Jump to content

Babyface Abbasi

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Babyface Abbasi

  1. 1. Gibson + Graham: totalizing socialism destroys its chances of working as it self implodes and capitalism roots it out easily and has it dismissed as nebulan non-threat 2. Charles Hui: totalizing capitalism and attempting subversion so bluntly results in ostracization from the system + capitalism can never be undercut from without, it must be from within, the networks of free market are too intricate to attack from outside.
  2. Derrida's works actually went in two simultaneous directions that tend to intersect and overlap with one another in the 90's: politics and religion. These two directions were probably most evident in Derrida's 1993 Specters of Marx. This is where Derrida insisted that a deconstructed (or criticized) Marxist thought is still relevant to today's world despite globalization and that a deconstructed Marxism consists in a new messianism, a messianism of a “democracy to come.” But while he never mentions "messianism" per se, the seeds of this idea come out in his 1989 “Force of Law.” In 1996 (it might be 97, I'm not exactly sure) Derrida produced a text on Levinas, “A Word of Welcome,” that lays out the most penetrating logic of the same and other through a discussion of hospitality and messianism. And in his final works on sovereignty, in particular, Rogues (2003), Derrida shows that the law always contains the possibility of suspension, which means that even the most democratic of nations (the United States for example) resembles a “rogue state” or perhaps is the most “roguish” of all states. This was based on lectures first presented during the summer of 1998, L'animal que donc je suis (The Animal that Therefore I am) appeared as the first posthumous work in 2006; concerning animality, it indicates Derrida's continuous interest in the question of life. And all three of these works continue on the idea of the messianism without a messiah, so to speak. Hope that helps.
  3. Hmmm... The first reading of After Virtue should be done by Tuesday. Let me post back then. I have questions I just don't quite know how to articulate it yet. Thanks kevin.
  4. I understand the critique against real-world policymaking praxis in debate and honestly kevin between the rawlsian ethics k and the d&g narrative k and aff I've been running this year, no "straight up" team other than gonzaga's top team, has beaten us. and while the aim isn't winning I really feel as if these ideas have sparked difference in their victory (much like you proved in j23 thread, that winning is what makes ideas popular thus giving them credence, yet another now proven inherent weakness in the policy world). i just found a pdf version of after virtue and am on chapter 4 (sunday night and no homework makes for good reading lol). his thesis on morality becomes extremely clear given the kamehameha --> nietzsche --> post-enlightenment moral discourse illustration. my question is this: how would this kind of message fair against something like the revolutionary ethic/race arguments of cal state fullerton or townsend. somehow i know painting an opposing team as racist or even debate praxis as such is emotivist and wrong when used to win a debate. and i haven't hit these teams yet but for some reason in division one this matchup is much anticipated. for me, however, its moreso a match of Truth claims, much like when zeno and the eleactics went head to head with the pythagoreans and zeno triumphed with his 4 paradoxes. i believe our arguments about the revisement of certainty and fortitude of moral-rebirth is intrinsically more valuable and correct (dare I say) than painting a dichotomy between races and pointing fingers. how would macintyre and this attack on emotivism/capitalism work specifically against this? (btw, this kritik would be the absolute perfect argument against capitalism Ks, its a straight turn and solvency absolver.)
  5. Heya kevin, so as always i do enjoy the new meta-kritiks that you expound here. i've actually been doing a lot of reading in the realm of virtue and morals and while i haven't read any macintyre im a bit confused just based on this discussion: on the one hand it seems as if this position advocates, like nietzsche does (pre-ubermensch solution), that we should move beyond the days of certainty, universal ethics claims and morality in the pejorative sense of the word. in other words, that we should transition into the extra-moral period where scholars, science, Truth claims and the like are questioned and rejected. but on the other hand this position advocates aristotelian teleology, which is the godfather of moral truth claims and certainty of forms. then the next problem is this: if the link of an argument hinges upon the perceived representation of an activity "perceived emotivism" you're got a huge problem on your hands in prescribing knowledge of another person/team's motives and the articulation of that link become very difficult. i enjoy it because the concept of being beyond or after virtue is interesting but on the one hand it sounds elitist, on the other nihilist, on the next self-contradictory (which now can't be resolved with d&g, seeing as how they and macintyre would wholly disagree). all the best, cal
  6. Thanks for the suggestions folks. Alright lets do it, if any one has any cards cut and paste folks, ADI has 2 week left, any and all cards regarding Realism or A@ securitization are welcome!
