Jump to content
renaes

Help with this Aff

Recommended Posts

Hey, 

 

I was looking through some affs and I found this one below from Rowland Hall (labeled as "Baurdrillard" Aff in the first link and "Cult of Surveillance" Aff in the second one). I was wondering if someone could explain how this type of aff works? 

 

For example,

What is double fiat?

What exactly are their impacts? 

What do they solve for and how exactly do they solve?

what off case positions would this type of aff come across? 

What would their framework be?

 

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Rowland+Hall/Gordon-Lessnick+Aff (named Baudrillard Aff)

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Rowland+Hall/Lessnick-Lemons+Aff (named Cult of Surveillance Aff)

 

 

Thank you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For example,

What is double fiat?

 

​Probably some sort of gimick of symbolic reversibility, it probably doesn't solve tbh

 

What exactly are their impacts? 

 

Nihilism, they're going to frame it as value a prereq to decision making

 

What do they solve for and how exactly do they solve?

 

Supposedly symbolic reversibility of the system of policy debate itself. I don't think they solve though, they just add more to the system (read this)

 

 

Just because you accelerate the process of sign creation doesn’t mean that you collapse signification itself.  The proliferation of signs leads to the hallucination and revisiting of impacts in their hyperrealized forms.

Baudrillard 81 (Jean Baudrillard. Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School, 1981, Simulacra and Simulation, p. 123-124)

Perhaps science fiction from the cybernetic and hyperreal era can only exhaust itself, in its artificial resurrection of “historical” worlds, can only try to reconstruct invitro, down to the smallest details, the perimeters of a prior world, the events, the people, the ideologies of the past, emptied of meaning, of their original process, but hallucinatory with retrospective truth.  Thus in Simulacra by Philip K. Dick, the war of Secession.  Gigantic hologram in three dimensions, in which fiction will never again be a mirror held toward the future, but a desperate rehallucination of the past.  We can no longer imagine any other universe: the grace of transcendence was taken away from us in that respect too.  Classical science fiction was that of an expanding universe, besides it forged its path in the narratives of spatial exploration, counterparts to the more terrestrial forms of exploration and colonization of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  There is no relationship of cause and effect there: it is not because terrestrial space today is virtually coded, mapped, registered, saturated, has thus in a sense closed up again in universalizing itselfa universal market, not only of merchandise, but of values, signs, models, leaving no room for the imaginary—it is not exactly because of this that the exploratory universe (technical, mental, cosmic) of science fiction has ceased to function.  But the two are narrowly linked, and they are two versions of the same general process of implosion that follows the gigantic process of explosion and expansion characteristic of past centuries.  When a system reaches its own limits and becomes saturated, a reversal is produced—something else takes place, in the imaginary as well.  Until now we have always had a reserve of the imaginary—now the coefficient of reality is proportional to the reserve of the imaginary that gives it its specific weight.  This is also true of geographic and spatial exploration: when there is no longer any virgin territory, and thus one available to the imaginary, when the map covers the whole territory, something like the principle of reality disappears.  In this way, the conquest of space constitutes an irreversible crossing toward the loss of the terrestrial referential.  There is a hemorrhaging of reality as in internal coherence of a limited universe, once the limits of this universe recede into infinity.  The conquest of space that follows that of the planet is equal to derealizing (dematerializing) human space, or to transferring it into a hyperreal of simulation.  Witness this two bedroom/kitchen/shower put into orbit, raised to a spatial power (one could say) with the most recent lunar module.  The everydayness of the terrestrial habitat itself elevated to the rank of cosmic value, hypostatized in space- the satellization of the real in the transcendence of space—it is the end of metaphysics, the end of the phantasm, the end of science fiction—the era of hyperreality begins.  From then onward, something must change: the projection, the extrapolation, the sort of pantographic excess that constituted the charm of science fiction are all impossible.  It is no longer possible to fabricate the unreal from the real, the imaginary from the givens of the realThe process will, rather, be the opposite: it will be to put decentered situations, models of simulation in place and to contrive to give them the feeling of the real, of the banal, of lived experience, to reinvent the real as fiction, precisely because it has disappeared from our life.  Hallucination of the real, of lived experience, of the quotidian, but reconstituted, sometimes down to disquietingly strange details, reconstituted as an animal or vegetal reserve, brought to light with a transparent precision, but without substance, derealized in advance, hyperrealized.  

 

 

what off case positions would this type of aff come across? 

