Jump to content

Once-Ler

Member
  • Content Count

    1153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Once-Ler

  1. I will drive to see this film. Granted, I'll be in Waco during its run in theatres which should give me a better shot of seeing it. And "Cookie", I laughed at your intial post. Gill has been calling me cookie for a while now. Apparently, the girls find it endearing or something. *shrug*
  2. I've always disagreed with this statement with a few notable exceptions: 1. Scientific claims - The sciences are probably one of the most universally accepted "truths" about our world and the innerworkings of things like physics, geology, etc. are very complex. There are times when logic and warrants aren't enough and you need a well-respected scientific source to make claims. 2. Causally Descriptive Claims - This bleeds into science pretty obviously but someone with a specialized familiarity with the history of a certain subject take I think other than these a few more instance that have slipped my mind, author quals are relatively unimportant. To simply say "our author is smarter than yours" on a debate about a certain philosophical idea or the wisest course of action is too frequently a cop-out for debating the warrants. Who cares who said what? If it's a smart idea, then it's defensible because of its warrants, not because of who presented the idea.
  3. Surely, amongst mandatory reading, someone else read this and thought "Hey! I'm debating about Africa next year and this book seems to be attempting to make a argument through literature" I was wondering if anyone had looked into this.
  4. Once-Ler

    Nietzsche Kritik

    A CP to take aid out of Africa would be competitive because, most probably Aff plans which seek to establish a policy increasing public health assistance will not include a repeal or removal of pre-existing aid but rather argue that it is inadequate or mismanaged, etc. Of course, this conversation about exclusivity really isn't one of mechanisms but rather of specific programs in question. The question of exclusivity can really only be answered if we know the degree to which the plan action would involve the aid the CP would attempt to stop. As for the original point of this thread, a few thoughts: Synergy is right is saying the pull out CP would have little support from Nietzsche. Those who argue otherwise are probably making reference to the (in)famous comments on pity but it is important to distinguish pity from concern. I don't think that saying "there are diseases killing people so we should affirm the abundence of our spirit by bringing up those around us with acts of creative spirit" is against the grain of Nietzsche's writing. However, most AFFs will probably take the more burdensome approach to the experience of Africans without adequade health care and spend 8 minutes bemoaning the tragic humanitarian conditions, making the logic of the 1AC one where the plan is defended in a spirit of guilt and shame. This means most Nietzsche teams will have a fairly easy link to their arguments next year. Nietzsche is a lot more subtle than most debates allow you to explain so a lot gets thrown to the side of assumption or perhaps overly specific indicts of the rhetoric of the 1AC without an explanation for why Nietzsche might hold distain for the performance of the 1AC. I will strongly urge many negative teams next year to discuss the performative impacts of the 1AC as endowing the spectators with a spirit of bad conscious rather than attempting to garner links from the plan action or African aid. Most itnerpretations of Nietzsche that say "fuck other people" are misplaced and more open to criticisms of his allegiance with various things historically that are really fucked up. Instead, problematizing the way the 1AC presents their solution and the logic and tone they use to do so should be the focus. This will allow for a more nuanced and subtle debate. This is something I wish someone would've mentioned to me earlier because I feel it allows you space to make more clear, concise statements about your argument. With that being said, my Nietzsche file (Deleuze and Zupancic) is still for sale. If you want it, please contact me soon as I'll be going to camp soon and conducting business there is always difficult. If anyone is interested, I could write a small Africa addendum and sell that as well but as I have no vested interest in the work anymore, it won't get done until someone expresses interest.
  5. There is a strong difference from someone tangentially related to something which we suspect is bad or atrocious and someone who had a direct role in bringing about those atrocities. The standard I use to evaluate this question is this: Are the author indicts that I'll hear applicable to the specific ideas I present? If so, then don't be shady and just tackle them head on. If they aren't be prepared to explain why they aren't because every time you say Nietzsche/Heidegger/Berube/whoever, you're going to get some sort of personal attack on your thinker. Essentially, I consider it like any other debate. If the other team can prove that the theories of the person are implicated in the life they lead or their other works, then you probably have to defend your author on the whole. You are by default however, only accountable for the cards and arguments you make in the round. Edit: The pairing of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Berube is awkward. I apologize.