  7. Can people just compile and load as many answers to securitization, such as realism, they can find in any of their backfiles or otherwise? We're compiling a bunch of evidence at ADI and we're calling on the debate world to help out lol Here's some things it could fit: realism true/good alternatives to realism fail discourse focus bad threats real self-fulfilling prophecy false violence inevitable security inevitable otherization inevitable biopower inevitable totalizing security bad defensive realism solves pragmatic change good permutations solve Thanks All. No explanation necessary just post em up. - Cal
  8. Absolutely it does. When you do a certain amount of reading it gets to a point where you can't find a single point which is what you have to do in a round. That's was a great deduction of all the aspects of the argument. Thanks. I may be asking too many questions but here's one more: "by reading that short story from burroughs, those attempting to advance this position into future rounds illustrate the hidden underside of the will to mold the world to fit our plans: literature 'solves' as a "noncritique" (in kafka's precise sense) by actualizing the possibility of affecting people's thinking in ways that wholly logical presentations (even traditional kritiks) cannot." ... I think I understand why but why? Isn't part of this post-K, if you will, that it doesn't attempt to solve anything? And why is this unique from a Fullerton solidarity argument or a Lacanian subverse K or a Zizekian dance-act or a Baudrillard questioning of reality or a Wittgensteinian critique of all things that are with language as a barrier. What is the difference? What makes this special? If I can understand this fundamental question I think I can complete this argument. Thanks - Cal
  9. Kevin, I think your consistent comments on this are fantastic and I couldn't agree with you more. But, seeing as the debate community has now finally come to grips with what next year's resolution is going to be, my question has consistently been this considering that even the upper-echelon of intercollegiate judges and debaters (especially from back east which most of my competition for NDT points and such are) don't understand a majority of these claims and this abstract form of understanding: How do I make this message and aim clear, concise, effective and honest in the consistent and limited context of a debate round?
  10. He does on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site: http://plato.stanford.edu/ Far better site and reference point. And no... I'm not biased because I'm going there for law school. - BF
  11. The questions, commentary and discussion on this K is fantastic. However, the discussion has strayed relatively far from the actual 1NC (or deeper considering how you look at it) I only say far because in an actual debate round the discourse will never delve this deep into the rabbit hole that is D+G, intricacies of the forms of knowledge production and justifications for being ever vigilant against micro-fascistic policies in a specific context such as debate. I know this because I've been to quarters at CEDA and qualified for the NDT this year. I've debated against some of the best teams in the country. I've been in 8 off debates, Lacan vs. Haraway debates, etc. and the issues never really go beyond... hmm... I'd say the questions posed UP TO page 6/7 of this thread. The issues I think are driving the questions into page 9, 10 and beyond are these: 1.) The K is a non-critique (as Kafka would say) or a post-critical notion (as Baudrillard would consider it). So the way it functions in round is confusing. 2.) It clearly links to itself by reading cards and attempting SOME FORM of change while claiming that modernity's tendencies lead to micro-fascism. The concept of sneaking creative grenades through the back door posed as a normal position is confusng. 3.) As debaters we always ask: "so what does the world look like post-AFF or post-K?" and the answer to this question in regards to this case is inconclusive and unsure at best. What's making everyone trip balls is that that is exactly the point. Questioning certainty and absolute truth. Taking the gamble of an unchartered position to kindle critical fires. I really really like this post-K. I really do. I'm creating a file out of my 163 pages of notes from reading maybe 1200 pages of D+G, Foucault (lectures, not books, I finished those freshmen year of college), Deleuze essays, Massimo, Baudrillard and some more. I'm creating this file so that I can use it next year. So after all that I think I have one main question that I just can't come to terms with and kind of have a solution for (albeit a personal solution, I think anyone who runs this case has to find their own way of running it, as is the case with all kritiques. K's aren't supposed to be run like DAs, every team has to add their own flavor). Okay here we go: If it's not the misinterpretation but the reduction of content (1NC #2): then why is it okay that we, who run this non-kritik, choose to share the information through commodified literature, cards? I understand the concept of acting to sneak explosive creativities through the back-door, using the appearance of a legitimate carded position in order to further illegitimate questions. I also understand the fact that we are self-critical and aware of the self-link. But seeing how the discussion has strayed so far off of the actual K in the Johnny 23 thread and seeing as how approximately 45% of varsity inter-collegiate policy judges (let alone high school) will NOT understand this literature at face value (if they can't adequately understand Foucault's concept of the fluidity of power or Heidegger's notion of dystopian Dasein [which they don't, I know from experience], then they won't get D+G) I wonder this: Can't all of this be settled/avoided if I bring, instead of tubs of evidence, tubs of books including: Exterminator, A Thousand Plateaus, Anti-Oedipus, the Literature+Rhetoric magazine the Mitchell article was published in, a collection of Deleuze's works, Foucault's works, etc. and bookmark them and read from them so that we are not reducing the literature, presenting it ALL to be shared and accepted and to make the argument of changing debate practices one round a time more clear for the judge? I've already started doing this. I have a few pieces of paper titled: Answers To, Links, Impact, Perm, Alternative Extensions and I just numbered the pages and paragraph its on and when I get up to make my argument I will read from the book. I implications of this small modification is, I believe, extremely significant in not only expressing what the fault of the AFF is, what the point of the NEG is but it also eliminates alot of this "self-link" arguments. What do y'all think? - Babyface
  12. So it's taken me 4 hours to read this then 2 weeks to read both volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. First off, I'm a political science and philosophy major and open policy debater at UCLA and would love to run this kritik. At this point I've taken extensive notes on both volumes and made note of almost everything of relevancy posted on this forum. I truly like to understand the philosophy I argue before I take it to debate, I've done this with Heidegger and Essentialism. My problem now is that I've amassed such a wealth of information on D&G I'm not able to whittle it down to concrete debate context. So far I have this table of contents in the file I'm creating: 1. What is Fascism? 2. The Perm Debate 3. Commodification of Literature 4. Argument is War 5. Clerks in a Maze 6. Links 7. Impacts 8. Answers To: That still leaves me with 60 pages of random notes and these areas that need to be covered: 1. The Alternative 2. The Role of the Ballot 3. On Certainty 4. What does the world look like post-K? 5. Rhizomatic Knowledge I know it's a lot to ask but can someone help me compress or organize all of these idea into a concrete debate file so that I can contextualize it in debate as opposed to spitting garbage? At this point it's almost as if I see 4 different arguments in the K but that won't fly inround. Any and all help would be welcomed and appreciated and I know this site is for HS debate but most college policy forums aren't very good and some of the members of these forums seem very knowledgable. Thanks alot Babyface
  13. So it's taken me 4 hours to read this then 2 weeks to read both volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. First off, I'm a political science and philosophy major and open policy debater at UCLA and would love to run this kritik. At this point I've taken extensive notes on both volumes and made note of almost everything of relevancy posted on this forum. I truly like to understand the philosophy I argue before I take it to debate, I've done this with Heidegger and Essentialism. My problem now is that I've amassed such a wealth of information on D&G I'm not able to whittle it down to concrete debate context. So far I have this table of contents in the file I'm creating: 1. What is Fascism? 2. The Perm Debate 3. Commodification of Literature 4. Argument is War 5. Clerks in a Maze 6. Links 7. Impacts 8. Answers To: That still leaves me with 60 pages of random notes and these areas that need to be covered: 1. The Alternative 2. The Role of the Ballot 3. On Certainty 4. What does the world look like post-K? 5. Rhizomatic Knowledge I know it's a lot to ask but can someone help me compress or organize all of these idea into a concrete debate file so that I can contextualize it in debate as opposed to spitting garbage? At this point it's almost as if I see 4 different arguments in the K but that won't fly inround. Any and all help would be welcomed and appreciated and I know this site is for HS debate but most college policy forums aren't very good and some of the members of these forums seem very knowledgable. Thanks alot Babyface
×
×
  • Create New...