Jump to content

Josephl

Member
  • Content Count

    324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Josephl

  1. I agree to an extent on the more universal applicability of these arguments. I'm just also sympathetic to the argument Jasper is making that it's kinda fucked up that this thread hasn't advanced beyond a discussion of Deleuze and Nietzsche and is probably symptomous of something that should be changed in the high school community. Maybe this is just my perspective but it seems kinda strange that many "K debaters" seem to have a large following and support base in the high school community but teams like Beacon, despite the massive amount of success they've had, are ignored much more. I do however strongly disagree with this interpretation of these authors in a manner that doesn't involve history. A criticism of historical notions of morality is at the heart of Nietzschean thought. I've thought of Nietzschean criticism as a genealogy of morality and its transition from the mystic framework of religion to the scientific framework of modernity/enlightenment ideals.
  2. I think this is largely the point that many race teams speak about. Although these authors are legitimate when discussing philosophy, these philosophers (as well as other schools of thought such as positivism) can crowd out discussions from evidence that was taken from a song or from poetry. Status quo academia largely ignores these other forms of communication and counts only certain forms of knowledge as "legitimate." For many race teams, this is why its necessary to step outside the realm of usual authors and instead rely on evidence that has personal experience attached to it. When Deleuze and Nietzsche talk about suffering, its in a very sterile, abstract sense - for many teams, that is the definition of whiteness. The ability to philosophize and abstractly talk about the suffering of the poor "brown people" without having to experience or see that suffering yourself. Don't get me wrong, I love Nietzsche but I think its important to discuss the reasons why many teams would find the "just add Deleuze and stir" solution disagreeable.
  3. I think the previous posters point was more that instead of simply finger wagging at the community, it'd be more productive to begin discussions about these arguments and their role in the debate community. I feel like the high school debate community is beginning to see these arguments more and more and I think dialogue is necessary outside the debate round if as community members, we see legitimacy in the content of their arguments. This may be my own predispositions speaking but I think its fair to say its a little troubling that many critical schools of thought are so popular in high school with such little emphasis on race even though some of the highest caliber teams in the country are the ones reading these arguments.
  4. Although this thread has begun to take a new direction, for academic purposes I actually think neoliberalism is largely the opposite of this definition. Neoliberalism, at least how it appears to me, is the next evolutionary form of capitalism. A form of capitalism that isn't constrained by state institutions or regulation and operates freely across the world through global corporations. Many see "Globalization" as one of the most visible effects of the paradigm of neoliberalism as it's a free market system that no longer revolve around state interests.
  5. Kiersten Strachan. Thread over.
  6. It's important to win the uniqueness debate because it structurally determines the direction of the link. If the aff wins that KORUS won't pass in the status quo, there is zero risk of negative offense because even if the plan drains Obamas political capital, it wasn't going to pass in the first place so you can't make it "not pass" twice as much. There's only the risk that the plan positively influences Obamas political capital. Conversely, if the negative wins that KORUS will pass in the status quo, it means there's only the risk the plan could tank Obamas political capital. It's important to conceptualize the debate as a whole and how one component (UQ debate) can determine the direction of the other parts of the debate.
  7. Mercer qualified to the TOC. I can't say the same that they qualified for state though...
  8. Josephl

    Bataille

    Koslow is a boss. If you're looking for some citations, I don't think there was a team known for reading Bataille more than Gonzaga CJ. http://opencaselist10.wikispaces.com/Gonzaga+CJ+Aff http://opencaselist10.wikispaces.com/Gonzaga+CJ+%28Abe+Corrigan+%26+James+Joseph%29+-+AFF http://opencaselist10.wikispaces.com/Gonzaga+CJ
  9. I agree that there seems to have been a large shift in the direction of counter-plan debate this year. A lot of counter-plans like conditions, consult, or other counter-plans that don't compete with the text of the plan seem to be a lot more accepted. One huge advantage that the affs on this topic seem do have though that I don't feel is being utilized enough is that the aff controls uniqueness a lot of the time for their scenarios. Japan probably wants us out, shit is going down on the Korean peninsula, Afghanistan is going horribly. Even if you were going to read a smaller version of these bigger stick affs, you probably control uniqueness to a lot of your terminal impacts. This means you probably have a pretty convincing 2AR try or die story assuming you have a good timeframe component to your aff and 2NR uniqueness defense is absent. It also means the neg can't turn the case if you control uniqueness to your advantages.
  10. Stephanie and Sean wish they had the style and finesse of P. Fong.
  11. If Patrick Fong was going, he'd get both of the bids.
  12. Josephl

