Jump to content

Once-Ler

Member
  • Content Count

    1153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Once-Ler

  1. Aha! Nevermind my earlier comments about the link to the book and the book itself that Synergy posted. Scu's link clarifies the argument of the book by adding to what I thought contradicted Synergy's point by saying "This is neither necessary nor unavoidable and finding a way of creating identity without creating enemies is one of the major problems facing the contemporary world." Sort of an important omission, Amazon.
  2. Synergy, if you could just explain how Schmittian politics or this particular author conceives of enmity rather than just linking us all to the amazon profile of the book, it'd do a lot more to further the discussion. From what little information is there, I'm gleaning less that this book provides some a flexible definition of enmity but rather quite the opposite in the realm of diplomatic foreign relations ("Public identity can afford to be ambiguous about friends, but not about enemies"). I also see no hints that the author comes from any background that would write about the type of enmity that Schmitt seems to be referring to. EDIT!: Alex, I just noticed your post above and it certainly makes a good deal of sense. Literally every team worth their weight in lard running Nietzsche will have a very precise and efficient block (and probably even a sneaky technical trick) to answer "You justify genocides/holocausts/Nazi-rape.pornography" which they can tack a one card indict of Schmittean politics onto to have a Genocide NB or "disad to the counter-alt". There is a very good chance that if you are aff against a large Nietzschean K of security not only would you not want to risk losing what seems to be (god knows why) a stock answer to Nietzschean ethics but you also open yourself up to a (more) valid debate over the same impact (presumably) without much in-round experience or evidence on these questions.
  3. For those interested in answering Schmitt from the Nietzsche perspective, I haven't done extensive work in this direction but there are some more obvious answers you can make that fall in line with the more liberal interpretations of Nietzsche that lend themselves to Ks of security: 1. Impact turn by saying that the destruction of the political is good. There is plenty of interesting, if not compelling, work to suggest that modern politics typifies the slave's attempt at a inversion of all values while maintaining the appearance of vitality. You could also make the debate even more shallow by ignoring the type of spirit involved in politics and just that a destruction of the political is good. Granted, this is sort of the path of most resistance given that it literally is the crux of their argument. That shouldn't scare you away from it. In fact, most aff teams are probably a lot more unfamiliar with making a defense of Schmitt's politics than you are at doing comparative impact analysis on the Security K. And if they are on more familiar ground than you, you are probably going to lose anyway so you should start cheating (see #3) 2. No link their counterK. The alt is global inclusion or an attempt to universalize ideas of peace? Poppycock! The beauty of the Nietzschean criticism is that it has strategic flexibility within its own spectrum of thought and this argument lets you use that to its fullest potential. If you have done your job as a 2NC and have to the utmost of your capacity particularized your link scenarios to the aff and also explained examples of how the impact will be played out in a convincing manner, you are now on the correct side of the specificity of offense. This means while they say security good to seperate friends/enemies, you've got several specific "disads" to the logic presented in the 1AC while they have a wholesale defense of security as being good because of one capacity. Hell, even if you choose to lose this Schmittian debate, just win your impact comparison and if you're doing better link analysis, it shouldn't be a problem in the end. 3. The counter-criticism is not philosophically consistant with the 1AC. For once, you dirty K debaters may get a chance to get your theory on. I think it is rather obvious that most impact scenarios read in the 1AC of 99.98%* of AFFs aren't attempts to simply manage the agonism of a regional or global conflict but rather to act preventatively to stop escalation, antagonism, etc. There are very convincing theoretical objections to coutner-criticisms that don't prove the aff right but simply prove the neg wrong. Examples: Think of every reason that rejection alts are bad. Think of every reason that alternatives are good. Think of every reason why textual competition is good. Think of every reason the aff should have to present a consistent defense of the plan and the 1AC representation/performance. Etc. You should be careful here if they read framework about why Ks are unfair especially if they make the argument that it forces the aff to such abstractions that they have to debate against the 1AC. I'm not sure how popular/frequent this argument is, but if its made and unanswered, it seems to justify their inconsistent philosophical frameworks. There are more but I'm too distracted to finish this thought process. I also apologize that this post has been mostly debate/strategy-centered while those of us who post frequently prefer threads about the actual philosophies involved. This thread in particular seemed directed towards the feasibility of Schmitt as a 2AC option which made the strategy discussion pertinent, in my mind. Maybe more about my thoughts about the actual content of the argument later. * - arbitrary and unresearched.
  4. There's no way this could be correct. For example, Kansas has sent teams to St. Marks, GHill, and Maine East. All of these tournaments have included competitors from Bishop Guerton and Fullerton (both far beyond 500 miles). Not to mention, the individual squad could not be held responsible for knowing the location from the border of all invited teams for each tournament it attends.
  5. In which case the arbitrary mile limit makes no sense. This is a justification for a "no out of state schools" rule, not a 500 mile rule (though I think we can all rejoice that even KSHSAA isn't ridiculous enough to prevent all out of state competitors from coming in). Also, that type of thinking makes no sense. What privileges are garnered from being a KSHSAA school (beyond the State tournament where 'privilege' becomes a very questionable phrase indeed)? Also, Alex is very right. Getting Texas up to this tournament almost seems imperative to its continued expansion. The draw is natural (cheap price, geographic feasibility, urban setting makes lodging economic) but some people should work on informing squads in Texas early. More bid winners competing = greater expansion And after seeing this year's numbers, I don't think anyone will deny that Texas is a TOC bid powerhouse.
  6. Sure. I didn't take your comment to mean the Mid-West weren't capable. I was just saying that, especially in this instance, the rule makes little to no sense. If it is meant to shield from competition from far-away schools of presumably better quality, it should not be so.
  7. Once-Ler

