Jump to content

Felix Hoenikker

Member
  • Content Count

    1598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Felix Hoenikker last won the day on October 17 2016

Felix Hoenikker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

614 Excellent

About Felix Hoenikker

  • Rank
    das Ding
  • Birthday 01/17/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    Alex Bonnet
  • School
    UMKC
  • Location
    Kansas City, MO
  • Interests
    debate

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    schizoanalyst
  • MSN
    alex.bonnet.debate@gmail.com
  • Yahoo
    sinthomosexual@yahoo.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Felix Hoenikker

    Conspiracy Theory Toolbox

  2. Felix Hoenikker

    Irigaray K

  3. Felix Hoenikker

    Deleuze K

  4. Felix Hoenikker

    Schmitt K

    And for some minor addition to this dispute about the ethics of reading Schmitt, a) there is not a single card in this file that is by Carl Schmitt, rather it is all contemporary application of the political theory that he created, b ) contemporary Schmitt scholars both do not wholesale endorse Carl Schmitt, as the evidence someone posted above indicates, and have been quite good (as in the case of any Heidegger critique) of explaining why his philosophy is a criticism of the actions taken by the man Carl Schmitt, c) if you really want to play the game of historical relevance, Carl Schmitt was also one of the chief architects of the Geneva convention and his work was instrumental in the construction of the ICCPR. Sooooooooo....
  5. Felix Hoenikker

    Schmitt K

    Price reduction to $4 - would be happy to answer any questions about the utility of this critique from topic to topic and any execution issues.
  6. Felix Hoenikker

    Thirst for Annihilation K

    Price reduction to $5 dollars - considering the amount of cards in this and the unique nature of the argument that's a steal.
  7. Felix Hoenikker

    Thirst for Annihilation K

    Essentially against most (neo)Marx affs or any aff that deals with the economy for the most part this is a method criticism about the ontological/epistemic implications of framing debates in terms of scarcity, productivity, waste, etc. Argues that this is framing is what sustains the destructive logics of growth that most critical approaches to the economy attempt to address. Our framing ought to be in terms of excess and solar economies of matter and energy since economic productivity and exchange are often thermodynamic questions. We ought not fear loss, we ought not frame political economy in a productive/wasteful paradigm, we should embrace a solar sovereign (I like to joke Sun King) position, exchange dictated by play not by the question of loss and lack. Or phrased on other terms, Marxists and many anti-capitalists and even progrowth capitalists more broadly are trying to resolve the question of entropy in economic systems as though this is a negative or problem to be resolved that's just a matter of some inefficiency. Entropy is inevitable and creative, the universe and our relationship to it and the planet are thermodynamic, the economy is not a closed/restricted system, and thus, to borrow from the title of Land's book, 'thirsts for its annihilation.'
  8. Felix Hoenikker

    Thirst for Annihilation K

    File Name: Thirst for Annihilation K File Submitter: Felix Hoenikker File Submitted: 09 Feb 2014 File Category: Critiques Resolution: Latin America A Bataille Cap K that relies heavily on Nick Land's Thirst for Annihilation reading though is supported by a diversity of other authors. Can function as a K of many other anti-cap affirmatives and many affs that just take the economy as a mechanism or management task. A brief explanation of the argument: Against most (neo)Marx affs or any aff that deals with the economy for the most part this is a method criticism about the ontological/epistemic implications of framing debates in terms of scarcity, productivity, waste, etc. Argues that this framing is what sustains the destructive logics of growth that most critical approaches to the economy attempt to address. Our framing ought to be in terms of excess and solar economies of matter and energy since economic productivity and exchange are often thermodynamic questions. We ought not fear loss, we ought not frame political economy in a productive/wasteful paradigm, we should embrace a solar sovereign (I like to joke Sun King) position, exchange dictated by play not by the question of loss and lack. Or phrased on other terms, Marxists and many anti-capitalists and even progrowth capitalists more broadly are trying to resolve the question of entropy in economic systems as though this is a negative or problem to be resolved that's just a matter of some inefficiency. Entropy is inevitable and creative, the universe and our relationship to it and the planet are thermodynamic, the economy is not a closed/restricted system, and thus, to borrow from the title of Land's book, 'thirsts for its annihilation.' 1NC Shell 1 Link – Law.. 5 Link – Marxism/Capital Crisis. 6 Link – Marxism... 7 Link – Marxism... 8 Link – Hegelian Marxists (Zizek) 9 Link – Revolution. 10 Link – Revolution. 11 Link/Solvency – Revolution. 12 Link – Revolution (Redistributive) 14 Link – Nature Preservation/Species Die-Off. 15 Link – Food/Animals. 16 Link – Sustainable Energy/Dev/Environment 18 Link – Utility. 20 Link – Independent Subject 21 Link – God. 23 Link – Morality/Justice. 24 Impact – Value to Life. 25 AT What does “Unproductive Expenditure Meanâ€. 26 Alt Solvency/AT Cap = Enjoyment 29 Alt Solvency – Crapitalism’s Bad Shit 30 Alt Solves – Ecology. 31 Alt Solvency – Ethics. 32 Alt Solvency – Left Wing Metaphysics. 33 Alt Solvency – Sovereignty. 34 Accursed Share Best/Inevitable. 35 K Comes First 37 K Comes First 38 K Pre-req to Aff. 39 Historically Refusal of Excess à Subject/Object 41 AT Perm – No NB.. 43 AT Perm – Carrying Capacity DA.. 44 AT Perm – Starting Points. 45 AT Bataille = Cap. 46 AT Bataille = Anarchy. 47 AT Empirically Growth Solves War 48 AT Economic Theory/Policy Based Cap Good. 50 AT Economic Theory/Policy Based Cap Good. 51 AT Psychoanalysis. 52 Mass Revolt Fails. 53 Click here to download this file
  9. Felix Hoenikker

