Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Startop last won the day on July 7 2018

Startop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

270 Excellent

About Startop

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM
  1. Holy crap, card mart! Totally forgot.
  2. Who doesnt drink cheap booze when they're 18? Seriously. This is an awful retelling btw.
  3. Startop

    diss tracks

    TI- 99 Problems (Lil Flip Diss) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM3ki-FF-p0 Tupac- Hit Em up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HjsZqOaQ0 And this is pretty hilarious-
  4. At least the person who neg repped me above signed it, I appreciate that. I was hoping that the OP would do their own research from my post, but because people seem to think that dropping excepts from Nietzsche about gift-giving has no place in a thread about Nietzsche and gift-giving, I'll try and spell it out a little clearer. The above is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche writes about gift giving in a couple of different places. I want to say another one is on the Genealogy of Morals, but I am not 100% certain. In addition, in several places he talks about a very related issue- that of debt. In Nietzsche's view debt is a concept that we internalize into guilt, and produces bad conscience. Both of these are both closely related to his concept of justice, which is also where Derrida spends a lot effort. Derrida tries to analyze the limits of gift giving in a similar way. Gifts also produce debt for Derrida (who I believe is drawing more from Mauss than from Nietzsche at this point, though he does recognize Nietzsche's contribution to the idea at length), but this debt is something that is problematic in that it prevents the actualization of a more genuine hospitality, or a more ethical justice. He plays with the idea of removing this system of gift-giving from an economy (economy here being the gift in exchange for debt). There would probably be some tension here between Derridan/Levinisan drive towards an unconditional (noneconomic) hospitality for ethical reasons, and Nietzsche's dislike of debt because it produces guilt. I dont know a lot about where Derrida stands on guilt, but my cursory knowledge of Derrida's infinite obligation would seem to conflict pretty strongly with Nietzschian morals. This having been said, there are a lot of authors that write on gift-giving from different paradigms. Mauss was the example I gave above. I know there are also authors that write specifically about the intersection of Nietzsche's philosophy and gift-giving. Try "The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau" by Michael Ure. You can find it in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies, which can be accessed on Muse. If you dont have Muse access, ask on article section of this forum and someone will probably hook it up. I agree with the what people have said about the way you have the shell structured above. Its not really strategic and isnt a blending of philosophies, so much as its just a blending of cards. Hope this helps.
  5. Just run two counterplans. You'll have to answer condo and PIC theory anyway.
  6. "Verily, I have found you out, my disciples: you strive, as I do, for the gift-giving virtue. What would you have in common with cats and wolves? This is your thirst: to become sacrifices and gifts yourselves; and that is why you thirst to pile up all the riches in your soul. Insatiably your soul strives for treasures and gems, because your virtue is insatiable in wanting to give."
  7. i think most of those are private now, I think there are a couple from the 09 NDT though. Try debatevideos.blogspot.com
  8. Thanks guys, this has been pretty helpful. To answer your question, my Nietzsche readings have been frequent, but only for the past semester. I've read Homer's Contest, The Birth of Tragedy, Philosophy In The Age of The Greeks, On Truth and Lies..., The Gay Science I-IV, sections from The Will to Power, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. My readings of his critisism of decadence has come mostly form secondary sources referencing the idea, which is why I was looking for a better understanding of it. I know he writes a lot about it in Zarathustra, but so many things professed by Zarathustra are things that Nietzsche doesnt actually believe, that it was hard for me to understand which parts were "true" of Nietzsche's philosophy, and which were parts of Zarathustra's weak will. My reading of The Gay Science, as some of his earlier works on the Greeks seemed to make pretty clear that hedonism and excessive violence would be something that Nietzsche would want to affirm. Also, asceticism being universally rejected by Nietzsche would seem to confirm this. That having been said, would Nietzsche always reject asceticism? His problems with it seem to stem only from the ascetics rejection of the world as is, ie- the Christian celibate rejecting sex to have a better life in the "next world", but what about when giving up on excess leads to a better engagement with the world? and Koslow, what makes you think that Nietzsche rejects his ideas of Dionysian embracement in TSZ? The book is clearly more about becoming, and the eternal return, but I am not sure what in the book (or in his life when he wrote the book) means that he rejects the Dionysian. I am pretty skeptical of everything in The Will to Power, but I am probably down with the idea that the balance between the Dionysian and the Apollonian produces the best way to overcome yourself. I am just not sure if there is an explicit reject that I dont know about in his later work. thanks again.
  9. After doing some reading, I am unsure how to interpret or understand Nietzsche’s criticism of decadence. This may be a simple matter of misinterpretation of the word “decadence” as its used here, but I interpret it to mean an excessive hedonism, as that’s how its most often used today. To me, the embracing of excessive hedonism would seem to be a very affirmative embracement of the world, relishing the Dionysian elements of life, such as love, intoxication, violence, and other forms of pleasure. Decadence seems like the reverse of the ascetic ideal, so I am having trouble understanding why Nietzsche would believe it produces a weak will. If anyone who knows a little bit about Nietzsche could help me out, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
  10. Some of the gems will be Gareth Emery and Wippenberg today, Sander Van Doorn, Markus Schulz and Ferry Corsten tomorrow, Kayu & Albert and Aly & Fila on Saturday, and Glenn Morisson on Sunday. Some of these have more than one airing, so keep them in mind if you are checking some of these out.
  11. Sweet, you should make a point to say whats up.
  12. Its 10 dollars for spectators. Payable to me.
  13. I disagree with the above. If you give a shitty 2AC, and the block fucks you up, but reads a new add on with a new impact, then you're back in the debate. The 1AR should impact turn it. Rather than consolidating the issues, this functionally allows you to start the debate over (on the substance).
  14. 1NR can and probably should read as many cards as they can on whatever relevant issues. 1NR is 3NC. 1AR can read cards, but they should generally be limited to extrapolations of 2AC arguments, or answers to new arguments made in the negative block. The issue here is making the 1AR efficient. Often times, they dont have time to read a bunch of cards on every issue. 2NR should rarely read new cards, but its justified to answer new 1AR arguments. For example if the 1NC reads politics with an enviornment impact, and then the 2nc reads a warming bad impact, the 1AR might impact turn and say warming good. In this scenario, it would be acceptable for the 2NR to read evidence to answer the warming good scenario. The 2AR can get away with reading new evidence in maybe 1 out of 50 rounds. Only if the round somehow gets structured in a way that allows them a compelling reason to read new cards.
  • Create New...