    Coaching

    Hello Texas, My name is John Cook. I was a four-year debater at Winfield High School in Kansas. I'm moving to Waco very soon and would like to offer my coaching services to anyone willing to pay. I am not necessarily looking for a long-term employment with one school (even a season might be a bit much) as my college debate and personal schedules may keep me from traveling very frequently to help your team. But, if you find your team in need of some advice, suggestions, or even cards, I can be your hero (baby). I'm probably most well known as some stupid backpack-carrying Nietzsche debater and while I certainly enjoy and consider myself at least somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, I have more utility than that alone. Contact me if you are interested, preferably through email: johntheempire@gmail.com Edit: As is noted in the judging thread, I am more charming, winning, witty, and suave than your current coaching staff. I am not, however, more beautiful. We have to leave something behind for the others.
  8. If it is to become such a prestigious and valued oppertunity, these Midwest teams should have no trouble holding their own against kids from all over the nation and if they can't win and Brox Science or CPS or whoever goes bid hunting and cleans up, so be it. Debate is debate and a round is just a round. This rule is ridiculous but alas, this is not the place to discuss KSHSAA's many inadequacies. I think I may make my return to judge at this tournament. Kansas and the greater Midwest: Get your strike sheets ready!
  9. Yes. In fact, there was a scan of it passed around a while back. It's quite a good read and cuttable to a much smaller degree than most Deleuze but still worth the time.
  10. Hey kids, You should buy Buntin's files. He cuts quality evidence that most of you probably won't have. I approve highly. Get on it.
  11. Even if your arguments about CP solvency were conceded, you still need a net benefit to your counterplan that can't be critiqued effectively by the 2AC. I don't know what that would look like. The strategy for most critical affs isn't to include the counterplan when writing the aff but rather to have several Ks lined up on different impact stories so as to be able to K the logic of any feasible counterplan.
  12. Once-Ler

