Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Good

About karlos9569

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. While I think that predictability is probably the best standard of T, it still not some golden child to rest our laurels on and I think Schoofs, you may be missing the point of kevin's post. Predictability is not a prerequisite for debate to happen because its a completely arbitrary notion of what ground is dictated by the resolution. Ive hit plenty of 'policy' affs about the most miniscule pieces of Chinese foreign policy this year and still had shit to say to them. You seem to be indicting generic disads and K's as a byproduct of people forgoing topicality, but that is in no way unique to critical affs outside normal area, nor is it something that would stop if critical affs were to disappear. Generally, I think that topic specific education is an important part of policy debate and should occur, but the general idea is that there is no way to quantify education standards in the round, a team isnt going to keep you from learning about the topic because they have a midget porn aff. You may not want to debate about midget porn, but teams are not entitled to ground, God did come down and bequeth inalienable rights to ground to policy debaters. Furthermore, I think that an important question to predictability as a standard is fairness since predictability is generally predicated on fairness. However, fairness in round is rather hard to actually determine and seperate because of the resource disparities between teams, I will never have as many cards on as many different things that Northwestern or Harvard do, fairness is already skewed by out of round issues and to say that we can look at it in a vacuum in round is pretty naive.
  2. I've stayed out of this conversation thus far because I feel that any contribution I manage to make will be snuffed by my inability to articulate how we can overcome problematic structures in debate. To me, as has been said before, flowing tends to be a violent act. We take the formations of arguments and words and assign them a cartography on our sheets of paper both as a function of where we are told to put them as well as by our own cognition and remaking of the arguments. Ultimately, I am immediately drawn to the discussion of mapping and tracing in the beginning of ATP, because it seems impossible to flow without merely becoming a tracing. Even our attempts to break a flowing model merely reproduce tracings as we consume the arguments presented and regurgitate some semblance (maybe simulacra) of the original argument, or string of words. So flowing presents itself as inherently paradoxical, we attempt to harness the technology of the flow as a way to preserve the agency of the debaters in the round, to not insert words into their mouths or silence their protests, but we are ultimately going to by introducing spatiality into the notion of interaction of argumentation. We identify ways of judging accordingly, as 'drops' become easy ways to decide rounds, or the primacy of theory and jurisdictional issues in the decision making calculus. Even within a K round, we functionally reproduce cartographic images of how the argument functions...links at the top of the flow, impacts on the bottom, the alternative on a different page altogether. The act of flowing inevitably seperates the judge from the agency of the arguments themselves as they do nothing but follow this conflation of geographic space and identity. So do we stop flowing? Would a non-flow decision be any less traumatic than a flowed one? I don't think I have an adequate answer to these questions, although I tend to believe notions of representation cannot be seperated or even articulated in terms of the battle over the primacy of mediums in debate. Even then, I am still troubled by my desire to overcome the flow, is it even necessary to overcome violence? Or am I just transcribing to a notion of metaphysical clarity, as I try to chase the elusive Truth down the rabbit hole?
  3. Hmm, while I think I agree with Shuman about shoehorning "util is good and it solves judge" into Nuke Mal or Spark is pretty dumb and intellectually dishonest, I would like to point out that Util is not just Mill and it doesn't belong to him alone, and to think that only really invites more people to shoehorn because we create these monolithic representations of what Util is and should be by just condemning arguments as "THAT'S NOT UTIL!! AR!"
  4. Arn't we cutting edge and postmodern? More on point, policy isn't a "thing" that is has become, but it has changed, due to both demands from the back of the room as well as influx of technique and more jargon over the years that seems mostly unavoidable to any event as it changes and morphs over the years. Which is means that this can't be intrisically bad and there has to be an alternate explanation for why debate levels are dropping. I do believe burnout is a major factor. As well as lack of administrator support. But I also believe that kids (like I refer to them, when I probably am still one) these days are honestly increasingly apathetic about what goes on around them and apathetic to learning in general. When you don't care about politics or current issues, or you don't like to read philosophy and literature, there is little that debate is going to offer you and thus little incentive for people to join. I know for one that this is a major factor behind the dropping participation levels around my home district. Also, internal politics in debate are absolute bullshit, the more than judges race to become tab and vote on shitty arguments because they want to be cool or don't want to get yelled at by a bunch of arrogant asshole kids who think that they know everything about Zizek or whatever theorist is flavor of the month. I have spent more time than I care to to explain to people why I voted against them only to have them plainly tell me that I "don't understand Kant (this is LD)" or in the policy rounds "you have no clue what Zizek is saying" when I'm pretty sure that not only have I read more than these people but I have engaged in far more critical discourse with people that are a position to critique my understanding, people that have been dealing with such matters as their profession. Not only that, but we have coaches in my home district throwing rounds, and setting up things how they want. Debate has become so fucking competitive that everyone is just looking for any way to win, there are plenty of people that don't want to be part of that or just become burned out and leave the activity. I feel that there are general societal trends that are contributing more to this decline of debate rather than the practices are generated by the event itself. Debate is in fact thriving in other countries and growing rapidly among "highschool" students in Japan.
  5. In retrospect, that post doesn't make a lot of sense. What I was trying to say is not that your paper is making fallacious claims, but that its taking analysis from disparaging authors without clear explanation of how and where you are jumping off from their analysis, call it lack of internal links if you will. Primarily, I was saying that since Agamben and Ranciere disagree quite a bit as to what the political subject is, that you aren't weighing in on it at an important time. I don't think that you need to pick a side per se, but as I read I am left wondering somewhat how the Agambenian (?) and Rancierian analysis interacts with each other, whereas I see clearly how those pieces interact with the central thesis of the paper. It's almost like I was expecting a few sentences or so that explained the differences that the political subject has between the two authors and how that interacts with the animal, because I think to a certain extent it does. Not enough to warrant an entire section devoted to it, but at least lip service.
  6. karlos9569