    Thirst for Annihilation K

    Version

    A Bataille Cap K that relies heavily on Nick Land's Thirst for Annihilation reading though is supported by a diversity of other authors. Can function as a K of many other anti-cap affirmatives and many affs that just take the economy as a mechanism or management task. A brief explanation of the argument: Against most (neo)Marx affs or any aff that deals with the economy for the most part this is a method criticism about the ontological/epistemic implications of framing debates in terms of scarcity, productivity, waste, etc. Argues that this framing is what sustains the destructive logics of growth that most critical approaches to the economy attempt to address. Our framing ought to be in terms of excess and solar economies of matter and energy since economic productivity and exchange are often thermodynamic questions. We ought not fear loss, we ought not frame political economy in a productive/wasteful paradigm, we should embrace a solar sovereign (I like to joke Sun King) position, exchange dictated by play not by the question of loss and lack. Or phrased on other terms, Marxists and many anti-capitalists and even progrowth capitalists more broadly are trying to resolve the question of entropy in economic systems as though this is a negative or problem to be resolved that's just a matter of some inefficiency. Entropy is inevitable and creative, the universe and our relationship to it and the planet are thermodynamic, the economy is not a closed/restricted system, and thus, to borrow from the title of Land's book, 'thirsts for its annihilation.' 1NC Shell 1 Link – Law.. 5 Link – Marxism/Capital Crisis. 6 Link – Marxism... 7 Link – Marxism... 8 Link – Hegelian Marxists (Zizek) 9 Link – Revolution. 10 Link – Revolution. 11 Link/Solvency – Revolution. 12 Link – Revolution (Redistributive) 14 Link – Nature Preservation/Species Die-Off. 15 Link – Food/Animals. 16 Link – Sustainable Energy/Dev/Environment 18 Link – Utility. 20 Link – Independent Subject 21 Link – God. 23 Link – Morality/Justice. 24 Impact – Value to Life. 25 AT What does “Unproductive Expenditure Meanâ€. 26 Alt Solvency/AT Cap = Enjoyment 29 Alt Solvency – Crapitalism’s Bad Shit 30 Alt Solves – Ecology. 31 Alt Solvency – Ethics. 32 Alt Solvency – Left Wing Metaphysics. 33 Alt Solvency – Sovereignty. 34 Accursed Share Best/Inevitable. 35 K Comes First 37 K Comes First 38 K Pre-req to Aff. 39 Historically Refusal of Excess à Subject/Object 41 AT Perm – No NB.. 43 AT Perm – Carrying Capacity DA.. 44 AT Perm – Starting Points. 45 AT Bataille = Cap. 46 AT Bataille = Anarchy. 47 AT Empirically Growth Solves War 48 AT Economic Theory/Policy Based Cap Good. 50 AT Economic Theory/Policy Based Cap Good. 51 AT Psychoanalysis. 52 Mass Revolt Fails. 53