    College Judging

    Limited availability (probably due to high demand) John Cook 4 years of awesome at Winfield in South Kansas Currently at Baylor University in Waco, TX johntheempire [at] gmail.com
  13. John Cook Baylor University Philosophy Debating 4 $$$
  14. Zach: You've once again caught me in my poor phrasing and, as was said of Deleuze, returned my loose, light ideas into cannon balls. I think that you are entirely right on the question of Nietzsche rejecting the debate about the meaninglessness or the meaning of existence and that his work is to expose why this question can exist or, phrased more within his vocabulary, what type of creature could ask this of himself. However, in his earlier writings it is important to note that he certainly took up the side of meaninglessness on this debate. Certainly he is speaking more specifically about 'the will to truth' or knowledge but these passages seem to me to be an indictment of the false belief in purpose which he saw as plaguing existence. I'm thinking here of his parable about the creation of the Earth and human life in "On Truth and Lies, in a Non-Moral Sense". I will quote the selection I'm thinking of here: However, the last paragraph of your post is so eloquent and appropriately expressive, I should hardly wish to taint it with my commentary.
  15. Zupancic writes quite the nice Reps K about representations of suffering and proposed enjoyment in 'The Shortest Shadow: On Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Two'. This is part of the Nietzsche file I've been selling for a while and it is awesomely responsive to narratives of suffering. I am convinced that this is quite the money shot against almost any narratives aff next year. You could also just read some analytic "narratives bad" theory-style arguments if you prefer a more 'straight up' style of debate, but given the forum you're in, that's not what you're looking for.
  16. Ok. My thoughts: It pains me to say this but Synergy is probably the most accurate person on this thread thus far, in my opinion. Nietzsche DOES dileniate between active and passive forms of nihilism in several places in his writings (Far too numerous here to provide adequate citation). This distinction is not used to glorify the active mode of nihilism however and Nietzsche decries "man would rather will nothingness than not to will" (this was from memory so maybe it's more of an approximation). To Nietzsche, active nihilism eventually founders and burns out into passive nihilism because active nihilism's insistance on the valueless-ness of all things prevents us from ascribing our actions any validity in our own eyes. This means that active nihilism is only a brief pause before the darkness of passive nihilism in which we refuse to act because of the inevitable futility or valuelessness of existence. Furthermore, nihilism is not the lack of action or 'doing nothing'. More specifically, for Nietzsche, it is not just a lack of meaning but a lack of value brough on by a lack of meaning. This is perhaps the most concise way I know to explain the relationship of Nietzsche to nihilism. Nihilism tells us that because of the inherent lack of meaning, all things lack value. Nietzsche tells us that we should overcome this lack of meaning by creating our own positive values out of this meaninglessness. Bad-Aff: Nihilism is not that things lack meaning but rather that because of this lack of meaning, they also lack value. Nietzsche isn't a philosopher concerned with re-orienting our values but rather with re-orienting our perspective on life so that out of this affirmation can come joy. What those values should or ought to be or rather, how they ought to be forged is a discussion beyond the scope of this thread.
  17. Once-Ler

    Save Kansas PFD!

    I'll make my response concise by sticking to the arguments I introduced. If you can't answer 4 bad cards with a single card with much better warrants, you're not good at debate and will lose the event in question no matter what resources you are afforded. Good evidence doesn't always trump quantity because there are always bad debaters at every level (too many examples here to fathom). You make three arguments here ("hurts debate, temporary, and hurts education) 1. "No argument has been done more damage to the community" Warrantless. This swipe is probably done in the vein of "it detracts us from policy issues" arguments. If you can't justify the position you take, then you should lose. This is a pretty solid agreement amongst people in the debate community. If you can justify what you do or the logic that makes your plan a good idea, then you should be just fine. There is nothing unfair about forcing a team to defend their ideas. 2. "Temporary solution" Temporary must mean an incredibly longer time than I imagine. I can't seem to find that card from camp that made teams running Foucault start losing in droves or which made NEGs too scared to read Shapiro. It is much more likely that, instead of your seemingly impossible K-slayer scenario, that K debates pan out (in terms of evidence and research) like most other debates where team attempts to find evidenciary support for their position. But then again, maybe Andover is sitting on a goldmine of devastating K answers the rest of the debate world has yet to stumble upon. You say it weakens the argument each time a new card in response is found. Find me a policy argument that doesn't mirror this. Also, because of the MUCH shorter timeframe and prolific nature of political writings, it's much more likely that your disad is going to be good for 2 tournaments tops before someone finds a non-unique that makes your argument untenable. Debating Nietzsche or Heidegger doesn't really present the same rush to check CNN for the updates. Also, scholarly debate about philosophy often works bidirectionally meaning as the supporting literature base grows, so does the opposition. See the enormous Lacanians vs. Deleuzians debate going on for proof of this. (Alex Bonnet and I have both waded through hundreds of pages of this shit and it just shows no sign of stopping on either side). 3. "Hurts education because NEG recycles their position" A few responses: I'm not such a huge fan of breadth over depth arguments. Recycling the same argument means that while you maintain the same literature base, you can spin these arguments in new creative ways. Even just a single philosopher in the hands of a competent K debater can become a piece of clay lending itself to become explosive as of the 1NC. But to be fair, this may negate some topic specific education neg teams might otherwise garner. As we're all speaking as Kansans (something I have very little time left to do), you and I both know the nature of the judging pool at literally every tournament in Kansas demands flexible negative research. You don't really garner topic specific education in the round so as long as you still have to do the other research, it's functionally the same. All the same, I'll still take a deep K debate over a very shallow 'Yes'-'No' kind of policy debate any day. Remember that the education from debate doesn't come directly from clash, but from the attempted resolution of that clash. When your evidence says yes and mine says no, no one has learned anything except that two people have opposing opinions. The warrants present the opportunity for educational exchange meaning debate has to maintain some amount of depth to retain value. Also, your camp evidence argument and your recycling argument contradict. According to you either Ks get the beat down when better aff cards are found each year or teams recycle their arguments year after year. More probably, a few teams recycle arguments and a few people cut some good cards on both side of the debate. As for your arguments about handbooks and processed evidence production: I honestly cannot imagine the last time a card was gleaned from a handbook to an educational end. Not only does using handbooks make a debater lazy, it dissuades them from cutting arguments along a different tangent, and it is generally very very low in quality. Before every handbook-ordering coach and debate junkie jumps on me about handbooks, yes my same arguments apply to camp evidence you didn't cut. I just have a unique hate for most handbooks because 90% of them are done without regard for quality and the evidence lacks a lot of warrants. I also hold particular contempt for those who use these as a jumping off point of the season. They should be used as a supplement when you are crunched, not as a set of training wheels which you'll inevitably become tied to. Do exploratory research, come up with innovative approaches to the topic, do your own research and if that fails. None of my handbook claims apply to the Skoglund brothers' handbook which was done with a particular eye fro quality and appropriate quantity of evidence and which can be purchased by talking to either of them directly. Here's an idea: Debate starts at home on Muse, JSTOR, and Lexis; steal an account, cut your own evidence, and start actually debating.
  18. Once-Ler

