Jump to content

Recommended Posts

PERF CON: YOU'RE READING THIS ON A COMPUTER WHICH PROVES TECHNOLOGY IS GOOD

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ok depends on your circut : 

K friendly (Give Back the Land, and Race ) 

non K friendly *read some good 2ac answers to Heidegger Like tech thought good +impact 

 

 also what type of heidegger aff is it , like their are types with no plan text , and others with them , where then if it was like an aff were the affirm the non-military exploration , read something like idk Military CP and net benefit with Exction 1st 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1NC should be impact turns and 2AC alt solvency turns and takeouts that refer to whatever they defend on case, a kritik (there are Heidegger links for OOO that you could read as a K proper or that you could read on case to blow up in the 2NC, or you could read a race K or something similarly pessimistic, or read another kritik like Lacan that you can easily make analytic link stories with), a disadvantage or counter-plan, and framework or T (depending on what they defend). Now you've got options: a K with case answers, a DA or CP with case answers (to answer whatever kritik of your impact framing or political method they'll inevitably have), and framework with actual and potential abuse stories. Keep a couple of those alive in the block and choose one for the 2NR; this depends on the 2AC strategy of course.

Edited by dancon25
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clear something up Im running a heidegger aff that I made. I want to know what I should prepare for. It works like the squo links to heidegger and we must change that. Because a bunch of impacts will happen.

 

It is something I want to try out for next year, so I want to get practice debating with the concept.

 

Our circuit is kind of in the middle of k friendly, there are some super policy and some super critical

Edited by DebateMaster123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PERF CON: YOU'RE READING THIS ON A COMPUTER WHICH PROVES TECHNOLOGY IS GOOD

 

Ummmm.....I don't think Heidegger's argument is technology bad.....

 

Just because the phrase "technolog[ical] thinking" has technolo or sounds like technology does not mean it is about technology. Yes you can say that technology plays a role into it. But the main argument is that when we try to create quick fix solutions, i.e. using TECHNOLOGY to resolve global warming, is bad because it can just create more problems. So instead of resolving global warming you have just created something that "might" help but really will just create more warming because not enough thinking was involve into the thinking process. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm.....I don't think Heidegger's argument is technology bad.....

 

Just because the phrase "technolog[ical] thinking" has technolo or sounds like technology does not mean it is about technology. Yes you can say that technology plays a role into it. But the main argument is that when we try to create quick fix solutions, i.e. using TECHNOLOGY to resolve global warming, is bad because it can just create more problems. So instead of resolving global warming you have just created something that "might" help but really will just create more warming because not enough thinking was involve into the thinking process. 

Yeah I know, it was a joke.  Probs why I put it in all caps.

 

Also, your characterization of technological thinking is not really right.  What you are talking about is more of Virilio, who talks about the dangers that technology poses because it causes ever rising speed, which is bad for a variety of reasons.  Heidegger's critique of technological enframing is that it is an act of instrumentalization, essentially a means-ends mentality that justifies endless plundering of natural resources (i.e. the standing reserve).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know, it was a joke.  Probs why I put it in all caps.

 

Also, your characterization of technological thinking is not really right.  What you are talking about is more of Virilio, who talks about the dangers that technology poses because it causes ever rising speed, which is bad for a variety of reasons.  Heidegger's critique of technological enframing is that it is an act of instrumentalization, essentially a means-ends mentality that justifies endless plundering of natural resources (i.e. the standing reserve).

 

I dunno if Bullsinthebronx's post was characteristic of Virilio (I'm not familiar with it), but yeah, this is way more accurate a characterization of Heidegger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of Ks would someone run against a heidegger aff?

Afro-pessimism and OOO would be my top two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I know, it was a joke.  Probs why I put it in all caps.

 

Also, your characterization of technological thinking is not really right.  What you are talking about is more of Virilio, who talks about the dangers that technology poses because it causes ever rising speed, which is bad for a variety of reasons.  Heidegger's critique of technological enframing is that it is an act of instrumentalization, essentially a means-ends mentality that justifies endless plundering of natural resources (i.e. the standing reserve).[/quote

 

Also voting aff solves tech thought. The advocacy creates uniqueness. :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of Ks would someone run against a heidegger aff?