  6. There are no rules of debate, Synergy. You just do what you can defend or you lose. I think this is a fair question. I'm sure that Alex has plenty of reasons why but I think that this is the question you actually meant to ask above and it is more than fair. Two things: 1. I'm sure you that even you Synergy would end up coming down on the side of Deleuze. He's a big fan of objective reality as it really exists (not that "the world is a construct" nonsense). Repositioning how we understand identity can allow us to posit conflict (including nuclear conflict) in a new way by realizing the performance aspect of what we call identity, the desire to purify those things which cause us discomfort is minimalized. Every time war is considered it is to either change some other country's course of action, to expunge something objectionable, or to displace land/resources. 2. I didn't say the aff had nothing to do with health care. I said that the point (meaning, main argument) of the aff wasn't based on the health care; accruing the advantage isn't based on better health care but rather on the resulting processes of considering oneself African. The point of the aff is to force the spectators to become-African temporarily to think differently about questions of identity. The mechanism of this aff is topical (if somewhat controversial). But somehow I don't think Alex is unprepared for teams saying "Sub-Saharan Africa is not This Room "
  7. Synergy: Your post here is amongst your worst thought out (testament to itself) on this site. Your statement about how the USFG provides us all with health (a dubious claim even assuming we speak of 'us' as collectively legal American citizens) is ridiculous given the nature of Alex's affirmative and makes me wonder if you even read the outline. The project of thinking difference, or attempting to engage in a becoming different, in this case, becoming-African allows us to play with subjectivity by possessing the being of another subject in a different sort of circumstances and then evaluate our response to that experience. Alex's aff is not free health care to 5 American citizens; it is about thinking about identity in a new way by using experimentation to achieve becoming-African. I can't find an argument in the second paragraph of what you wrote other than some sentence fragments which sound like fiat good but suffice it to say that plenty of teams who criticize T or go for alternative frameworks are successful. I also highly doubt that Alex's answers to DAs include "WE ARE A K AFF SO FUCK OFF". I imagine there are reasons why the logic of disadvantages is objectionable given the experimental thinking-difference engine of the affirmative. And it was stated earlier that I might know what Nietzsche has to say on the subject of this aff even if it's Deleuze. I've got a secret but keep your ear to the soil. I cannot overstate the confidence I have in the quality of this file and of the argument being made in general. (((Spinoza))) Edit: I'm sure Alex could defend his work more adequately than I but I just couldn't help myself.
  8. This is my publicly declared support for this particular file of Alex's own hand. I more generally support all of Alex's debate work but after speaking to him at length about a lot of the particular blocks and arguments included, I am especially excited for this. Use your (parents') money to buy this shit.
  9. Once-Ler

    So, Kansans...

    It's really not that bad. It's more abandoned than dangerous. I mean, hell, registration and everything is at Century II. I had to scare a homeless person away from my car 3 blocks from there with a knife because he wouldn't leave me alone. All of the downtown Wichita area is incredibly sketchy, night or day.
  10. Ha. Most certainly. I should also add that Deleuze's treating of Nietzsche is by far my favorite. The rest of Zack's advice was good and advisable with one small hesitation. Do not start with the Birth of Tragedy or anything before it (1872) or anything earlier than that. Nietzsche had a break with academia, Wagner, and Schopenhauer after that work all three of which significantly change the way he approached the questions addressed. These books are very interesting and can be useful but only after you feel comfortable with your understanding of his work since then. Also, don't bother cutting the criticism until you've read the books. You may be able to read a shell but without a fairly extensive knowledge of Nietzsche and some meta-level understanding of the goal of his writing, you will consistently lose. Read to understand. Then, re-read to cut. Someone said above me said you should talk to me; you can if you want.
  11. Once-Ler

    So, Kansans...