    Save Kansas PFD!

    This is one of the least correct characterizations I've heard about policy debate in a while now. A few things disprove this argument: 1. Quality vs. Quantity. Even in the highest caliber, balls to the walls, politics debate reading a good card is better than reading 4 bad cards that say the opposite. This means finding cards with better warrants, cards that assume things other cards don't, finding newer cards, and spinning those cards in a creative way in round. Sure, more coaches means a higher probability of finding these good cards but debate is supposed to be a challenge. Learn to distinguish an A piece of evidence from an "A+" piece of evidence and something you should not cut is a skill that even the highest paid coaches often lack. A single person cutting 5 cards can win a politics debate if they know what to cut and only cut the best cards they need to win. 2. The Critique. Talk about the great equalizer! If you have a chance to make the debate round less about internals to hegemony and extinction and more about detailed knowledge of metaphysics and their relation to the aff, how could the smaller squad not come out ahead? This functionally lets you redefine the debate in the 1NC to a body of knowledge you are comfortable debating. Granted you run the risk of being run off your aff ground when you read the 1AC but when you're hitting a squad with 10 cardslaves who know what good cards are, would you rather hear a one-off 1NC or ten with 5 separate disads? This seems untrue to me. Look at the final round of PFD for a telling example. The Con side won more on an inherency takeout (to put it in familiar terms) than anything else. Basic logic skills and the ability to call bullshit seem to be the prevailing methodology of winning these lay puff rounds. Granted, the format (slow, deliberate speaking, emphasis on manners, etc) would present a challenge to some policy debaters (Imagine me trying to be nice and cordial in a debate round!), the style and depth of the arguments would not present a challenge (or probably any interest) to 90% of policy debaters. We are used to thinking about a broader range of topics, in a more deep and substantial fashion than PFD requires anyone to do. I'm all for solidarity but it seems that in Kansas, this has lately turned from solidarity to help each other to more of a pity party about how we don't have big squads, research, coaching staff, etc. I say it's time to stop licking the wounds created by so much inbreeding and respect for tradition and face the facts. There are only a handful of huge, dominant policy debate squads around the country. None of them are from Kansas. Instead of bemoaning the lacking chance to debate for GBX or St. Marks, debaters from Kansas should accept the task of debating against insurmountable resources as a chance to test themselves not against the team alone but also against the coaches, the cardslaves, and the fancy college debaters. The obvious response is "teams should debate teams, not coaches". My less obvious response is "suck it up". We do debate to get better at debate and thinking on our feet. What better way to do that than sit back and let the other team have their coaches prep against you. The other team may gain nothing from this but you will have to respond to their prewritten arguments meaning you'll come out gaining more from the exchange. On several occasions, because of the predictable nature of our negative strategy this year, teams have flocks of coaches crowd about them before the round began helping them write, print, and highlight 2ACs. I never approached this practice as unfair or disadvantageous to the educational process because, like most people, I'm in debate for me. The other team may not learn as much but at least I am challenged by debating the work of 4 or more people, rather than just 1 or 2. We'll always be behind in resources and I wouldn't have it any other way. It seems some people need to re-translate 'Ad Astra Per Aspera'
  19. John Cook Winfield (KS) HS/Baylor University Debating in college Debated 4 years at an unknown HS including 2 quals to NFL (not that anyone cares), and a senior year that included 2 undefeated circuit prelim records (Colleyville, Valley), breaks at several others, a win against TOC Semifinalists Woodlands LM, and a backpacking with Nietzsche strategy that caused a lot of angst for a lot of people (my partner included). I might have got some speaker awards too but whatever. I'll travel with you or judge around Texas depending on the weekend/pay/my whim. I'm also funnier, more entertaining, more charming, and more intelligent than whoever you have judging for you at the moment. Don't ask me to judge IE stuff unless you are willing to compensate me for my suicide (this rate is shockingly lower than many would expect). Email: johntheempire [at] gmail.com
  20. Once-Ler