Baudrillard

 

Deleuze and Guattari

 

Bataille (#1 Choice)

 

Lacan

 

Anti-blackness

 

Hauntology 

 

Lyotard (Metanarratives Bad) 

 

Accelerationism (#2 choice) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I know, it was a joke.  Probs why I put it in all caps.

 

Also, your characterization of technological thinking is not really right.  What you are talking about is more of Virilio, who talks about the dangers that technology poses because it causes ever rising speed, which is bad for a variety of reasons.  Heidegger's critique of technological enframing is that it is an act of instrumentalization, essentially a means-ends mentality that justifies endless plundering of natural resources (i.e. the standing reserve).[/quote

 

Also voting aff solves tech thought. The advocacy creates uniqueness. :^)

Dromology and Dasein aren't that different 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Heidegger debater, I can easily see an anthro link in the way that Heidegger constructs Dasein/Being and centers it, especially in what would be an advocacy, on the human. The alternative that Heidegger actually poses in "The Question Concerning Technology" is poesis, which is bringing forth through poetry, rather than technological thought. Sounds pretty anthropocentric to me. With that said, you can PIK out of Heidegger's construction of ontology in a counteradvocacy. At the very least, this will throw the affs for a loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Heidegger debater, I can easily see an anthro link in the way that Heidegger constructs Dasein/Being and centers it, especially in what would be an advocacy, on the human. The alternative that Heidegger actually poses in "The Question Concerning Technology" is poesis, which is bringing forth through poetry, rather than technological thought. Sounds pretty anthropocentric to me. With that said, you can PIK out of Heidegger's construction of ontology in a counteradvocacy. At the very least, this will throw the affs for a loop.

I don't think poesis is anthro at all. I mean, there are definitely anthro links to Heidegger, but I'm not sure how poesis could be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When running a k aff like Heidegger how would you weigh it versus the k? With a policy aff, I usually say extinction trumps moral decision rules.

Depends on the aff and the k. If I were running a Heidegger aff, I would probably make ontology first arguments against most kritiks.

A word of advice: "Extinction > Ethics" is usually a bad argument if the K team knows what they're doing. If the K turns case, then it's irrelevant because the aff doesn't solve for extinction. If the K leads to extinction, then the K accesses that. Also, not all alts pertain specifically to moral decisionmaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think poesis is anthro at all. I mean, there are definitely anthro links to Heidegger, but I'm not sure how poesis could be one.

Poesis, as deployed by Heidegger, is relational to being as such; it's thus focused on subjective interpretation meaning that its a humanist construct -> anthro 

 

I think that bringing-forth in general is an anthropocentric construct - the idea that objects exist in an ontological concealed state that from us is the apex of humanist hubris; obviously interpretation of an object means some things will be excluded, but those exclusions are relational to being, meaning that it's OUR MINDS that produce the exclusion (or the concealment as such) not an ontological condition (Satre wrote about this) 

 

Then there's this card:

 

Voting aff functions as an interpretation of the 1ac speech act. When you vote aff, you have made a value judgement on the speech and thereby decided what it means – the alternative requires the destruction of the structures that allow for systems of meaning to be created – refuse to interpret the 1ac in the way that they want you to, or in any way at all

Sontag 66 (Susan, Against Interpretation, http://www.uiowa.edu/~c08g001d/Sontag_AgainstInterp.pdf)

 