    Amazing local concerts at the Electric Snake (1532 S. Washington). Information can be found at http://www.myspace.com/theelectricsnake The Warren theaters are very nice and priced similarly to others. All-Star sports (8333 W 21st St N or 1010 N Webb Rd) has putt-putt golf and carnival shit if you're into that. Other than that, you're just going to end up dicking around the hotel and doing nothing like you do and virtually every debate tournament. Oh and P.S., if anyone tries to take you to Cow Town, throw every fiber of your being into resisting that offer. Old Town is mediocre entertainment and provides ample interesting "opportunities" for anyone willing to break away from groups and walk down a few alleys.
  12. Kierkegaard is basically uncuttable from what I have read. I would imagine you could find some secondary authors or someone who could make it more viable. I have little experience with his work so... I'll stop talking.
  13. I pick Movingonup in my fantasy fantasy nationals players pool. No one else is invited to play.
  14. If the debate just "goes" somewhere without your consent or knowledge, you were going to lose anyway. You keep the debates where you want them and then you don't have a problem. Hanging folders or folders of any kind are idiotic and asking for trouble unless you put those folders inside of an expando (good trick for separating 3 or 4 sheets from each other within the same expando pocket). Much cleaner and more reliable than strips of paper but sometimes you use what you have closest. Flowing on laptops is tricky, risky, and generally unwise. Computers crash, things get deleted, etc. Paper is ALWAYS best for a debate. Occasionally you'll make a drop by forgetting to turn a sheet over. You will frequently make drops by not scrolling slow/fast enough. And Ryan is right. In semifinals of a local Kansas tournament, we were debating someone with 8 tubs and we walked in with our backpacks. They looked foolish and 2 hours later there was a clean 5-0 decision for our side. It's not the number of tubs or even the number of cards. It's all about quality and diversity of evidence AND knowledge.
  15. Backpack. 2 expandos. 1 K and 1 Aff. Edit: I carry a laptop too to make the other team listen to my weird music but I read evidence off it maybe once every other tournament or when fuckers steal part of the two files I carry.
  16. My argument is not the aesthetic beauty is not present in the death drive. Perhaps I should make the endpoint of my argument more defined so there can be more concise and specific exchange on the point. I am claiming that, for Deleuze, psychoanalysis (specifically, Lacanian psychoanalysis) treats desire as something which must be somehow perverted before it enters the social in order to help constitute it. This is opposed to the way D+G view desire as producing the social as such, not only as a function of its own order but as the object responsible for the production of the social itself. To this point, I believe you are missing my claim that psychoanalysis is attempting to uncover the inhibited portions of our desire. Or, as D+G put it: I believe this description of what would seem to be the death drive (as opposed to the pleasure principle) in Lacanianism stands in opposition to Nietzsche's idea of amor fati. The mere fact that those terms (pleasure principle and death drive) seek to separate the very way we experience existence into those things which we simply have to tolerate or "acceptance" (or, as psychoanalysis would have us believe, which we must discover in our will, which we must work against) and those things that provide us with pleasure. Nietzsche and Deleuze are unequivocal on this point. Life is full of that which is apparently suffering and pain and depressive (Dionysian) and that which is ordered and pleasing [not "joyful"] (the Appolonian). This debate (probably somewhat at my fault) has led many to wrongly believe that Deleuze (with his Nietzsche) would have us choose our sides but instead only a realization of the futility of our struggle against the forces of chance and fate (the use of causality, determinism, etc.) can provide a strengthening "thought-experiment" where, despite these inherent boundaries imposed upon our modern world (the nihilism staring into us from all corners of the world), we are able to remain joyful and seek, not struggle, but joy in our inherent human condition. Forgive me, there are nuances here that I've yet to reach the lucidity to describe on an online high-school debate forum. I'm working towards it, at the least.