    Save Kansas PFD!

    FauxTML = Hot.
  21. Once-Ler

    Save Kansas PFD!

    As I said to the person to my right while watching PFD finals: I consider it testament to the general greater logic skills and intelligence of policy debaters in general that you could have literally thrown any random policy debater into the finals round of PFD with little to no knowledge about gun control (the topic) and they could have held their own. PFD is for people not willing to suck it up and debate policy. You can ramble all you'd like about its educational benefits, etc. but all of these derive from being close to policy, not from being its own event. I'm all for letting it hang around though. Sort of like letting Darwin's birds into a room with a cat...
  22. My partner and I went one-off in virtually all rounds we had this season. We split the block in this fashion: 2NC: K line-by-line 1NR: Perms and Framework or in case one or both of those was not read, prewritten 1NR link+impact modules. Essentially, view the 1NR as a chance to say the things your 2NC didn't have time do or which require little in-depth knowledge of the K. Don't be afraid to undercover the line-by-line in the 2NC in favor of producing a more story link approach with isolated link, impact, and alternative explanations. Also, if the 1NR feels less comfortable with his/her knowledge of the K you're running (often the case), having prewritten blocks with a link card on top and either an explanation of the link to your 1NC impact(s) or a new impact card can be a very useful way to spend the 1NR's time. Also important, if your 1NR is not making arguments (hint: talking does not equal making arguments), get them to sit down. They are functionally handing the 1AR prep. Better to have a 2 minute 1NR full of arguments than 2 minutes worth of arguments and 3 minutes of 1AR prep. Edit: One more piece of somewhat unorthodox advice: Use the cross-x of your 2NC to the 1NR's advantage. You should not use prep between these speeches but you can pull cards/write arguments for your 1NR while you're sitting there dicking around. If the 2A's questions make you look weak on a particular link/impact, have your 1NR read another card or explanation. The point of the 1NR, in my mind, is to fuck with the 1AR. The easiest way to do that is to pick up on what they're going for and preemptively add warrants or cards to the argument in question. If you look at the 1AR during a 1NR where you know you're closing the door they were writing their 1AR to open, it becomes apparent rather quickly that they are super pissed and then you've completed your task of fucking with the 1AR.
  23. Sorry to revive this thread but it should die with relative ease. I will be at NFL Nationals around Wichita this week. I will be selling files (Nietzsche and Answers to Nietzsche/Deleuze's Nietzsche) in person to anyone who wants a copy. Please contact me as this is the fastest, easiest, and most probably the best way to get your file(s). I will make deals with anyone willing to purchase both the file and answers. I will probably make deals with anyone with cash and a pulse. ***NOTE*** If you think you may want this file or answers for next year (and, if original file sales are any indication, there are a LOT of you out there who should be looking for answers), please do not hesitate to contact me because after NFL, I will be virtually unreachable for several months. It is easiest to contact me via my email: johntheempire@gmail.com or even better to call me, if you or someone you know happens to have the number.
×
×
  • Create New...