The fact is, all Western consciousness of and reflection upon art have remained within the confines staked out by the Greek theory of art as mimesis or representation. It is through this theory that art as such - above and beyond given works of art - becomes problematic, in need of defense. And it is the defense of art which gives birth to the odd vision by which something we have learned to call "form" is separated off from something we have learned to call "content," and to the well-intentioned move which makes content essential and form accessory. Even in modern times, when most artists and critics have discarded the theory of art as representation of an outer reality in favor of the theory of art as subjective expression, the main feature of the mimetic theory persists. Whether we conceive of the work of art on the model of a picture (art as a picture of reality) or on the model of a statement (art as the statement of the artist), content still comes first. The content may have changed. It may now be less figurative, less lucidly realistic. But it is still assumed that a work of art is its content. Or, as it's usually put today, that a work of art by definition says something. ("What X is saying is . . . ," "What X is trying to say is . . . ," "What X said is . . ." etc., etc.) 2 None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did. From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art. We can only quarrel with one or another means of defense. Indeed, we have an obligation to overthrow any means of defending and justifying art which becomes particularly obtuse or onerous or insensitive to contemporary needs and practice. This is the case, today, with the very idea of content itself. Whatever it may have been in the past, the idea of content is today mainly a hindrance, a nuisance, a subtle or not so subtle philistinism. Though the actual developments in many arts may seem to be leading us away from the idea that a work of art is primarily its content, the idea still exerts an extraordinary hegemony. I want to suggest that this is because the idea is now perpetuated in the guise of a certain way of encountering works of art thoroughly ingrained among most people who take any of the arts seriously. What the overemphasis on the idea of content entails is the perennial, never consummated project of interpretation. And, conversely, it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there really is such a thing as the content of a work of art. 3 Of course, I don't mean interpretation in the broadest sense, the sense in which Nietzsche (rightly) says, "There are no facts, only interpretations." By interpretation, I mean here a conscious act of the mind which illustrates a certain code, certain "rules" of interpretation. Directed to art, interpretation means plucking a set of elements (the X, the Y, the Z, and so forth) from the whole work. The task of interpretation is virtually one of translation. The interpreter says, Look, don't you see that X is really - or, really means - A? That Y is really B? That Z is really C? What situation could prompt this curious project for transforming a text? History gives us the materials for an answer. Interpretation first appears in the culture of late classical antiquity, when the power and credibility of myth had been broken by the "realistic" view of the world introduced by scientific enlightenment. Once the question that haunts post-mythic consciousness - that of the seemliness of religious symbols - had been asked, the ancient texts were, in their pristine form, no longer acceptable. Then interpretation was summoned, to reconcile the ancient texts to "modern" demands. Thus, the Stoics, to accord with their view that the gods had to be moral, allegorized away the rude features of Zeus and his boisterous clan in Homer's epics. What Homer really designated by the adultery of Zeus with Leto, they explained, was the union between power and wisdom. In the same vein, Philo of Alexandria interpreted the literal historical narratives of the Hebrew Bible as spiritual paradigms. The story of the exodus from Egypt, the wandering in the desert for forty years, and the entry into the promised land, said Philo, was really an allegory of the individual soul's emancipation, tribulations, and final deliverance. Interpretation thus presupposes a discrepancy between the clear meaning of the text and the demands of (later) readers. It seeks to resolve that discrepancy. The situation is that for some reason a text has become unacceptable; yet it cannot be discarded. Interpretation is a radical strategy for conserving an old text, which is thought too precious to repudiate, by revamping it. The interpreter, without actually erasing or rewriting the text, is altering it. But he can't admit to doing this. He claims to be only making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. However far the interpreters alter the text (another notorious example is the Rabbinic and Christian "spiritual" interpretations of the clearly erotic Song of Songs), they must claim to be reading off a sense that is already there. Interpretation in our own time, however, is even more complex. For the contemporary zeal for the project of interpretation is often prompted not by piety toward the troublesome text (which may conceal an aggression), but by an open aggressiveness, an overt contempt for appearances. The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful; it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs "behind" the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one. The most celebrated and influential modern doctrines, those of Marx and Freud, actually amount to elaborate systems of hermeneutics, aggressive and impious theories of interpretation. All observable phenomena are bracketed, in Freud's phrase, as manifest content. This manifest content must be probed and pushed aside to find the true meaning - the latent content - beneath. For Marx, social events like revolutions and wars; for Freud, the events of individual lives (like neurotic symptoms and slips of the tongue) as well as texts (like a dream or a work of art) - all are treated as occasions for interpretation. According to Marx and Freud, these events only seem to be intelligible. Actually, they have no meaning without interpretation. To understand is to interpret. And to interpret is to restate the phenomenon, in effect to find an equivalent for it. Thus, interpretation is not (as most people assume) an absolute value, a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities. Interpretation must itself be evaluated, within a historical view of human consciousness. In some cultural contexts, interpretation is a liberating act. It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past. In other cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling. 4 Today is such a time, when the project of interpretation is largely reactionary, stifling. Like the fumes of the automobile and of heavy industry which befoul the urban atmosphere, the effusion of interpretations of art today poisons our sensibilities. In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." It is to turn the world into this world. ("This world"! As if there were any other.)The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting aff functions as an interpretation of the 1ac speech act. When you vote aff, you have made a value judgement on the speech and thereby decided what it means – the alternative requires the destruction of the structures that allow for systems of meaning to be created – refuse to interpret the 1ac in the way that they want you to, or in any way at all

