Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Grimace last won the day on April 24 2010

Grimace had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

About Grimace

  • Rank
    Ronalds Special Friend
  • Birthday 04/07/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
    Lukas Hosford
  • School

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you are looking for something that will be very easy to deploy in debates, look at my Discursive Flux K on evazon.
  2. Version 1.0

    For your high tech K debate: this file is designed to have many different 2nr options available. It is largely a collision of parts of Deleuze and Guattari and Baudrillard, which means that its thesis is fairly rhizomatic. The 2nr can go for only portions and render large chunks of aff answers irrelevant. Regardless though, so few aff answers are responsive, that you don't need very many blocks for the block, it's mostly just about getting out your offense. This file is designed to make debate easy for you. Strategy wise, my best advice is to make the debate really insular when reading this criticism. A strategy where you split the block three ways, to cover T, a Cp with an internal net benefit, and this K is something few 1ars can handle. The highlighting in this file has been carefully combed for efficiency, which means you will be able to get out more evidence in less time when you take it in the block. Also, as you will see below in the table of contents, it includes extensive 2nr blocks. These have prepackaged explanations of modular components of the K. This is particularly useful if one of them is dropped. FYI: I am Luke Hosford. I debated at Dexter for 4 years. I went for this K on the military topic a lot. It was responsible for several of our best wins against top tier TOC teams. I guarantee you I have worked on a bunch of files and know my way around a K debate (also policy, but that's less relevant). Discursive Flux Critique. 1 Discursive Flux 1nc 1/. 2 Discursive Flux 1nc 2/. 3 Discursive Flux 1nc 3/. 4 Link 2nc. 5 Link Supplement 6 Framework 2nc 1/. 7 Framework 2nc 2/. 8 --Integral Reality Da 2nr. 9 Perms 2nc 1/. 10 Perms 2nc 2/. 11 --Public-Private Perm 2nc. 12 Role of the Ballot 2nc 1/. 13 Role of the Ballot 2nc 2/. 14 A2: Misappropriation of Deleuze. 15 A2: Objective Reality 1/. 16 A2: Objective Reality 2/. 17 ***IMPACTS 2nc. 17 Atomic Assassin 2nc. 18 Error Replication 2nc 1/. 19 Error Replication 2nc 2/. 20 --Prefer Our Impacts 2nc. 21 ***IMPACTS 2nr. 21 Atomic Assassin 2nr. 22 Error Replication 2nr. 23 Prefer Our Impacts 2nr. 24 ***CEDE THE POLITICAL 2NC ANSWERS: 24 --Top Level 2nc. 25 --Shaffer 2nc. 26 --Baudrillard 2nc 1/. 27 --Baudrillard 2nc 2/. 28 --Ontological Force 2nc. 29 ***CEDE THE POLITICAL 2NR ANSWERS: 29 --This = D-Rule 2nr. 30 --Top Level 2nr. 31 --Shaffer 2nr. 32 --Baudrillard 2nr. 33 --Ontological Force 2nr. 34

    10.00 USD

  3. Grimace


    Don't buy one. My third charger just broke 4 days after i got it.
  4. don't be a douche. they're good at spanos and if they can keep winning rounds that's their perogative
  5. This happened to me about 6 months ago and I sent around 10 emails to support over the following few months and never received a single reply.
  6. In this sense those Nietzsche cards about ending suffering being a drive to find the real world are probably an internal link into Deleuze and Guattari's arguments. Deleuze forms the distinction between the actual and virtual in his arguments about radical or transcendental empiricism. Too often systems of thought and governance place a kind of limit on the real or the truth, Anti-Oedipus illustrates this with all the arguments about schizophrenia; why do schizophrenics get so fucked up by Oedipus? Probably because it tries to piece together the partial objects of their identity into some sort of complete whole (there's a lot of discussion of this in one of the first sections of AO, i can't remember which right now). In this way we all seduced into sitting on the analysts couch praying to transcendence to piece together what we view as an incomplete identity; we walk into the analyst's office, hand them--our deity--money--which we have now invested our desire in--and sit down on the couch and proceed to wait there to be fixed, only involving ourselves as much as we are prompted. We come to view our mind as engaging in some sort of unreal activity (seeing visions w/ schizophrenia), and therefore repress our desires in the name of removing them. This is why Deleuze and Guattari's argument is kind of masochistic (see how to make yourself a body without organs), cause you're going to have to take an active role, you're going to be forced to walk freely through the world, even if it means getting shot at and hated for your identity; you'll have to live with your demons because they are part of you, and changing your demons will require changing the way you participate in the world. In a debate round, if you're reading the argument that the prevention of suffering results in an endless search for some sort of truth to the world then you've got the internal link into the arguments about piecing together meaning through the belief in a transcendent arbiter (ie. the plan/the judge/the state). Think of it this way, the affirmative demands the state--which they invest their desire in--to fix their lives, all the while failing to realize that the only reason the state has any power over their identities is because they have come to place their belief it.
  7. http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins. So let’s begin. Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose. Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington. Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama. Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word. Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally. Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina. Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric. Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times. Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.” Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress. In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color? To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings. And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis. Game Over.
  8. Nope. I can't remember for sure but i think that you're talking about the 1st speaker. The first seed is Dexter CP, 6-0, Brandon Canniff got 2nd Speaker and David Paolella got 4th or 5th I can't remember.
  9. is there a caselist for this tournament like there was last year?
  10. can't say officially, but dexter will probably bring a team if it happens
  11. Grimace


    Do you have a specific part of Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy you want explained?
  12. it was a double round robin, every team hit every other team on the aff and neg, 6 rounds, three judges per round, 18 potential ballots per team
  13. Lulu, didn't you read this on us in finals this weekend? anyway, i dunno if this is the specific ev, but this is what i found in the umich a2 k file Best and Kellner 02 prof phil @ UT el paso and Kellner prof phil @ UCLA 2k2 (Steven, Doug, “Postmodern Politics and the Battle for the Future” http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell28.htm) A postmodern politics begins to take shape during the 1960s, when numerous new political groups and struggles emerged. The development of a new postmodern politics is strongly informed by the vicissitudes of social movements in France, the United States, and elsewhere, as well as by emerging postmodern theories. The utopian visions of modern politics proved, in this context, difficult to sustain and were either rejected in favor of cynicism, nihilism, and, in some cases, a turn to the right, or were dramatically recast and scaled down to more "modest" proportions. The modern emphasis on collective struggle, solidarity, and alliance politics gave way to extreme fragmentation, as the "movement" of the 1960s splintered into various competing struggles for rights and liberties. The previous emphasis on transforming the public sphere and institutions of domination gave way to new emphases on culture, personal identity, and everyday life, as macropolitics were replaced by the micropolitics of local transformation and subjectivity. In the aftermath of the 1960s, novel and conflicting conceptions of postmodern politics emerged. Postmodern politics thus take a variety of forms and would include the anti-politics of Baudrillard and his followers, who exhibit a cynical, despairing rejection of the belief in emancipatory social transformation, as well as a variety of efforts to create a new or reconstructed politics. On the extreme and apolitical position of a Baudrillard, we are stranded at the end of history, paralyzed and frozen, as the masses collapse into inertia and indifference, and simulacra and technology triumph over agency. Thus, from Baudrillard's perspective, all we can do is "accommodate ourselves to the time left to us."
  • Create New...