Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/03/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Some of it got preserved here. https://debatewikiarchive.github.io/circuitdebater/AA+PLEASE+READ!!!+PRESERVING+CIRCUIT+DEBATER+PAGES.html
  2. 1 point
    Political capital is a term used to describe the influence, credibility, energy, focus, and time that the president uses to rally Congress around particular policies. The theory of political capital argues that it is quantifiable, finite, and "zero-sum." The basic politics DA would say, "Trump is using his political capital to push X through Congress. The plan, a controversial immigration reform, saps that political capital, undermining the legislative momentum necessary to pass X. X is good because impacts."
  3. 1 point
    Rhizomatic is an idea of the way things should be organized as delineralized, nonherirachal, not being bounded down to a static organization and allowing itself to turn into something new, where power comes from the bottom-up (as it inevitably does, things only have power if the masses consent to them) - immanent In contrast, Arborescent is a tree-like structure where everything operates like a bureaucracy, restricted identities and forms, blueprints that specify how things should always work, teleological assertions, modes of organization that want to consolidate power so it flows from the top down - transcendent Rhizomatics are 'better' because they escape from the ladders of organization that prevent people from forming identities outside of their imposed definitions, challenging the masses relations to politics that make fascism impossible, and negates the will to act and make them generally unhappy The above analysis of BwO is good - it is best to think of it as an entity without any structure or organization. Deleuze and Guattari calls microfascism a 'cancerous BwO', so it's good to remember, like everything, they are not objectively good and can be corrupted.
  4. 1 point
    A lecture with some accompanying comments is linked here. http://www.cross-x.com/topic/55416-lectures-please/?do=findComment&comment=877239 Honestly, I usually wouldn't be commenting on this because other people are more well versed in this material, but I feel like I just need to point out that it's "bodies without organs", not without water (I mean, it's possible they wrote something about bodies without water, but not that I've seen). D&G like to use "scientific" words to describe their concepts, something for which they have been criticized. Think of biology here. An arborescent structure is, literally, a tree. Within a tree, there is a clear demarcation of functions. Leaves perform photosynthesis, roots collect water and nutrients, and the trunk transports sap. Contrast that to a rhizome. If you've ever seen a hand of whole ginger, you've seen a rhizome. Cut into a rhizome, and you see that it's fairly uniform. There's not much differentiation between the different parts, despite them being separated through space (one end of the rhizome looks pretty much the same as the opposite end). Taken from the Wikipedia page on rhizomes, this is one of the most important pieces of information in understanding D&G. "If a rhizome is separated into pieces, each piece may be able to give rise to a new plant." Rhizomes are resilient. They're able to come back from some kind of attack, such as a separation of parts. Contrast the tree, where if you fell the trunk, the entire organism (in the biological sense, as opposed to D&G's interpretation) dies (I mean, it usually dies, not always). For D&G, this is one of the reasons why it's better to be a rhizome as opposed to a radical (another term for tree/arbor/etc.). In terms of their philosophy, they apply this concept to human relations, where specialization makes us weak and dependent upon others. However, inevitably, something comes along that cuts the branches from the trunk, killing those unlucky boughs. If they were rhizomes, they would have been able to survive, to create new life despite the separation. People should be able to be self-sufficient, not organized into a hierarchy, where one part might be sacrificed for another. In debate, this is presented as a kritik of hierarchies, of order. The aff, through some link, supports radicals, not rhizomes, making us weak. The impacts are usually of a more psychoanalytic version than the aforementioned resilience (I'll get to that in a bit). I'll pause here to note that in their own work, D&G explicitly say that the rhizome is not opposed to the radical (somewhere in A Thousand Plateaus). Instead, for something to be truly rhizomatic, it necessarily needs to be open and free to fill whatever role for which the situation calls. As a result, a rhizome needs to be able to become a radical if it is to be considered a rhizome at all. This is seen in debate with D&G's perm cards, where you must "ride the strata" between rhizome and radical to truly be free, to be becoming (this alludes to a key point in their work, but I won't really get into that). The body without organs (shortened to BwO in their work) is an extension of this concept. The BwO is the entity, that, literally, has no organs. It has no hierarchical ordering between the organs, where one organ is specialized for one purpose while another is meant for another task. They make a distinction by saying that BwO is not opposed to organs. Instead, it it opposed to organisms. An organ is merely a single piece. The organism is the ordering of those pieces into one whole. It is the concept of the radical. Here, D&G delve into a bit of psychoanalytic work. They argue that the BwO is desire. When it becomes corrupted by the organism, desire becomes corrupted. This all has to do with some post-Hegelian work on the dialectical nature of person-hood, but I won't get into that here. This means that organization causes us to desire organization, hierarchy. For D&G, this is "fascist". It justifies severing one part of the body in pursuit of some idealized whole organism. As debaters put it, this leads to mass slaughter because this mindset sees one sector of society as undesirable for the "common good". Thus, extermination is justified. This is a very rough outline on the subject, and I may have misrepresented it a bit, so if anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so. Edit: I misspelled something. It should be "radicle" (as in the plant structure), not "radical" (like an extremist). Firefox doesn't think that that's a word, so I got confused. Edit 2: Yay, first "popular" post!