  17. Alex, let me take a shot at this. I’m obviously more well-versed on one side of this synthesis you’re attempting here so forgive me if I miss points coming more from your or more appropriately, the Lacanian side. I think that you are on the right track in saying that the Death Drive is not really in opposition to the forms of desire we see in the process of Deleuze’s dicethrow but I feel there is a slight mischaracterization in your opening statement (which you acknowledge to be an assumption on which your question is couched). First, the context of the quotation for anyone not familiar with it: I believe you are reading Deleuze backwards by asserting this to mean that there is an apparent and real world. Certainly, this is not unfamiliar to Deleuze and in fact it helps him and many other thinkers to explain the question of desire but at a certain point, this is where the fundamental difference between Lacanians (note: Not Lacan, but Lacanians) and Deleuze exposes itself. Most interpretations of Lacanianism would tell us, as Scu said in the conversation above, to center their analysis around the figure of the lack. This central problem means that the job of psychoanalysis is to uncover something about our desire (As Scu, paraphrasing Deleuze and Guattari, said: Pyschoanalysis treats desire like a theatre, D+G treat it like a factory). So, what Deleuze is doing when he says that the dicethrow temporarily abandons life is not so much abandonment so much as a look of awe. This quotation above appears in the chapter “The Tragic” with specific attention given to aesthetics and art earlier in the chapter. This is important when we return to the “abandonment” more as a gaze of awe. As we used the quotation when we debated together, it does not mean the separation of two worlds (this is, in fact, noted explicitly by Deleuze just a few lines earlier) but rather a ‘moment of singularity’ within the Eternal form of the world as chance or as a product (through the productive sense of desire) of becoming. So, instead of looking at the world and human existence with, what Nietzsche might call, the cold, calculating eye we must gaze (the importance of this verb most probably cannot be understated) upon it as not blameworthy or good but rather as an act of creation. This is indeed how Deleuze fashions his later philosophy as properly Nietzschean. By reconceptualizing desire not as repressive or indicative of some lack in our existence, Deleuze formulates that it is productive and always productive (whether it is ultimately good or bad is beyond the question Deleuze poses). From the beginning of Anti-Oedipus both Mark Seem and Deleuze and Guattari attempt to make it clear that their explanation of fascism will not attempt to make it blameworthy or to dispel the legitimacy of such regimes but rather to explain their presence (both historically and presently) in both the material and psychological forms in the masses. By understanding desire as always producing it is easy to see how D+G can be led to believe that fascism marks only the perversion of the will or desire by its negative orientation (certain brands of Lacanianism, etc.) I had something else to say about where Zizek talks about joussiance and Nietzsche in the “The Plague of Fantasies” pg. 30 but I want to think about it more before I keep rambling on cross-x.
  18. The moral (no pun intended) of my posting on this thread is this: Drew is a smart dude and a good debater. If you don't want my file, you should buy his. The rest is just sort of silly. By the way Drew, I'm excited we'll both be heading to the wonderful land of the south. I expect to have mroe than a few good debates.
  19. Drew, you would cut into my market! If you want THE Nietzsche file, you should see me. That being said, Drew is one smart dude and his file will do you no wrong. Of course, I'm still selling answers and the Nietzsche debate is really going to be a bitch next year. Synergy: That is a ridiculous list. Almost half of those things rely on the same line of argument. A good set of 4 or 5 blocks and a keen eye/basic knowledge of your argument should answer 99% of the stuff you listed. Why do you keep haunting every single Nietzsche thread on cross-x when your only purpose is to piss off a lot of people and appear knowledge on all teh sooper sweet Nietz. answers?
  20. I don't know Asad but Amjad is without question the most polite, respectful, and friendly debater I know. In an activity with assholes like myself, Amjad (and presumably, the Asads) enjoy themselves and don't have to offend people to do it. This team should've travelled the circuit but due to a lot of factors, they're not as well known as their skill deserves.
  21. Once-Ler

    CFL

    Alex, you clearly have something to learn about updates. I was looking for hotel prices, amenities available, average speed of travel, total travel time, urination breaks and times, net weight of food consumed during transit, and the number of times your dad almost wrecked multiplied by the number of times you said "Levinas" on the way down. I expected better.
  22. Once-Ler

    CFL

    For those going, keep us updated.
  23. Yeah, I forgot; Leah is notorious for being merciful...
×
×
  • Create New...