Sontag 66 (Susan, Against Interpretation, http://www.uiowa.edu/~c08g001d/Sontag_AgainstInterp.pdf)

 

 

The fact is, all Western consciousness of and reflection upon art have remained within the confines staked out by the Greek theory of art as mimesis or representation. It is through this theory that art as such - above and beyond given works of art - becomes problematic, in need of defense. And it is the defense of art which gives birth to the odd vision by which something we have learned to call "form" is separated off from something we have learned to call "content," and to the well-intentioned move which makes content essential and form accessory. Even in modern times, when most artists and critics have discarded the theory of art as representation of an outer reality in favor of the theory of art as subjective expression, the main feature of the mimetic theory persists. Whether we conceive of the work of art on the model of a picture (art as a picture of reality) or on the model of a statement (art as the statement of the artist), content still comes first. The content may have changed. It may now be less figurative, less lucidly realistic. But it is still assumed that a work of art is its content. Or, as it's usually put today, that a work of art by definition says something. ("What X is saying is . . . ," "What X is trying to say is . . . ," "What X said is . . ." etc., etc.) 2 None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did. From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art. We can only quarrel with one or another means of defense. Indeed, we have an obligation to overthrow any means of defending and justifying art which becomes particularly obtuse or onerous or insensitive to contemporary needs and practice. This is the case, today, with the very idea of content itself. Whatever it may have been in the past, the idea of content is today mainly a hindrance, a nuisance, a subtle or not so subtle philistinism. Though the actual developments in many arts may seem to be leading us away from the idea that a work of art is primarily its content, the idea still exerts an extraordinary hegemony. I want to suggest that this is because the idea is now perpetuated in the guise of a certain way of encountering works of art thoroughly ingrained among most people who take any of the arts seriously. What the overemphasis on the idea of content entails is the perennial, never consummated project of interpretation. And, conversely, it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there really is such a thing as the content of a work of art. 3 Of course, I don't mean interpretation in the broadest sense, the sense in which Nietzsche (rightly) says, "There are no facts, only interpretations." By interpretation, I mean here a conscious act of the mind which illustrates a certain code, certain "rules" of interpretation. Directed to art, interpretation means plucking a set of elements (the X, the Y, the Z, and so forth) from the whole work. The task of interpretation is virtually one of translation. The interpreter says, Look, don't you see that X is really - or, really means - A? That Y is really B? That Z is really C? What situation could prompt this curious project for transforming a text? History gives us the materials for an answer. Interpretation first appears in the culture of late classical antiquity, when the power and credibility of myth had been broken by the "realistic" view of the world introduced by scientific enlightenment. Once the question that haunts post-mythic consciousness - that of the seemliness of religious symbols - had been asked, the ancient texts were, in their pristine form, no longer acceptable. Then interpretation was summoned, to reconcile the ancient texts to "modern" demands. Thus, the Stoics, to accord with their view that the gods had to be moral, allegorized away the rude features of Zeus and his boisterous clan in Homer's epics. What Homer really designated by the adultery of Zeus with Leto, they explained, was the union between power and wisdom. In the same vein, Philo of Alexandria interpreted the literal historical narratives of the Hebrew Bible as spiritual paradigms. The story of the exodus from Egypt, the wandering in the desert for forty years, and the entry into the promised land, said Philo, was really an allegory of the individual soul's emancipation, tribulations, and final deliverance. Interpretation thus presupposes a discrepancy between the clear meaning of the text and the demands of (later) readers. It seeks to resolve that discrepancy. The situation is that for some reason a text has become unacceptable; yet it cannot be discarded. Interpretation is a radical strategy for conserving an old text, which is thought too precious to repudiate, by revamping it. The interpreter, without actually erasing or rewriting the text, is altering it. But he can't admit to doing this. He claims to be only making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. However far the interpreters alter the text (another notorious example is the Rabbinic and Christian "spiritual" interpretations of the clearly erotic Song of Songs), they must claim to be reading off a sense that is already there. Interpretation in our own time, however, is even more complex. For the contemporary zeal for the project of interpretation is often prompted not by piety toward the troublesome text (which may conceal an aggression), but by an open aggressiveness, an overt contempt for appearances. The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful; it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs "behind" the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one. The most celebrated and influential modern doctrines, those of Marx and Freud, actually amount to elaborate systems of hermeneutics, aggressive and impious theories of interpretation. All observable phenomena are bracketed, in Freud's phrase, as manifest content. This manifest content must be probed and pushed aside to find the true meaning - the latent content - beneath. For Marx, social events like revolutions and wars; for Freud, the events of individual lives (like neurotic symptoms and slips of the tongue) as well as texts (like a dream or a work of art) - all are treated as occasions for interpretation. According to Marx and Freud, these events only seem to be intelligible. Actually, they have no meaning without interpretation. To understand is to interpret. And to interpret is to restate the phenomenon, in effect to find an equivalent for it. Thus, interpretation is not (as most people assume) an absolute value, a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities. Interpretation must itself be evaluated, within a historical view of human consciousness. In some cultural contexts, interpretation is a liberating act. It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past. In other cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling. 4 Today is such a time, when the project of interpretation is largely reactionary, stifling. Like the fumes of the automobile and of heavy industry which befoul the urban atmosphere, the effusion of interpretations of art today poisons our sensibilities. In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of "meanings." It is to turn the world into this world. ("This world"! As if there were any other.)The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have.