  5. 1 point
    Slavery is really old, if I remember my anthropology correctly. Sometimes it's tempting to think only of US slavery when discussing slavery, but that's not accurate.
  6. 1 point
    Why would you want to do this? If I were you, theory or topicality would be the least of my worries. What do you plan on doing when the Negative runs a counterplan to exclude one of those planks? What happens when they run an even more specific counterplan to exclude a very small portion of one of the planks? If you want to engage in hegemony debates, choose one of those cases and prepare it. If you like them all, then work on them all and run them in different rounds. However, there is no strategic reason to combine them.
  7. 1 point
    obviously no one is laughing; moreover, why is this such a common tactic? someone makes a claim that is indictable or offensive, gets called out for it, and then proceeds to say that it was a joke? Its so common and banal and it is really kinda disturbing when you stop to think about it, which is the question that this thread confronts, namely, how does the question of thinking activate our participation in debate? Can we really seriously engage in this movement if we are making jokes that reference something as questionable, something as worthy of questioning and thinking as the Holocaust? Do not get me wrong, humor is one of the most important things, at least for me, but is this the place and the topic to crack jokes? I am sure your comment was not intended to offend but then again, whats the role of intention anyway. Something was written, something took on a life mutually exclusive of the one who wrote it, and there are consequences to that that escape the intentionality with which the comment was made and, perhaps, the consequences of the writing show up something about the intentionality...not that intention disappears all together, not that context vanishes, but that the consequences of writing might put pressure on something unthought within the intentionality and context in which the writing was written.
  8. 1 point
    ill get to autobiography and heidegger later...it will be another response to Heidegger's nazism and it as an argument against his thinking.
  9. 1 point
    i attended a presentation on the horrors of the holocaust at a jewish temple once, and heard the whole 'the holocaust was special event in history unlike any other' rap, and i continue to disagree. i think we trivialize the holocaust when we imply that it can't happen again, as if it's assured, as if it's over. quantitatively, more innocent people died during the african slave trade or stalinistic and maoist purges; qualitatively, (agamben argues that) the camp is a paradigm for the modern nation-state. elie wiesel is quoted as saying that we shouldn't mention that gays or the mentally ill were slaughtered in mass by the nazis because this would take away 'our' holocaust -- is this the kind of 'trivialization' you're referring to, mr. leap? to my way of thinking we should keep the horrors of fascism, how far a supposedly civilized people can fall, the price of all our complicit indifference, in mind constantly. holocausts (which only means the mass killing of people, especially by fire) happen all the time, and for that reason, we should never say 'never again' too self-certainly. "road map... one argument... HOLO TRIV! buuuurn" aside from the performative contradiction in using the word 'buuuuurn', i say bring it on sister.
  10. -1 points
    and now we know why hippies should stop doing debate and stop reading cards that can barely pertain to the modern social and poilitical conditions. honestly. The kritik has evolved into a useless mess of jargon, and it gets stupider every time people say things like "your K cards can be 3 decades old and still apply." Does anyone really think that, in a world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, its okay for us to fully retrench our soldiers and let the terrorists do as they please? Does anyone really believe that fully rejecting the capitalist society in a world where other alternatives have only lead to dictatorships and the destruction of civil liberties still applies? Does anyone really still think that rejecting technology is a good idea when technology has allowed for medicines, safety, and fast communication? hell we wouldnt be able to have this discussion without technology right now. every single time i hear a K card like this, i do die a little inside... Thank Spanos for pointing out the greatest fact in modern Policy debate in regard to the criticism. EVERY DEBATER WHO USES THESE CARDS IS ONLY DESTROYING THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL IDEAS AND CO-OPTING THEM INTO THEIR OWN THOUGHTS, SO THAT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE MODERN RUTHLESS AND NEVERENDING SOCIETY OF COMPETITION. the fact that you are skewing their words is, in itself, breaking the alternative of rejection at the first step; truly believing in the philosopher's thoughts. The authors you read would be very ashamed.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...