Jump to content

gamer9190

Member
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About gamer9190

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/23/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jake
  • School
    Trinity University
  • Location
    Texas

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Gamer91390
  • MSN
    gamer9190@hotmail.com
  1. gamer9190

    Zizek Alt.

    The Zizek alt you'll most commonly see is probably the Do Nothing alt, even in Ks that aren't pure Zizek, a lot of generics use this kind of alt. Some thoughts on how this actually kind of makes some sense: Zizek is essentially talking about participatory systems. Namely, capitalism and the democratic societies that reinforce the economic structure of capitalism. These systems entirely rely on people to participate-- to buy stuff, to watch advertisements, to vote. They also requires the more passive form of ideological participation: even if you don't go out and vote, or go out and buy stuff, you endorse these ideas and this generally creates a climate where people are encouraged to do these things. In this kind of climate, these systems can never be changed. However the problem exists, especially in the form of capitalism, where every form of "active rebellion" is in itself an act of participation in the system. If you strike out violently, you simply become an aberration that the society can marginalize and eliminate as an act of self-defense. Zizek refers to global terrorism as an example of this; in many ways, global terrorism is the dark opposite and enemy of globalization, but due to its tactics and fundamentalist nature, it becomes the ultimate Other to eliminate (note that this terror example is gross oversimplification of Zizek's analysis. But you get my point). Or, even critique becomes a form of participation, where you must accept some groundwork ideas to engage in debate with the opposition, or where you're encouraged to "engage critically," to participate with a critical eye, which in the end accomplishes nothing: you're still reifying the ideas you're trying to critique in your very act of trying to critique it. So when every action you take subverts your very notion of rebellion, what can you do? Nothing. Zizek uses the example of this obscure foreign film I've never heard of in his book Violence (2008), and the premise of the film is essentially this: Consider a democracy, where, in the national elections, people come and cast ballots, but around 70% of these ballots are blank. While in the United States this would not be a problem (we'd just count the plurality of actual votes), in states that count a majority of the vote, this is a problem. The majority of the vote is for no one. So, the government holds a re-election the next week. Everyone comes and votes, only this time, over 80 of the ballots are blank. What is the government to do? No one has been elected. The very legitimacy of the government has been challenged. The government ends up fabricating a terrorist plot to forcibly gain control of the population and suspend democracy. The great act of rebellion was simply refusal to participate, a symbolic inaction that reveals the great inadequacy of the dominant system. That's the kind of thing Zizek talks about when he says "do nothing." By withdrawing from the system, removing ourselves from the very ideas and ways of thought that support the system, by "voting for no one", we challenge the very legitimacy of the participatory systems we oppose.
  2. Ehh, I don't think so. Evey starts out the book trying to be a prostitute, and she only gains strength after the prison scene and she really loses all traces of her femininity, culminating in her being entirely subsumed in the persona of V when she dons the mask at the end of the graphic novel. (spoilers for anyone who has only seen the movie). And in The Killing Joke, by Moore... Batgirl gets shot and crippled in the first act. Alan Moore doesn't much like women. And looking back on it, in the book... Laurie was the same kind of bubbly whore she was in the movie. there was just something in the book that made you sympathize with her, a bit. I thought Ozy was stiff and didn't quite capture the charisma and brilliance of the original character. Manhattan was perfect for me. He was totally human, but totally not, at the same time. A lot like I imagined him. The Comedian was over the top, but so is the character. He did a great job. Rorschach was not how I imagined him (I always imagined him with a flat affect, total creepy monotone, to highlight his depravity and his mental illness, and I didn't quite like the gruff growl voice), but done very well. The fights should have been played more minimalistically. Not only are these people normal people, but... They're eight years out of practice, and going into middle age. The only character who should be able to fight like that is Veidt. Maybe.
  3. the Crowley teams are posted wrong. It'll be Muncy-Davis and Reid-Hernandez. This is going to be a beastly tournament. Most competitive tournament I've ever been to. I'm quite excited.
  4. Unless the new args were based on 2AC action, it's pretty illegit. Especially the new Ts. It short-circuits their entire argument, and reveals the real purpose of their t arguments: time skew. If T really was being run to hedge against abuse or even the odds against a case that they legitimately don't have material against, it'd be in the 1NC. The only two reasons to run T in the block are to answer back new 2AC clarification that is just wholly abusive, or to try to screw the aff.
