Jump to content

OmegaPoint

Member
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Okay

About OmegaPoint

  • Rank
    Moderator
  • Birthday 01/15/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    omegapoint101

Profile Information

  • Name
    Nick Krebs
  • School
    New School University
  • Location
    New York, New York
  1. Just chiming in here to let you know that Kerpen will be having a blast today sharing the stage with...Michele Bachmann. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0310/Tea_Party_rally_planned_for_Saturday.html?showall How respectable.
  2. hi,

     

    i was wondering if the ftp in this thread is still accessible? looks like an AMAZING resource that i'd love to grab

     

    thanks,

     

    -b

  3. It is interesting that something that finds its development in the Renaissance is inevitable. Of course if you mean merely being human is inevitable, well...
  4. Have you ever judged a team that has actually explained what a study of being would do for either the affirmative or negative? The best I've ever heard is that "x infringes on being" without even resolving the debate if things can "just be" in their singular existence anyway.
  5. One might strictly say that language is the possession of concepts, and thus one can't think without language, making irrelevant the question of whether or not the conduit is imperfect. Of course you mean communication, so this is just being nitpicky.
  6. A helpful place to start is really just to ask the other team what ontology is. Here is a good enough description. Ontology: The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist? Ontology then is an inquiry about existence. It does not from the beginning posit any sort of values of how life should exist. This means as an affirmative team there are a few ways to respond to the negative teams claim that ontology must come first. 1. You can say ontology is an impossible pursuit. One way to do this is to use Kant's First Critique as a starting point for the argument that we can never know the "true" being of something, or the thing in itself. Put simply, Kant says we need to limit the scope of our reason so we can pursue philosophical investigations that are actually fruitful and not fraught with error. 2. You can attack the conclusion that you make someone's or something's being unable to manifest itself in the world. For example if one "conceptualize(s) life as something technological and to be equated. This is bad because it views us not as humans, but as machines or tools to perform whatever task." you should press the link between one's discourse and another's state of being. Can I deny someone elses unfolding of being merely because I have disdain in my speech for their desired way of being? If prevention of the unfolding of being requires a material impediment, then why should a "question of ontology" be considered in a way prior to that impediment? 3. Why does knowing how one is in the world matter? 4. How does one solve for ontology? At best one is only going to be able to argue that humans should have an unimpeded examination of their being in the world, but there likely won't be a resolution to the question. This means that any investigation that the negative embarks on won't have the substantive solvency that they claim. At least a claim to consider ontology would not fit within a problem solving framework. 5. Ask the negative team how humans should be in the world, and ask if their interpretation is necessary and not one of many options. You should be incredibly skeptical of any appeal of an "authentic" way to be in the world, as those appeals often advance racism and sexism. This is incredibly basic stuff just based off that sort of crappy definition. If you really want to beat Heidegger K's learning a little bit about the philosophical background will go a long way. Here is a bit of an overview of the relationship of ontology to main western philosophers (with the slant toward using Levinas to critique these authors). http://www.faculty.sbc.edu/mcalarco/04%20Chapter%201%20Critique%20of%20Ontology.doc
  7. Look up Dartmouth, Harvard, Cornell, Binghamton, Buffalo, CUNY, Vermont, NYU, New School, West Virginia (for all purposes a Northeast squad in spirit), West Point, Bard and UMASS on http://www.debateresults.com. You should be able to see tournament and team results for each of those schools to figure out their active debaters. If I forgot a NE school, my apologies.
  8. For some easy cards to cut, check out Judith Butler's Excitable Speech or Undoing Gender. I've read the latter most recently, and the chapter called "The End of Sexual Difference?" has some good arguments about how critiquing words and foundations does not mean that they should be prohibited, but rather contested terms should continually pose questions for us. Both books should be easily found at your local college library or at Barnes and Noble.
  9. Can there be a sub-forum or adherence to the designated texts thread so that all the book scans and articles ripped from e-databases can be found in one place instead of constituting the entirety of this forum? Perhaps I'm annoyed since I do have the privilege of accessing these articles whereas most high school students don't, but I feel that at least one should be committed to posing a series of questions or trying to start a dialogue beyond just posting a text, otherwise this forum becomes a mere repository for random philosophical works and not a place for discussion about how to transform philosophy into persuasive arguments in debate.
  10. I've always wondered what my professor would think about his book being distributed online...
  11. People draw on a lot of analytic philosophers to critique the worth of all the postmodern K authors, you'll see a lot of those in 2ac blocks. Also political analytic philosophers make it into a lot of framework arguments.
  12. Cut Book 2 of Plato's Republic and use the Allan Bloom translation. Specifically look for the dialogue between Glaucon and Socrates, as this conversation does a good job of fleshing out the justice v. injustice conflict.
  13. Ha...too bad I noticed this after the fact. The New School is actually the name of the program and it has existed for 3 years, just under the banner of the "New York Coalition" Congrats on your performance btw.
  14. OmegaPoint

    bullshit

    There is a reason you can find dozens of copies of this little trashy book unbought at every major book retailer in the country. What a waste of paper.
  15. The "without speech life isn't worth living" part of the Human Condition won me a couple rounds last year, but it's written so plainly (no complex words) that I think judges strangely have doubts about her credibility if they haven't encountered her work before.
×
×
  • Create New...