Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About DrunkinSailor

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/14/1987

Profile Information

  • Name
    Devin Tarr
  • School
    Calabasas High School
  • Biography
    I believe in the Christian Faith and live my life according to that and existentialism.
  • Location
  • Interests
    Paintball, Snowboarding, Debate, Sailing ^_^
  • Occupation
    Host at Ruby's Diner
  1. weigh your case advantages against the K, intervention solves for your case (i assume) and run Habermas (he's a Counter-K of Post-Modern K's) -DS
  2. So last week we ran up against a team that ran a kritikal arguement of "Time Cube" which was confusing as fuck. All they did was read their shells and overviews for it because they didn't know what it was either, in C/X they stumbled all over the place, it was bad -- anyways i just wanted to tell everyone, if you ever hit this arguement, dont ask any questions about it, simply say that you operate in the 3rd Time Quadrant!! -- The actual kritik from what their overviews inferred was that it kritiked the fact that you dont' know what it is. So , this is really all you need for your answer. 1. Laugh at them for running such a ridicullous argument 2. Claim that the argument needs to be extinguished from debate for its ridulousness and 3. Say that you operate in the third time quadrant. In fact, just at the end of your plan text add that you operate in the 3rd time quadrant to avoid it all2gether -DS
  3. Just make a framework arguement of Competeting Advocacy's and claim that the nature of debate prevents in round solvency because the judge must remain un-biased for his next round and also that there is no such thing as pre-fiat because the critique's implications only come into effect once the plan is put into action. None of the actual things done in the debate round will affect Public Policy, the only links the K gets are from it being implemented. Therefore, all links only occur after plan is passed which allows you to access your case harms -DS
  4. Actually, im done with this thread, I hope some1 benefits from at least 1 of my two long posts. =Closed= -DS
  5. lol schmurph, im glad your criticism of me is so warranted, well explained, and thought out. Otherwise i would have been totaly lost. Thanks for the clarificiation I love it when people post one line insults against people who are acutually trying to help and learn from others -DS
  6. Ok guys, im sure that a few of u have read the "Zizek is a dumbass" post, but if anyone actually wants an unbiased and accurate explaination of Zizek's philosphy, then you should read the last post on that thread which is number 45 at the moment. It is about 2 pages long and is understandable as well as accurate. I hope some people get some use out of it. -DS
  7. Or! Just run performative contradiction good and all your problems are solved, you just can't claim Imp'ism as a net benefit, but at least you could run both arguments -DS
  8. Its normally not run with uniqueness at all, it usually goes like this A. Link - UN Peackeepers engage in sex trafficking B. Impacts 1. Sex Trafficking is Dehuminizing 2. Sex Trafficking => Spread of AIDS 3. AIDS => Xtinction The way to beat it with uniqueness is basically to say look, all of their evidence saying that UN peacekeepers engage in sex trafficking means that the problem is going on right now and the status quo can't solve. Therefore, our plan will at least save peoples lives. This D/A is non-U hardcore because it just plain doesn't have any. -DS
  9. Or you can be shady and hope the other team drops your perm by never saying the word "perm" I.e. -No Forced Choice, Do the aff plan and reject every other instance of the neg's criticism, this ensures solvency and avoids the implications of the Critique. So far 4 outa 7 teams Varsity have dropped this - instant arg. winner, ahhh, i love the sneakyness -DS
  10. I counter-K with Realism which nails both your arguments and you lose. Have a nice day -DS
  11. mikel, the capitalism evidence by Zizek is really only a minor part of the greater philosophy. The majority of Zizek's philosophy is based in Lacanian thought who was a semiotician, (i explained this in the 1st post). Zizek then added in his own stuff and contrary to what you might have heard, Zizek's critique of the fantasy/real is the foundation for his philosphy. If someone in a debate round starts reading Zizek evidence and is only talking about the capitalism stuff, then they are in fact piecemealing him and marginalizing his philosphy. Make anyone who Zizek evidence against you defend the entirety of his philosphy, not just the cards they read. If they try to say that they don't advocate his entire philosphy then counter with the general reason that most Critiques are run in the first place i.e. Most critiques attack the underlying assumptions not addressed in the affirmative plan such as capitalism is used by the affirmative plan and capitalism is bad. Through the theory of A=B, B=C, A=C (i dont remember the name) you can say that you are attacking the underlying assumptions of Zizek's philosphy. Plus, take their card and read the un-underlined parts, you will see stuff not relating to his capitalism arguements. And to expand and clarify on his basic philosphy, he siad that as children we learn that communication isn't perfect, that when we cry and point we can't always convey the message that we want to. This coupled with that fact that language isn't perfect causes us to create a world in which everything DOES in fact work out, a fantasy world. Or, the long ver. Identity & Fantasy A. What is the mirror stage? Babies between 6 and 18 months learn how to use their bodies. Their body becomes more connected with their mind and they start to communicate better. They start to learn language, motions, etc. B. Why does the mirror stage produce alienation that stays with us forever? First the baby is happy to feel