Jump to content
Jayms

Bataille?

Recommended Posts

someone is making me run this aff at an upcoming tournament lol... if someone would be kind enough to explain the thesis

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which argument from Bataille? And is it from a camp?

 

ALSO, you could also search a little on the forum and I'm sure there are pages that explain Bataille. I am willing to give you my share of knowledge, I just need to know the above information.

Edited by MassGenocideSolves
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which argument from Bataille? And is it from a camp?

 

ALSO, you could also search a little on the forum and I'm sure there are pages that explain Bataille. I am willing to give you my share of knowledge, I just need to know the above information.

yep its the michigan aff that's on openev for this year. Thanks for offering to help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep its the michigan aff that's on openev for this year. Thanks for offering to help!

No problem, of course. But is it Lingchi or Wenzhou? Because I've run the Wenzhou Luxury aff from Bataille, and am much more knowledgeable in that sense.

 

Edit: note my signature...

Edited by MassGenocideSolves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, of course. But is it Lingchi or Wenzhou? Because I've run the Wenzhou Luxury aff from Bataille, and am much more knowledgeable in that sense.

 

Edit: note my signature...

Wenzhou

and very beautiful signature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhh I don't know if its good to run a new k Aff and especially if it was forced unless the tourney doesn't matter.

Edited by Raj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wenzhou

and very beautiful signature

Ah okay, perfect (thanks btw, I like my signature a lot). I think the most basic form of explanation is that this aff is a "critique of productivity". It claims that productivity is the root cause to capitalism, and thats bad. The Featherstone 10 card is your main impact evidence, and you should utilize it to DA their framework (be prepped for that, and also this off has lots of good framework answers and cheats, so make sure you understand those). If someone runs Cap against you, you need to argue that productivity is the root cause to cap, not economics. Because essentially economics are founded on the basis that "productivity is essential", so without this mindset of productivity economics won't happen, and cap won't happen. And on the solvency debate, if you're planning on reading the Cioran poems, those are a form of solvency, there is also the "engage with Wenzhou" (by the way Wenzhou is a city in China where it is their culture to spend a lot of money on burials and the dead, but China went in and interrupted their culture, forcing them to be productive and part of the Chinese economy) solvency, because you engage with them their and allow them to continue to gloriously expend (at least that is what I go for, I might have edited it a little, I don't remember). You also have the net-benefit of fixing communication (thats the Lerman 15 card) where Bataille identifies that perfect communication is impossible, and we must embrace the good and the bad in order to protect communication. And you're "in the direction of the topic" so you're topical. And you also turn their "You gotta be a political action" framework arg, because basically political actions are intertwined with capitalism, so you should prefer our non-productive action, that prevents the injection of capitalist ideals. You can relate the content limitation of their framework to the utility and limitations established in the capitalist system. Your whole aff is a turn to "limits" because limits force productive debate, and thats bad because productivity leads to capitalism, and thats bad.... Say that your aff is actually good for education, because it forces critical thinking in debate, and they should be able to think on their feet, it is more real world. Also they should be able to debate without a 1,000 page block. Make sure you run some turns on their framework, I happen to fancy the Passive Nihilism DA. So yeah, Bataille talks about glorious expenditures, basically spending your wealth without the goal of being productive or gaining something from it. Like my partner has three jet-skis, that is an example of glorious expenditures.

 

And honestly have fun with it, it is a legitimate argument, but it allows you to troll. For example, cross-x you can be unproductive. I played Overwatch during a round once (and yes I am an asshole, but we ended up picking up). Another time I gave all of my speeches standing on a table.

 

Be prepare for questions like "Was spreading your 1ac productive?" (No, I just like speaking fast). "Was highlighting your case productive?" (No, we didn't highlight it, we were given it like this). So basically you're just there to have fun, not to be productive in any way, and if having fun means following the speech times, spreading, and debating, than so be it.

 

**And by the way, since it is a k of productivity, you should avoid double turning yourself in cross-x, so try to remain as unproductive as possible, like turn their questions on them: Them: "What does your Featherstone card mean?" You: "What is meaning?". I know it is a total dick move, and people will hate you for it, but it has to be done :P. I hit the Baedrillard aff from UMich, and won off of "Baudrillard" Word PIC B) , dropped case and two minutes of theory and three minutes of why Baudrillard is the Lord and Savior and we must never use his name in vain. To be fair I could have went for Life-Spec instead. I know I know, I'm the reason debate is terrible, but come on, Boje on the aff and neg, it was only justice, I had to out-troll them. And the team we picked up against actually went on to semi's I think.