    Idaho

    Is Gabe Olson still going to be helping out at all at Lake City?
  13. "If without the plan, the status quo will cause all these scenarios for extinction, why hasn't the government passed the plan?" Boom, swish.
  14. This. Solving Afghanistan or Iraq affs would be difficult if Kuwait and Turkey weren't included.
  15. I've found this to be a great framework answer that I haven't seen a lot in a lot of Nietzsche debates. It probably doesn't say anything more than you have to answer our impact framing arguments before you even access framework/framework is a link to our K, but the debate language in the card makes it particularly cool. Saurette 96 (Paul, Prof of political theory/science at John Hopkins University, “I mistrust all Systematizers and Avoid Them: Nietzsche, Arendt and the Crisis of the Will to Order in International Relations Theory.” Millenium Journal of International Studies. Vol. 25, number 1. pp. 3-6, AD: 7/6/09) jl Arendt contends that this rule-based conception of political action assumed a hegemonic and 'natural' status only when the philosophical transformation of Western civilisation created an intellectual framework which necessitated interpreting politics as rulership. From this perspective, the importance of Arendt's thought is that she reveals the way in which the Will to Order/Truth has created the parameters of the modern understanding of politics. According to Arendt, our modern notion of politics is an inevitable consequence of the Platonic Will to Truth/Order. After Plato's Republic, politics could no longer be conceived of as the freedom to act with equals, but could be conceptualised only as the ordering of society according to the world of forms. With this paradigmatic substitution of making for acting, homo faher becomes the model political actor, and the realm of human affairs can be interpreted only in terms of work. Further, through this transformation, the concepts of mastery, control, and violence are inextricably imposed onto the realm of politics. As Arendt notes, 'Mr] the Republic, the philosopher-king applies the ideas as the craftsman applies his rules and standard; he "makes" his City as the sculptor makes a statue; and in the final Platonic work these same ideas have even become laws which need only be executed'.27 The politician is idealised as the craftsman whose skill lies first in perceiving the ideal form of the product-to-be, and second, in organising the means to execute its production. This transformation inverts both the practice and the meaning of politics on at least two levels. First, the 'end' of political action becomes measured in terms of the ability of actors to replicate an ideal form. As Arendt notes, this instrumentalised model of politics evaluates action solely on the grounds of a means-ends calculus which risks devolving into an eternal regression of ungroundable utility. Arendt states that `[t]he trouble with the utility standard inherent in the very activity of fabrication is that the relationship between means and end on which it relies is very much like a chain whose every end can serve again as a means in some other context'.' The only possible way to stabilise this chain is to posit an eternal and perfect end, such as justice, order, or God, which acts as an unquestioned goal due to its perfect truthfulness. The essence of the Platonic, and later Christian and Enlightenment, conceptions of political action, then, is the ability to ground the final end through recourse to an unquestionable 'truth'. By resituating political judgement in the realm of ideals, this model denies that meaning derives from the apparent world of human affairs, and replaces debate, action, and plurality with absolutes and ideals. The dichotomisation of the ideal and apparent worlds results in a second inversion. The notion of politician as craftsman undermines the possibility of action in the political sphere by attempting to deny the very condition of plurality and natality. The prerequisite qualities of equality and persuasion are replaced by the precepts of fabrication: mastery and violence. Plural political action is renounced in favour of the unquestioned order of rulership and mastery (which destroys the potential for natality and plurality), or by the coercion of violence (which simply overwhelms any possibility of action through sheer strength). This consequence is then circularly justified by the belief that the end of action can be nothing more than the realisation of the Real World in the Apparent World. The conception of community through equality and difference is inexorably replaced by the understanding of political community constructed through mastery, control, and rule. The dual inversion of politics-as-making explicitly reveals the profound impact of the philosophical foundation of the Will to Order/Truth on the modern conception of politics. Within this philosophical order, politics must be understood as a process of fabrication in which the end utopian goal justifies and underpins rulership, controls and domination. From this perspective, the development of a variety of Real World ideals (Platonic justice, Christian salvation, or vulgar Marxist utopianism) which guide political action have disguised the entrenched consistency of the understanding of politics-as-making. It is precisely this 'definition' of politics that must be exposed and problematised. For politics-as-making is neither a 'natural' nor 'realistic' conception of politics, but rather a historical consequence of a specific philosophical foundation. As such, it is neither factual nor beyond critique.
  16. This guy knows his stuff pretty well. I wouldn't argue with Jordon.
  17. Mr. "Stantheman," I believe you do not want McGiggles as your significant debate other for 5 weeks.
  18. Josephl

    LOL @ Justin Beaver

    http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh364GW7n1DGRwONS4 Discuss.
  19. That's just uniqueness evidence for the disad. The treaty still has to be ratified with 67 votes in the senate.
  20. Josephl

    A Lay K

    We have been very successful this year and years past with Kappeler. The violence link is very intuitive and compelling for a lot of judges who perhaps are open to the idea of critical arguments but haven't heard a lot of the literature or aren't as familiar with the arguments.
  21. Nathan, I frequently read your posts on Nietzsche and I never understand at all what you're talking about. I'm honestly not trying to be rude but I'm having a hard time understanding what you're getting at. The idea of the Eternal Return doesn't need to be interpreted as literal as in "when I die, I will live the same life again, over and over." But rather it's a question that Nietzsche poses as a starting point of a commitment to life affirmation: "Now imagine that at your worst moment, your loneliest loneliness, a demon appears to you or you imagine a demon appearing to you. And this demon tells you that you will have to live your life over again, innumerable times more, and that everything, [End Page 55] every last bit of pain and suffering, every last migraine, every last bout of nausea and vomiting, will return, exactly the same, over and over and over again. What would your reaction be? If your reaction were to be negative, no one would bat an eye. But what if your reaction was, or came to be, positive? What if you were able to love your life so completely that you would not want to change a single moment—a single moment of suffering?" Would one be able to say their life was a joyous one and that they'd live it again and again, not changing one moment? Starting with this understanding, it becomes easier to interpret Nietzsche in such ways that don't have to do with what he was saying in a literal sense but instead a starting point that an individual may reorient themselves toward a positive view a life instead of a contemptuous one. It's a similar understanding that the Overman isn't a state one reaches. It's not a level or state of being that is acheived over time once a "certain amount" of suffering has been embraced. It's a committment toward a way of viewing, engaging, and understanding the world.
  22. You'll see cap every topic of your debate career.
×
×
  • Create New...