    5.00 USD

  10. Felix Hoenikker

    Schmitt K

    Also not a single card in here is from Schmitt and the most well recognizes modern Schmittian, William Rasch, has gone to great lengths to situate himself well re: the negative legacy of the philosophy.
  11. Felix Hoenikker

    Epistemology K2 Heg

    Price reduction - file is now $3 cheap as hell for some of the least expected cheap shot cards you can drop in a debate. Damn straight Fem IR or Spanos is key to leadership.
  12. Felix Hoenikker

    Enjoyment K

    Price reduction - thebfile is now $5
  13. Felix Hoenikker

    Schmitt K

    File Name: Schmitt K File Submitter: Felix Hoenikker File Submitted: 02 Nov 2013 File Category: Critiques Resolution: Latin America It's a critique of liberal utopianism as well as Cap Bad affirmatives and K affs that claim to change the nature of politics. Enmity is at the core of our existence, the only question is how do we regulate and direct violence, doing otherwise pushes it underground and causes swings to the right. It's an argument that's fallen out of popularity but I think is ripe for a comeback and some of these cards are the best you'll find to roll with Schmitt against these affs. Zizek/Rev K 1NC.. 2 Derrida/Etc K 1NC.. 8 Liberalism/Policy K 1NC.. 13 2NC Stuff (Liberalism/Policy K) 19 Link – Liberalism... 21 Link – Liberalism/Civil Society. 22 Link – Moderation/Hearts and Minds. 24 Link – Parliamentary Democracy. 26 Link – Democracy/Human Rights. 28 Link – Human Rights. 29 Link – Human Rights. 30 Link – International Law.. 32 Link – Radical Democracy. 34 Link – Radical Democracy. 35 Link – Demo K Affs. 36 Link – Derrida/Undecidability. 37 Link – Agamben/Divisions Inevitable. 38 Link – Communist Revolution.. 39 Link – Revolution/AT Perm... 40 Division Inevitable. 41 Impact – Extinction.. 42 Impact – Extinction.. 44 Impact – Total War. 44 Impact – Permanent Universal War. 47 Impact – Booms. 49 Impact – HR-->Extermination.. 50 Alt – Conflict as Vocation.. 51 Alt – Lines in the Sand.. 53 Alt – Affirm Division.. 56 Alt Solvency – Divisions Good.. 58 Alt Solvency – Ethics/The Other. 59 AT Alt --> Violence. 60 No Enmity --> No Politics. 61 AT Rethinking.. 62 AT Ontology First 63 Click here to download this file
  14. Felix Hoenikker

    Schmitt K

    Version

    It's a critique of liberal utopianism as well as Cap Bad affirmatives and K affs that claim to change the nature of politics. Enmity is at the core of our existence, the only question is how do we regulate and direct violence, doing otherwise pushes it underground and causes swings to the right. It's an argument that's fallen out of popularity but I think is ripe for a comeback and some of these cards are the best you'll find to roll with Schmitt against these affs. Zizek/Rev K 1NC.. 2 Derrida/Etc K 1NC.. 8 Liberalism/Policy K 1NC.. 13 2NC Stuff (Liberalism/Policy K) 19 Link – Liberalism... 21 Link – Liberalism/Civil Society. 22 Link – Moderation/Hearts and Minds. 24 Link – Parliamentary Democracy. 26 Link – Democracy/Human Rights. 28 Link – Human Rights. 29 Link – Human Rights. 30 Link – International Law.. 32 Link – Radical Democracy. 34 Link – Radical Democracy. 35 Link – Demo K Affs. 36 Link – Derrida/Undecidability. 37 Link – Agamben/Divisions Inevitable. 38 Link – Communist Revolution.. 39 Link – Revolution/AT Perm... 40 Division Inevitable. 41 Impact – Extinction.. 42 Impact – Extinction.. 44 Impact – Total War. 44 Impact – Permanent Universal War. 47 Impact – Booms. 49 Impact – HR-->Extermination.. 50 Alt – Conflict as Vocation.. 51 Alt – Lines in the Sand.. 53 Alt – Affirm Division.. 56 Alt Solvency – Divisions Good.. 58 Alt Solvency – Ethics/The Other. 59 AT Alt --> Violence. 60 No Enmity --> No Politics. 61 AT Rethinking.. 62 AT Ontology First 63

