NC makes no sense when extended to the object (as traditionally perceived).  That's why the aff is so key, and is also a reason why the perm is best.

2- I'm not well read in Baudrillard so I'm confused by what you're asking.

 

Holdup? Rock can interact? How???????

 

"Traditionally perceived" - it doesn't make sense because there IS NO OBJECT - still though, why is the aff key?

 

7 - GREAT YOU CONCEDE UNIQUENESS FOR MY K - now, why is your strategy at combating simulacrum key if Byrant and Mortons theories are contingent upon a metaphysical world that is no longer there? 

1- Didn't concede uniqueness.  That's above.  2- Sardar says that we should be able to reject oppression regardless of hyperreality.  To use it as an excuse not to act is to serve as a buffer and an insulator from suffering that allows us to not confront what is going on in the world.  3- Raffel says that we can act even in the world of hyperreality.  There are degrees of falsity, and we can search for more or less reliable signs.  Also, because signs and signifiers so perfectly resemble reality, Raffel quotes Baudrillard to prove that even he concedes that the way in which signifiers resemble reality can serve as such, thus allowing action.

 

1 - This is a line from your 2AC "Simulations have become the real.  While they do not efface the object, they have become objects in and of themselves.  Means the aff is key to a coherent strategy." how does that not concede uniqueness? 

 

2 - If we win suffering is contingent upon Hyperreality, do we win?

 

3 - YEAH WE KNOW THAT, we even said "Desert of the Real" in the 1NC - but you don't defend instances of real oppression, rather just a lot of hot water about ontology and the object - If an object is simulated, then why can't symbolic exchange solve?

 

8 - The Leonardo 97 evidence seems to be talking about how our fatal strategy should be focused on the objectified (that is, those reduced to what Agamben would call "bare life") where in the 1AC did you say that we should focus on communities that have been reduced to mere commodities and WHY can't symbolic exchange solve that?

For the first part, I talked about it in my 1AC James evidence.  Symbolic exchange MAY solve for certain communities, but the oppression those in the position of ABSOLUTE ALTERITY i.e. the rock certainly cannot be resolved by the neg, and my 1AC would say that that is a pretty enormous solvency deficit.

 

Hmmm okay, fair enough - I'll address this in the block doe 

 

9 - Why is radical passivity bad? 

Um, check out the K flow.  It's pretty cool.

 

Doesn't answer my question - why is it bad?

 

10 - The Sardar evidence seems to be talking about how we need to take a stance against systems of oppression - where in the 1AC did you say systems of oppression were bad? You just talked a lot of hot water about ontology

Our whole aff was about the oppression of the object.  But I thought I made it pretty clear in the cross-x of the 1AC that everything is fundamentally an object, so my philosophy is not exclusive to that of say the rock.

 

So this debate comes down to whether or not there's an object?

 

11 - If we win that symbolic exchange solves oppression - do we win?

I mean, maybe.  It depends.  If it resolves the oppression of the object, I suppose so. If not, then nah.

 

Kritik 

 

1 - What's the purpose of the poem?

I think that it affectively describes very well the thesis of my argument.

 

2 - K, so you fight against death to affirm life - yes? My question is then, do you claim to spill over? Our argument was that squo forms of life are just survival and survival (or what you call a fight against death) just leads to a hierarchization of life and is a sorcerous ritual for you be sacrificed to the Druj, Mother of Abominations) - how is your "fight against death" not survival?

First, the fight spills over in the sense that anything else in this debate is going to spill over.  Second, my fight against death IS survival, but my argument is that survival is an internal link to life I suppose.  The fight reaffirms our love of life- it's life affirming.

 

3 - When did we say "No value to life" in the 1NC?

Did I claim that you did?

 

Yeah in the 2AC

 

4 - Our Razinsky 09 evidence explains how encountering death via watching your 1AC die allows us to experience a moment of joy in which we can create an immanence between subject and object and learn how to live ethically with the world around us - HOW ARE WE NOT your Solomon 99 evidence?

​Right, so the distinction is rooted in how the two would define facing the absurd (or death, or whatever).  Razinsky would say that facing death would be to witness it, to experience it, to embrace it.  Solomon says that facing death is understanding that it's going to happen, but then says that we should never succumb, never become complacent, "we can't just let it happen."

 

Razinsky ALSO says experiencing death allows us to create an immanence form of living - why do we need to survive if live is the source of living?

 

5 - When did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? The Razinsky 09 evidence clearly states we remain as spectators in the sacrificial theatre 

C'mon, don't screw with me.  You know as well as I do that Negarastani is not talking about theatre.  It's an ethic that I am very clearly refuting.

 

;) Satellite K's - BUT NEGARESTANI says we must sacrifice you because your ethics are bad, it's kinda like, your drive for survival is just a sorcerous ritual for you to be consumed by the Druj, Mother of Abominations, but it's because of this ritual that you must be sacrificed by us (like, sacrifice is inevitable under your drive for survival, it's only a question as to HOW we sacrifice you and WHAT that achieves) 

 

6 - K, so most of your Camus evidence seems to position us as (existential) nihilist - where did we say that you need to literally kill yourselves? 

That's above.  And even if you're not saying that we should literally kill ourselves, your ethic is an embrace of death that is still life negating.

 

It's just in this instance doe (that's Razinsky 09), besides the Razinsky evidence literally says that we need to have death become a part of life, otherwise that leads to a hierarchization of life - Why is embracing death life negating?

 

7 - Are we not in positions of privilege? Does the mere fact that we have the luxury to be online debating and have access to so many philosophical inquiries not prove that we're privileged? 

I think you're misunderstanding my argument.  True, we're all privileged here, but that's not really the privilege I'm talking about.  I'm saying that yours is a uniquely privileged position that has never had to encounter death that says it should be embraced.  Go to the south side of Chicago with me and tell the people there that they should embrace their death.

 

I live in Los Angeles - Tupac literally made albums about the killing fields of the streets of Los Angeles - why are you assuming I DON'T understand death?

 

8 - WHERE DID WE SAY LITERALLY KILL YOURSELVES (or die via sacrifice) ? Your Minkoff 07 evidence seems to be saying that, and it's also taking sacrifice very literally - what do you define as sacrifice?

First, that's above.  Second, I don't think that Minkoff is being entirely literal, rather that even symbolic death leads to real death.  Which I think is hilarious because you're claiming that this isn't Real sacrifice but rather Symbolic sacrifice.  Huh, do I sense a little tension with something?

 

Symbolic Sacrifice is real Sacrifice (or symbolic exchange as you would); I mean I can read some Baudrillard evidence that explains how symbolic exchange is accessed best through Death but the 2nd piece of Baudrillard evidence from the case debate makes that argument sorta  - This is only because death is one of the things that has no exchange value, which means it precedes capital (or semiocapitalism as it would)

 

9 - The last analytic at the bottom makes the argument that we need to be open to the outside - our Negarestani evidence says that just bullshit; where is the uniqueness evidence that talks about how openness is always contingent upon exteriority (what a weird-worded question) 

Not quite sure what you're asking

 

Where is the evidence that says openness is contingent upon exteriority rather than interiority - my 1st piece of Negarestani makes a distinction between the two and claims openness is always about interiority 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...