  5. The more legit way to argue this is to say that if you do a normal nukes IFRs case now, it will end up being attached to the stimulus package and will help it pass. Just run it as link turns to the politix DA. Not that that's horribly legit either, but it's probably a better idea than this.
  6. I wouldn't waste my time with a States/Fism debate. RPS advocates put out plenty of evidence about how a federal rps is the only key to solve, and fism isn't exactly a strong da to begin with. It can be beaten back by a decent RPS team. With that said, I'd go with PICing out of an energy source. If they don't spec in their plan text, pin them in CX. Like Branden above, I'd go with a geothermal PIC. A few reasons: 1. The DAs against geothermal are stronger and more intuitive. I mean, if you think the Birds DA makes good sense, you're welcome to go with it, but personally I think it's a ridiculous story. 2. Geothermal is one of the more fringe energy sources. If you PIC out of wind or solar, the aff can come back with good evidence about how those sources are key to solve for RPS. That evidence isn't going to be as strong for geothermal, as it isn't very widely used to begin with. The aff will probably claim that market flexibility solves for the DA and that market flex is key, but a) there's still a risk of a DA link, which will outweigh the solvency deferential and no warrant as to why geothermal is uniquely key to market flexibility. If they hadn't included geothermal in their specified sources, there would still be sufficient market flexibility to solve. That'd be my A strat, and then I'd hit advantages and case, and run T incentives, as it's the T violation that this case bites the most.
  7. I really, really love F. Scott Fitzgerald.
  8. Well, it could probably be counterplanned out pretty easily. And it links very hard into cap and Zizek's identity arguments. The type of advantages you'd claim would make DAs pretty easy to beat if they're on their own, but against good opposition they'll probably CP out of your advantages so you'd have to be able to answer those DAs straight up. And there would probably be theoretical objections if you don't specify an incentive or whatever, but those are pretty easily blocked out.
  9. Lol. At the last tournament I went to, there was a round against a really young team, and apparently our judge thought they had no way to win no matter what their 2AR was, so she stopped them and gave her RFD without letting them give it. I was too mortified for the other team to say anything. Also, one of my school's teams got hit with about 6 1/2 minutes of inherency in the 1NC.
  10. You're taking too much prep before the 2AC? A few things I've tried that have worked. First, you have eight minutes of doing nothing during the 1AC. You don't know what the neg is doing at this point, but you can still be productive. Pull answers to things that you usually hit. If you typically get hit with a States CP, Tix, and F-ism, get those blocks out and set them aside. And if you typically get hit with certain case arguments, get out the extensions you need to answer them. Write quick overviews for, say, your advantages, so you can extend them without having to make up the analysis on the fly. All these things can save prep time and speech time. and if you're having to spend too much time on arguments in the 2AC, you might try modifying your aff to make things easier to answer, or to force opponents into running certain positions that you can answer. If you're getting bogged down answering unfamiliar DAs, put an impact framework in your 1AC, a moral obligation or some kind of in-built weighing mechanism, to make them easier to answer. So if you run out of time to line-by-line the DA, you can just extend that framework and weigh your impacts against theirs. This can be extremely effective even if you do have time to answer it line by line. You say you're spending too much time on case. Are you getting too many case turns? Are they just putting more on-case than you can handle? If it's good on-case, then maybe there's something wrong with your aff or the way it's written. If they're bad on-case but you just don't have the cards in your 1AC to answer them, you may want to once again set up some preempts in your 1AC. And if you have a few arguments that you usually extend or make every round, write overviews for them. If you're saying the same thing every round, there's no reason why you should have to spend time thinking about it every time. Does any of this help?
  11. I'd suggest researching the case. There are some pretty solid solvency turns to be made if you have the right cards.
  12. This article nullifies the entire discussion of capitalism. At the point at which you attack and relativize the thought process of an entire side of an argument, you give yourself an out to render the argument entirely meaningless. This seems a silly train of thought to me.
  13. It was you guys that judged that round? No wonder it was entertaining.
  14. I'm supportive of this concept. Personally, I've started using a laptop in my debate rounds and I found it has greatly helped, if only because I have horrible handwriting. Typing flows is faster and easier for my partner and myself to refer back to clearly. It allows me to keep everything organized and effective, and I can carry a lot of files that I really don't want to carry around all the time, especially extensive theory files that rely on mostly analytics anyways.
  15. The key issue here is, of course, winning the debate. 1NC strategy is key to this. If you have a good 1NC strat that just may need a little tweaking, maximize CX and 1AC time to fix it up and go without prep. If you need prep, if you don't have a good 1NC prepped out, take it. Using prep and running the risk of looking unprepared is better than losing the debate.
×
×
  • Create New...