whole, but the baby also quickly realizes there is a problem, and that problem is that communication isn’t perfect. There is a gap between their new sense of community and the fragmented consequence of real experience. Their parents don’t necessarily see them the way they see themselves. We feel as though there is something missing, but it is never perfect, as close as you can be to someone, you are in a sense, alone. Perfect communication is never possible; the images we get back about ourselves from other people are sometimes alienating. Those barriers that separate us from other people are located in language and that sense of alienation is something we spend our whole lives to make up for, that we pretend to have better communication than what really it is. C. What does the mirror actually represent? The conception of the self in the mind’s eye peering. The way you think about yourself. But, the way other people see you is not how you see yourself. D. Post-Structuralism: a philosophical movement that says human identity is de-centered. We should think of ourselves as products of language and culture. We don’t have a “hard” center. Think about the extremes that people go to with relatively little prodding, Just yesterday there were new allegations of abuse in prison in Iraq, U.S. soldiers are still torturing, abusing, raping attainees. We’re a product of the environment we’re in. People are more flexible than we like to think. Fantasy & the “Real” A. Fantasy is a bridge to the other/an attempt to capture the “real”: We find this gap between the self and reality out there, so we pretend to have access to the real, we pretend that the gap does not exist. We pretend that we can manipulate the real, but this pretending is not us conscious lying to ourselves. “The signifier mythological attempts to embody the real.” We use language to pretend to have access to the real B. What does this have to do with politics? We do this when manipulating the political as well. We create fantasies about how the world works. Coherent theories about how the world works boil down simply. States seek power, the system is anarchy. We develop fantasies to overcome alienation. Vietnam, Iraq, we developed a fantasy about how freedom should work. It is all a fantasy to bridge that sense of alienation. Politics are created by language, which is arbitrary, and cultural along with being created by fantasy, we are sort of wrong about everything. We have a fantasy of politics that’s totally wrong. “Politics is identical to political reality and political reality, as all reality is, first, constituted at the symbolic level, and second, supported by fantasy.” C. The fantasy inevitable comes up short in capturing the real, there are inevitably moments of crisis, the trauma of the real is apparent when we fail to communicate and understand the world. When we learn that language is inadequate to understanding who we are, this can bring anywhere from minor miscommunications too much larger problems when our fantasies about politics don’t work out which reveals trauma and alienation. Our social world is also constructed of fantasies trying to reconstruct that gap. “No social fantasy can fill the lack around which society is always structured.” D. How do we react to these shortcomings?” We hide our errors, we absorb what doesn’t fit. Realists have a theory. We construct a new fantasy to make us feel good. When the fantasy is faced with crisis, we try to expand the fantasy to fit a new situation, which sometimes results in violence. We do this because these fantasies are fundamental to which we are. What is the impact? A. Failure of the fantasy to capture the real sometimes produces violence scape goating as we try to hang on to the old order: (Nazism) In an effort to create the perfect Aryan race, they had to eliminate a component that didn’t fit. The fantasy of the Nazi’s wasn’t going to go well so they had to scape goat to sustain the fantasy. Aff participates in a theory of politics, which sometimes causes violent scape goating. B. What is the alternative? It is the ethical duty of critical intellectuals to embrace crisis, embrace trauma, revel in your alienation, think about the gap, think about the empty space between yourself and the other, in times of crisis, you must deal with the fact that there is that alienation and in that moment of crisis, you can move in new directions. –Summary if Stavrakakis Cheerio -DS
  12. Specialk is so ridiculous its fucking insane. I read that post in the middle of an airport and starting laughing my head off! -DS
  13. short answer: no. long answer: im me long ext: im really me
  14. A. Pre-fiat - Says "X" argument is more important than consideration of affirmatives advantages. You can make this entire argument without ever saying the word "pre-fiat" Pre-fiat means "X" is more important than affirmative adv. And they have to explain why. The Thing that always gets me about the whole "pre-fiat" idea is that if the Kritik is operation on a pre-fiat level, i.e. on a level that takes place before the plan is adopted, then where the fuck does the kritik ever get its links. Because the impacts cannot happen due to the affirmative's case if in fact it is claiming to operate on a pre-fiat level. i don't know if any of you have ever heard of Sam Mauer, but he gave his kids at WFU PP this year a great lecture on why pre-fiat is stupid. The normal answer to what I just said is that the action of talking about their Kritik has consequences, however the nature of debate makes that bullshit. The judge cannot be convinced of the neg's K because he must remain unbiased for his next round and the other team cannot be convinced because they must be able to debate both sides of the issue and remain unbiased to continue debating well. I dont have my block so this paragraph isn't worded as strongly as it should be, but when i find my block i'll post it and you'll see. Have a nice day -DS
  • Create New...