 

Cap, coloniality, antiblackness. You know, the regulars. I would personally run some sort of ballot commodification K, a Lacan K (heres some ev) or an antibaudrillard K (specific)

 

 

Their act of subversion is just acting out inside the system, actually drawing more power to the system they critique

McGowan 4, PhD from Ohio State English Department (Todd, 2004, “Introduction: Psychoanalysis after Marx”, End of Dissatisfaction? Jacques Lacan and the Emerging Society of Enjoyment”, p. 124-6)  MH

In response to the command to enjoy, contemporary cynicism is an effort to gain distance from the functioning of power, to resist the hold that power has over us. Hence, the cynic turns inward and displays an indifference to external authorities, with the aim of self-sufficient independence. Symbolic authority—which would force the subject into a particular symbolic identity, an identity not freely chosen by the subject herself—is the explicit enemy of cynicism. To acknowledge the power of symbolic authority over one’s own subjectivity would be, in the eyes of the cynic, to acknowledge one’s failure to enjoy fully, making such an acknowledgment unacceptable. In the effort to refuse the power of this authority, one must eschew all the trappings of conformity. This is why the great Cynical philosopher Diogenes made a show of masturbating in public, a gesture that made clear to everyone that he had moved beyond the constraints of the symbolic law and that he would brook no barrier to his jouissance. By freely doing in public what others feared to do, Diogenes acted out his refusal to submit to the prohibition that others accepted. He attempted to demonstrate that the symbolic law had no absolute hold over him and that he had no investment in it. However, seeming to be beyond the symbolic law and actually being beyond it are two different—and, in fact, opposed things, and this difference becomes especially important to recognize in the contemporary society of enjoyment. In the act of making a show of one’s indifference to the public law (in the manner of Diogenes and today’s cynical subject), one does not gain distance from that law, but unwittingly reveals one’s investment in it. Such a show is done for the look of the symbolic authority. The cynic stages her/his act publicly in order that symbolic authority will see it. Because it is staged in this way, we know that the  cynic’s act—such as the public masturbation of Diogenes—represents a case of acting-out, rather than an authentic act, an act that suspends the functioning of symbolic authority. Acting-out always occurs on a stage, while the authentic act and authentic enjoyment—the radical break from the constraints of symbolic authority—occur unstaged, without reference to the Other’s look.9 In the History of Philosophy, Hegel makes clear the cynic’s investment in symbolic authority through his discussion of Plato’s interactions with Diogenes: In Plato’s house [Diogenes] once walked on the beautiful carpets with muddy feet, saying, “I tread on the pride of Plato.” “Yes, but with another pride,” replied Plato, as pointedly.  When Diogenes stood wet through with rain, and the bystanders pitied him, Plato said, “If you wish to compassionate him, just go away. His vanity is in showing himself off and exciting surprise; it is what made him act in this way, and the reason would not exist if he were left alone.10 Though Diogenes attempts to act in a way that demonstrates his self-sufficiency, his distance from every external authority, what he attains, however, is far from self-sufficiency. As Plato’s ripostes demonstrate, everything that the cynic does to distance himself from symbolic authority plays directly into the hands of that authority.11 Here we see how cynicism functions symptomatically in the society of enjoyment, providing the illusion of enjoyment beyond social constraints while leaving these constraints completely intact. We don’t have to look twenty-five hundred years in the past for an example of cynicism’s hidden investment in symbolic authority: this investment is even more fully present in contemporary cynicism. It is especially clear in the cynicism of the antiauthority, discontented hacker working at a new internet company. The hacker is able to eschew all of the trappings of the traditional office labor: she/he can make her/his own hours, wear what she/he wants, listen to a walkman, and, in general, be her/his own boss. But nonetheless, this rejection of authority is wholly amenable to the functioning of the internet company. In fact, such a company thrives on it. It is not uncommon for internet companies to fire hackers when they lose their rebelliousness and become part of the corporate structure. Such companies want edgy product development that only a rebellious hacker can provide. The cynical worker works all the more effectively for the company—for the authority—in the guise of an opposition to structures of authority. Imagining her/himself as a rebel against tradition allows the hacker to become more creative, to spur the company on toward greater and greater profits. Contemporary cynicism at large works much like it does in the case of the hacker. The cynic rejects authority at the same time she/he devotes all of her/his energies to helping it along. The contemporary cynic’s rebellion is,  in this way, not a brake upon the functioning of late capitalism, but its engine. The cynicism among subjects today thus indicates the extent to which the society of enjoyment leaves subjects bereft of the actual enjoyment that would break from the prevailing symbolic authority. 

 

 

What would their framework be?

 

"we affirm curtailing the symbolic notion of surveillance in debate" or something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, 

 

I was looking through some affs and I found this one below from Rowland Hall (labeled as "Baurdrillard" Aff in the first link and "Cult of Surveillance" Aff in the second one). I was wondering if someone could explain how this type of aff works? 

 

For example,

What is double fiat?

What exactly are their impacts? 

What do they solve for and how exactly do they solve?

what off case positions would this type of aff come across? 

What would their framework be?

 

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Rowland+Hall/Gordon-Lessnick+Aff (named Baudrillard Aff)

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Rowland+Hall/Lessnick-Lemons+Aff (named Cult of Surveillance Aff)

 

 

Thank you!!

Not a big K debater, but I feel like the only contention that matters is 5. Everything else is an example of how ridiculous debate has become. I haven't read the cards, but based off the tags, double-fiat is just part of that ridiculousness. They're criticizing debate itself, suggesting that debate has become a game of knowledge spewing - Who can get to extinction the fastest, who can read the fastest, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...