Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mcgiggles last won the day on August 3 2010

mcgiggles had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Good

About mcgiggles

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/05/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    St. George's
  1. It depends on what you are going for in the block. Normally you just need to extend a defensive no link arg like the perm, answer theory like framework, and then respond to any args that they can leverage on the DA if you're going for one. So, if they say realism true, that can potentially effect the impacts you're going for (econ interdependence solves war, for example) or it can bolster the risk of theirs depending on their scenarios. What you did was probably fine though.
  2. The arg that topical CP's are bad presumes that the purpose of the aff is to affirm the resolution - it's not. It's to prove an example of the resolution. If the point was to affirm the resolution, then the negative could leverage counter-warrants which are just bad examples of the resolution like Project Orion that don't have anything to do with the plan. If you're running your aff as a CP, you just need to prove that 1. It solves the aff's advantages and 2. There is a net benefit that links to the plan but not the CP.
  3. As I understand it, May '68 was more focused on social and cultural issues and was headed by students, the intelligentsia, etc. I think this is in contrast to the Arab Spring protests which, at least in the case of some countries like Egypt, were motivated by more material factors like high food prices and unemployment (especially in the case of Tunisia where there were a lot of educated youth who just couldn't find jobs). An educated youth in the May '68 protests would probably be revolting more against consumerism than the fact that they can't find employment - they would criticize the idea that society expects them to have a 9-5 job or whatever.
  4. Understand that Barthes is coming from the Marxist tradition. When writing this K, it can't really be a "Barthes K" but should more supplement a cap K. Anyway, when you hear the word "myth", conflate it with a falsehood. A falsehood that, according to Barthes, is propagated by the bourgeois as universal and timeless, through in reality, is just a specific cultural symbol that is highly ideological. The example Barthes gives is wine. It is always associated with French national identity in terms of its sustenance for the worker or as a sign of virility for the intellectual. It is never associated with the desire for intoxication or as a cause for crime. People come to see wine as something uniquely French, as something to be proud of, but this essence that is given to wine is not a reality. This is his argument about semiotics. Wine is a symbol that signifies what the bourgeois want it to signify when in reality, wine is integrally tied up with colonialism, in colonized lands like Algeria which ‘impose on the Muslims, on the very land of which they have been dispossessed, a crop of which they have no need, while they lack even bread. There are thus very engaging myths which are however not innocent’. That's a quote from Barthes in his book "Mythologies." So the answer to your question is that allowing these myths to continue unquestioned allows for a capitalist exploitation of peoples. Then you can just read impacts to capitalism being bad. Say it's vital to question hegemonic ideological coordinates and the regime of signs and symbols - read the zizek 4 card on this. It jives with Barthes because they are both structuralists with Zizek being a structuralist through Lacan.
  5. mcgiggles

    Ideal paradigm

    I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize if someone has already posted this, but I think Calum Matheson's judge philosophy puts it well: Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. I don’t care about the content of your arguments. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a terrible advocate of your cause and you should lose. Don’t cry about stuff; “it makes me sad†is not a compelling impact. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 27 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you. I think that the bar for answering the argument that racism is good is obviously very low and if you can't do that, you should lose. That's not some moral condoning of racism, that's just the judge saying, you need to become more persuasive in arguing against racism because in the real world, you can't just tell racists to stop being racist, you might have to use some logos to defeat their arguments. I feel like, if a team is rolling with the "racism good" arg throughout a tournament, sure, they will beat that one bad team, but they'll lose to every other decent team and go 1-6. That means they're still disincentivized to say racism good.
  6. That's probably just a reactive will to power. You'd be better off reading realism cards.
  7. mcgiggles

    Lacan :)

    In Lacan's seminar, "The Ego in Freud's Theory," he states that: "Desire is a relation to being to lack. The lack is the lack of being properly speaking. It is not the lack of this or that, but lack of being whereby the being exists." and a few paragraphs later... "Desire, a function central to all human experience, is the desire for nothing nameable. And at the same time this desire lies at the origin of every variety of animation. If being were only what it is, there wouldn't even be room to talk about it. Being comes into existence as an exact function of this lack. Being attains a sense of self in relation to being as a function of this lack, in the experience of desire. In the pursuit of this beyond, which is nothing, it harks back to the feeling of a being with self-consciousness, which is nothing but its own reflection in the world of things. For it is the companion of beings there before it, who do not in fact know themselves" I'll be honest - I am having a very hard time deciphering Lacan and even the secondary material surrounding him. 1. Can you give any insight into these passages? How can the lack be a lack of being when Lacan also argues that the lack constitutes human identity? Is there a meaningful distinction between identity and being? What does the "being" that we lack look like? 2. Is there any empirical or scientific basis for this phenomenon of the lack? If not, on what grounds does Lacan argue that the fundamental driving antagonism of human beings is this lack? 3. Why does Lacan believe that the unconscious is a complex entity structured like a language as opposed to Freud's understanding of it as a primordial yet sentient force of will influenced by human drive? How does this contribute to Lacan's understanding of human identity and the lack?
  8. Just explain why their argument is an ad hominem and why that's a logical fallacy. Now, if they have a card that actually connects your application of his ideas to Nazism, you might need a card.
  9. Not trying to bash on Beacon's argument or anything like that - I think it has a very important pedagogical value in our activity. I do, however, think that the idea that teams should pick an argument because they personally believe in it and always advocate that argument is problematic. Debate, in my mind, is supposed to be about challenging one's *own* assumptions and learning to argue your opponent's argument as well as your own so that you can understand it better and, in the real world, possibly defeat it. Always reading the same argument makes you vulnerable to dogmatism and makes it more difficult for one to sympathize with another's view. It could be argued that the reason why modern politics today is so bad is because it's incredibly polarizing because people are so ideological that they can't look past their own world views. I'm not advocating moral relativism outside the debate space - believe what you want to believe and what you think is right. But debate is a unique space in which students can experiment and toy with the possibility that they may not know all of the answers. I don't understand why we have to make the round political. For example, a team like Beacon can be anti-racist and advocate a disidentification with the state on the negative (a la authors like Rodriguez) and still be anti-racist on the aff yet advocate a different methodology for that like one that utilizes the state.
  10. Pretty sure Joe LeDuc (Saint George's) is going to debate at Wake Forest.
  11. I know I'll definitely try to record late elims.
  12. It's a really good idea to read new links on the permutation in the block because it can be devastating if the 1AR concedes them. To be fair though, if your links are really similar, a 1AR can group them and answer them fairly effectively, so just pick your 2 or 3 best ones for the block.
  13. I agree and disagree with you. I dislike this topic - but I actually think that there is a huge aff bias. a. Just because an aff doesn't use resolutional terminology doesn't mean that it's not topical. If anything, the fact that the aff will use specific terminology means that it would be harder for negatives to get counterplan competition because they will only have resolution words defined. b. The internal link to the impact for the spending DA isn't exactly stellar. In addition, the wealth of link-turn evidence about why NASA would create jobs, revitalize the aerospace industry, is pretty good. And even if the spending DA is badass, it's the *only* badass DA on this topic. c. Affs on this topic will find hyper specific solvency evidence from some random dude with a Ph.D. Even if it doesn't make sense, the depth of ideas on space will make for a huge negative research burden. d. Negatives can read four conditional worlds and an international fiat CP on any topic. It's probably not strategic though.
  • Create New...