 

If you have any other questions or if I missed anything PM me, or reply to this :). Tbh I think you should reply to this, so we could have this info for others.

 

However, moral of the story: you can run this and have fun, but don't let it corrupt you, still debate seriously, and legitimately.

Edited by MassGenocideSolves
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah okay, perfect (thanks btw, I like my signature a lot). I think the most basic form of explanation is that this aff is a "critique of productivity". It claims that productivity is the root cause to capitalism, and thats bad. The Featherstone 10 card is your main impact evidence, and you should utilize it to DA their framework (be prepped for that, and also this off has lots of good framework answers and cheats, so make sure you understand those). If someone runs Cap against you, you need to argue that productivity is the root cause to cap, not economics. Because essentially economics are founded on the basis that "productivity is essential", so without this mindset of productivity economics won't happen, and cap won't happen. And on the solvency debate, if you're planning on reading the Cioran poems, those are a form of solvency, there is also the "engage with Wenzhou" (by the way Wenzhou is a city in China where it is their culture to spend a lot of money on burials and the dead, but China went in and interrupted their culture, forcing them to be productive and part of the Chinese economy) solvency, because you engage with them their and allow them to continue to gloriously expend (at least that is what I go for, I might have edited it a little, I don't remember). You also have the net-benefit of fixing communication (thats the Lerman 15 card) where Bataille identifies that perfect communication is impossible, and we must embrace the good and the bad in order to protect communication. And you're "in the direction of the topic" so you're topical. And you also turn their "You gotta be a political action" framework arg, because basically political actions are intertwined with capitalism, so you should prefer our non-productive action, that prevents the injection of capitalist ideals. You can relate the content limitation of their framework to the utility and limitations established in the capitalist system. Your whole aff is a turn to "limits" because limits force productive debate, and thats bad because productivity leads to capitalism, and thats bad.... Say that your aff is actually good for education, because it forces critical thinking in debate, and they should be able to think on their feet, it is more real world. Also they should be able to debate without a 1,000 page block. Make sure you run some turns on their framework, I happen to fancy the Passive Nihilism DA. So yeah, Bataille talks about glorious expenditures, basically spending your wealth without the goal of being productive or gaining something from it. Like my partner has three jet-skis, that is an example of glorious expenditures.

And honestly have fun with it, it is a legitimate argument, but it allows you to troll. For example, cross-x you can be unproductive. I played Overwatch during a round once (and yes I am an asshole, but we ended up picking up). Another time I gave all of my speeches standing on a table.

Be prepare for questions like "Was spreading your 1ac productive?" (No, I just like speaking fast). "Was highlighting your case productive?" (No, we didn't highlight it, we were given it like this). So basically you're just there to have fun, not to be productive in any way, and if having fun means following the speech times, spreading, and debating, than so be it.

**And by the way, since it is a k of productivity, you should avoid double turning yourself in cross-x, so try to remain as unproductive as possible, like turn their questions on them: Them: "What does your Featherstone card mean?" You: "What is meaning?". I know it is a total dick move, and people will hate you for it, but it has to be done :P. I hit the Baedrillard aff from UMich, and won off of "Baudrillard" Word PIC B) , dropped case and two minutes of theory and three minutes of why Baudrillard is the Lord and Savior and we must never use his name in vain. To be fair I could have went for Life-Spec instead. I know I know, I'm the reason debate is terrible, but come on, Boje on the aff and neg, it was only justice, I had to out-troll them. And the team we picked up against actually went on to semi's I think.

If you have any other questions or if I missed anything PM me, or reply to this :). Tbh I think you should reply to this, so we could have this info for others.

However, moral of the story: you can run this and have fun, but don't let it corrupt you, still debate seriously, and legitimately.

Damn thanks awesome explanation. So it's basically a cap k with the link being productivity

Edit: I think it has corrupted you ?

Also couldn't teams say that unproductive expenditure is limited to the elites? Maybe all they can afford is food and a bed?