 

Isn't the neg equally complicit in this system though.  Debate by definition is a discursive activity that requires an interpretation of speeches.  And I don't see how rejecting the aff would solve for anything any more than rejecting the neg would

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the neg equally complicit in this system though.  Debate by definition is a discursive activity that requires an interpretation of speeches.  And I don't see how rejecting the aff would solve for anything any more than rejecting the neg would

The alt is suicide bomb the 1AC - Destroy the meaning of the 1AC (the Fernando '10 evidence)

 

The Fernando 10 evidence talks about how poetry can be a form of the gift of death (the impossible exchange); but the key word here is "can," Heidegger uses poetry "for-us" meaning that he requires a humanist application/interpretation of the poem - the poem cannot exist independently from semantics in the world of Heidegger, it needs interpretation; for instance, when you read a poem in an English Class, the teacher spends hours with your deconstructing and INTERPRETING the poem, which means you've constructed a subjective value to the poem; but that is fundamentally exclusionary of the poem as such

 

This card explains it somewhat: 

 

Textual objects have an existence of their own right and are meaningful absent interpretation – refuse the essentialzing interpretation of the 1ac

Bryant 12 - Professor of Philosophy at Collin College (Levi R., Author of a number of articles on Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Lacan, and political theory, July 24th, 2012, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/radical-ethnography-or-situated-knowledge-a-response-to-a-friend/)

 

Your tone here sounds a bit irritated. I hope I didn’t provoke that as it wasn’t my intention. I don’t think I understood your point, but genuinely disagree with you. While I readily acknowledge that the cave painters were the cause of the paintings, I strongly disagree that the painters are a part of the being of the painting. Just as ones parents are the cause of one’s being while nonetheless the child is an autonomous being, the painting is an autonomous beings that have its own power that exceed any particular cultural or historical context. I don’t disagree that the question of what the paintings were for the cave painters is an interesting and important one, but in raising that question we’ve entered into a new machinic relation and are no longer talking about the paintings for themselves as autonomous entities that circulate throughout the world beyond their origins. What they were for a particular group is an important issue. My only point is that no work can ever be reduced– nor any entity, for that matter –can be reduced to what it is for another entity.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt is suicide bomb the 1AC - Destroy the meaning of the 1AC (the Fernando '10 evidence)

Right but that alt must itself be interpreted in order for you to win the debate.  It's paradoxical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right but that alt must itself be interpreted in order for you to win the debate.  It's paradoxical

ehhhh not really - you can vote negative to refuse interpretation via the suicide bombers gift of death (it's kinda like Baudrillards theory of seduction where all systems eventually implode into themselves - we can speed up that process with the gift of death) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehhhh not really - you can vote negative to refuse interpretation via the suicide bombers gift of death (it's kinda like Baudrillards theory of seduction where all systems eventually implode into themselves - we can speed up that process with the gift of death) 

Sure, but that requires you to interpret what it means to refuse interpretation; it also requires you to interpret the act of voting neg.

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...