    I am apt to believe that most IR is a repair and/or reconstruction of realism if it assumes the same state of nature. Which would rule out things like cosmopolitanism, but include soft power.
  7. I have to say that I'm both impressed and intrigued by this reading of Kafka, good job Scu. The only thing I have is potential constructive criticism, but only if I'm actually right about my reading of Ranciere. As I read him, Ranciere blasts Agamben for creating spheres of politics, when Ranciere claims that this in fact creates consensus and disables political agency. Or to use his language, it puts us in an "ontological trap" as "Agamben' s argument is in line with the classical opposition between the illusion of sovereignty and its real content. As a result, he misses the logic of political subjectivization. Political subjects are surplus subjects. They inscribe the count of the uncounted as a supplement. Politics does not separate a specific sphere of political life from the other spheres. It separates the whole of the community from itself. It opposes two counts of counting it." It seems to me that Ranciere is arguing for a reconception of political subjectivization through paradox, that we must abandon the notion of locating politics and rights to be had in opposition to those without rights. While Ranciere does in fact argue that the conception of counting police as constructing the community, its seperating the whole community from itself, not merely the seperating of a political life from the community. In this way it is not a sphere, but an ongoing process. The political subject has to be indentified with the totality of those who have no qualification to exercise authority, a count of the uncounted. So if political man is a speaking man, and we all are indeed animals then we all are just a supplementary part, an "empty part that separates the political community from the count of the parts of the population." If we truly see biopower policing us, counting and placing, then we have entered a situation in which we are both supposed to be counted and uncounted but Agamben's analysis in turn opposes Ranciere because were Agamben wants to create a sphere of the uncounted in the state of exception, it is that state that creates the logic of political subjectivization for Ranciere. We have no qualification for exercising authority or possessing sovereignty, but we must be counted as a demos, the paradoxical relationship that creates these specific scenes of dissensus. I suppose what I am trying to articulate is that your analysis from Agamben and his creation of a political subject is not the same one that Ranciere is creating. But, I could very well be misreading Ranciere when he's referencing Agamben and such. Ranciere source.
  8. karlos9569


    That's why I said tenet, its the core from which realists make other arguments...the maximization of self interest due to anarchic international arenas. Although, a lot of IR that gets other names is really just a flavor of realism.
  9. I assume you mean Grundrisse, and I'm still kind of missing where H&N getting the notion of agency grounded in materialism. I believe I see how they read an agency in light of Gramsci, but that seems to sever what Marx is critiquing about the Young Hegelians.
  10. karlos9569


    I honestly fail to see how anarchy is a "product" of realism and not the other way around. If the international system were not conceived as anarchic, then realism would be irrelevant. Or more succinctly, if the state of nature was not Hobbesian, then realism would be irrelevant. Which, despite the entire circularity of the security dilemma, for the realists themselves, means that anarchy is causative factor for at least normative realism.
  11. karlos9569


    Realism is not a monolithic theory that we can just classify x is realism, y is not. There are varying degrees of realism, several schools, and multiple mechanisms articulated by the authors for the explanation and continuation of realism into the new era. Anarchy is the state from which realism operates, realism is articulated as a theory because of the supposed existence of the security dilemma. And the father of modern realism, Morgenthau, who uses the appropriation from the Trotskyists about the Hobbesian state of nature is a more in depth and possible explanation about the foundations of realism. Realism does not create anarchic international relations. The basic tenet of realism is that states make decisions based upon the maximization of interest, so if you prove that a state thinks democracy is the maximization of interest via Kantian neoliberalism, then it fits into the paradigm of realism. Not all realists are neocons hard power nuts. As far as psychological conceptions of threat and interest goes, there are realist theorists that do not approach it from just the idea that we have to look at the security dilemma as an empirical dilemma, but also as a psychological one. To that end, I think that Bork is right insofar as there are realists that are slightly more "critical" and do use conceptions of threat construction as a m.o.
  12. I still maintain that this article, while certainly boring, is both important in and out of the debate round. It's got some interesting exposition on Agamben (who is a fucking popular debate author) and, like I said, understand what is going on it can be a good debate argument as well as a worthy topic of academic discussion. Just because a team lost with it doesn't invalidate it.
  13. It is the son thing, like the man thing in human. Personally, I think it's a bit over the top. Fireman I understand, humyns I don't. Honestly, I think the whole debate boils down to how much inherent value difference has. Baudrillard and other people that think there is a general logic of the same everthing is ascribed to are going to reject notions of degenderizing things. Whereas someone on the flip side, like Tickner, and most feminists would disagree and embrace the notions of difference being central to conceptions of reality. Feminists arent the only ones too, you would have Levinas and his spinoffs.
  14. Obviously sarcasm is something is often missed in electronic media. Threat Con arguments don't operate on the same level as realism arguments, just like Campbell is disregarded in a lot of political science depts while he's much more popular in Eng Lit Depts. Saying that realism good/inevitable is responsive is cromagnon K debate and just misses the boat.
  15. And that's why some people picked the Steelers to beat the Colts, too bad we saw how that worked out. The Colts defense isn't big by any means, but its fast and Sanders is an absolute beast at picking people up after they find the hole. He straight wrecked the potentially good runs the Steelers tried to pull, as well as the screen.
  • Create New...