Edited by Jayms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn thanks awesome explanation. So it's basically a cap k with the link being productivity

Edit: I think it has corrupted you

Also couldn't teams say that unproductive expenditure is limited to the elites? Maybe all they can afford is food and a bed?

Eh, it was so-so, not my best. Hmmmm, I guess that is one way you could put it, it's a k aff that says productivity is the root cause to Capitalism, and that's bad.

 

Yeah, it has definitely corrupted me.

 

I mean they could try that, but if they do (well at least my response) would be: wealth is not conformed to just money, an act of unproductive expenditure could be refusing to be productive in work, wasting time without a productive goal in mind, it could be anything you imagine. I'm sorry that was my bad, I didn't specify.

 

Edit: yeah I think going gloriously expending one's time is a good bet. Could help in the sense that by not using your time productively you're rebelling against the productivity instilled by the capitalist machine (hehe fancy word for the State, it's fun to say :P).

Edited by MassGenocideSolves
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, it was so-so, not my best. Hmmmm, I guess that is one way you could put it, it's a k aff that says productivity is the root cause to Capitalism, and that's bad.

Yeah, it has definitely corrupted me.

I mean they could try that, but if they do (well at least my response) would be: wealth is not conformed to just money, an act of unproductive expenditure could be refusing to be productive in work, wasting time without a productive goal in mind, it could be anything you imagine. I'm sorry that was my bad, I didn't specify.

Edit: yeah I think going gloriously expending one's time is a good bet. Could help in the sense that by not using your time productively you're rebelling against the productivity instilled by the capitalist machine (hehe fancy word for the State, it's fun to say :P).

I know it's rather late but I have a few questions regarding Bataille, do you mind answering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's rather late but I have a few questions regarding Bataille, do you mind answering?

Alright, I'll number my questions to minimize confusion. I will note, I know sweet fuckall about bataille atm

 

1. What should I read from his philosophy to understand it, rn I have an incredibly basic understanding

2. It seems that either bataille or the bataille K is conflating two separate meanings of "productivity". I can accept that the root of capitalism is the literal production of products--or commodities as Marx puts it--but I can't accept that productivity as in any sort of attempt to reach a greater goal (like the aff attempting to win the round) is the same productivity. For instance, you answering questions in cx isn't the same sort of productivity as a sweatshop wage slave producing a given commodity

3. What other forms of bataille Ks are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll number my questions to minimize confusion. I will note, I know sweet fuckall about bataille atm

 

1. What should I read from his philosophy to understand it, rn I have an incredibly basic understanding

2. It seems that either bataille or the bataille K is conflating two separate meanings of "productivity". I can accept that the root of capitalism is the literal production of products--or commodities as Marx puts it--but I can't accept that productivity as in any sort of attempt to reach a greater goal (like the aff attempting to win the round) is the same productivity. For instance, you answering questions in cx isn't the same sort of productivity as a sweatshop wage slave producing a given commodity

3. What other forms of bataille Ks are there?

 

read this

1988_Bataille_The+Accursed+Share_V1_Essay+on+General+Economy.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll number my questions to minimize confusion. I will note, I know sweet fuckall about bataille atm

1. What should I read from his philosophy to understand it, rn I have an incredibly basic understanding

2. It seems that either bataille or the bataille K is conflating two separate meanings of "productivity". I can accept that the root of capitalism is the literal production of products--or commodities as Marx puts it--but I can't accept that productivity as in any sort of attempt to reach a greater goal (like the aff attempting to win the round) is the same productivity. For instance, you answering questions in cx isn't the same sort of productivity as a sweatshop wage slave producing a given commodity

3. What other forms of bataille Ks are there?

just in case it still matters:

1) the thirst for annihilation by nick land is also a pleasant read

2) bataille (specifically in his book on nietzsche) says defining actions by goals or endpoints (ie being productive) is bad since these ends cause existance to be dictated by utility and you become defined by your goals instead of as a Being with intrinsic value. So its this productive mindset that there has to be utility and has to be a purpose. Nothing like Marx’s conception of the term, bataille (as well as other theorists) argue marx isn’t applicable because his theories are too materialistic

3) action, death, psycholoanysis... you can apply his theories to pretty much everything, he criticizes life lmao

  • 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...