Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/07/18 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    The 1nc is structured like a t violation: - interp - violation - standards - voters The interp should be "the aff should specify x" Usually the violation can be assumed but you can say it if you want to make if clear that you do not, in fact, think they specified. The standards are almost always going to be geared toward ground arguments, so something like neg ground loss, aff conditionality, etc. Always flag what arguments that they make problematic, what DAs you cant get, what CPs. Remember, you don't have to zero in on in round abuse, procedurals are establishing the best standard for what affs should do on this topic or generally, so justifying those arguments is bad enough. You can make other standards but a) you're less likely to win them (like limits is kind of more of an aff arg since specifying increases the number of aff cases), b) other standards args you make would really just be used to hedge against aff answers, so you can save time in your 1nc and just make those arguments in 2nc/1nr blocks. An exception to that is when you're reading a specification arg that is topic specific (like exact increase on visas), in which case you should make a topic education arg. This is really the only place you should need to use a card in a spec debate and evidence you read should be like "specification on x thing is important to the immigration discussion." For voters, fairness is the impact to ground. Topic education is a voter in and of itself. This is kind of rambling, I hammered it out on my phone.
  2. 1 point
    Some of it got preserved here. https://debatewikiarchive.github.io/circuitdebater/AA+PLEASE+READ!!!+PRESERVING+CIRCUIT+DEBATER+PAGES.html
  3. 1 point
    pretty much, however the double bind isn't flawless, ask them something like "do you increase the cap by [whatever you define substantial as]" if they say anything other than yes, you can do the double bind
  4. 1 point
    Which is exactly why I said whether or not the difference exists depends on how you spin. Imo, the distinction doesn't exist in most debates, but there are those that believe T-USfg doesnt make a totalizing claim about the state being good, just necessary for clash, where framework debates tend to come down more to the state goood/bad debate. Just explaining the thinking behind those that claim there is a difference.
  5. 1 point
    Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework. At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance. This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG. None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).
  6. 1 point
    Obviously you need to do this. But having framework can drastically help your chances of winning. Plus, if a team is going to be kritikal, they need to be prepped for framework.
  7. 1 point
    the name you put in the speech doc
  8. 1 point
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
×
×
  • Create New...