    4.00 USD

  15. Felix Hoenikker

    Very Kritikal Aff Question

    I'll give an example with the Ecofem Aff that I read on the Energy Topic this year, the aff essentially rejected the mechanisms and framework of the topic and affirmed an ecofeminist pedagogy vis a vis the environment, energy, etc. Our interpretation for debate is that affirmatives must be restricted to instrumental, epistemic, and ontological affirmations of the resolution. This means all discussion must be limited by the question of the mechanism and object(s) of the topic. Offense on top: Only three impact areas – First is Predictable Ground – a) Even if absolute predictability were possible it wouldn’t be desirable: debate would be an endless repetition of the same arguments without innovation or creativity – people leave the activity when it becomes stale, lifeless, and un-relatable. b ) An instrumental policy is not the only predictable or the best point of stasis for debate vis-à -vis climate change, the best analysis are at earlier stasis points in argumentative progression that intersect between disparate fields. Jumping to the last stasis point of techno-scientific decision making means climate debates are always at an impasse. Malone in 12 (Elizabeth LL; PhD Sociology @ U of Maryland, MA Comms @ Purdue, nobel peace prize winner 2007 for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc http://www.pnl.gov/science/staff/staff_info.asp?staff_num=5697 ; Debating Climate Change: Pathways through Argument to Agreement; p. n/a ebook; Google Books/Routledge) One way to cluster the arguments is to determine where they are in terms of AND shared across the boundaries of science, social solidarity and politics/policy. Second their Education is Bad a) Repeats the Public/Private division: Patriarchy brackets out subjective marginalized epistemic positions as grounded in emotion as irrelevant while valorizing “objective†knowledge claims. Switch side doesn’t solve – instrumental focus always crowds out these forms of knowledge b ) Elite focus bad – it relies on problematic notions of human nature that restrict political agency and detract from local politics. Plumwood in 7 (Val; Australian Research Council Fellow @ Australian National University, ecofeminist and founder of the ecological humanities; “Has democracy failed ecology? An Ecofeminist perspective,†Environmental Politics Vol 4 Iss 4; Taylor and Francis) If liberal democracy (by which I mean the attempt to combine liberal principles of AND in the long run, the only source of hope for real improvement. Third it disengages students: a) Disembodied education leaves violent paradigms unchallenged and causes a backlash from the supposed receivers of knowledge. Peers in 12 (Chris; Faculty of Education of Monash University; “Freud, Plato and Irigaray: A morpho-logic of teaching and learningâ€; Educational Philosophy and Theory,Vol. 44, No. 7; Ebsco Host)\ In the absence of historical and cultural signifiers, the reconciliation of teaching and learning AND of course, that the teacher who won’t listen similarly destabilizes pedagogical logic.) b ) Switch side decouples advocacy from sincerity which normalizes neoliberal models of education. Hicks and Greene in 5 (darrin and walter, LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens, cultural studies, vol 19 no 1) But why dredge up this event ...and uptake of cultural technologies. c) Your role as a judge and academic should be to advance the most ethical pedagogical approaches. Kretz in 12 (Lisa; “Climate Change: Bridging the Theory-Action Gap†ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 17:2; MUSE) Academic ethicists are uniquely ...political, economic, and social locations. Next is our defense. a) Predictable Ground: All topic research is directed at the objects of the topic as well as the topic mechanism. Since all research they believe predictable assumes a supply side framework then all research would be relevant offense or defense means virtually all disadvantages, case negatives, and K answers apply. b ) Predictability doesn’t exist and is impossible to universalize: no universal standard and voting on framework can’t implement a static model of predictable debate c) No objective standard for textual interpretation means you default to broad interpretations of the resolution Gehrke in 98 (Gehrke, Pat J. "Critique arguments as policy analysis: policy debate beyond the rationalist perspective." Perspectives in Controversy: Selected Essays from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate (2002): 302) Similarly, we might say that any policy debater who does not seek a critical AND interpretive, Berube's objective standard for encountering a text never can be met. d) Switch side is a myth: teams never truly switch sides – teams will read framework on the aff and neg to preserve their preferred ground. e) No Impact to Topic Education: The function of tournaments is to advance the most valuable pedagogical and epistemic methods and proposals derived from that research. Don’t Evaluate this Debate based on Competing Interpretations; Default to Reasonability: a) Infinitely regressive: so long as we don’t follow their interpretation to the ‘t’ they will always find some minute distinction to limit us out – reasonability solves b ) Predictable Ground is not Preferred Ground: No right to your favorite arguments only to debates limited by the topic area. Voting against us a big penalty. They should have to win that we have made debating impossible
×