Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Good

About Bennett

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/01/1902
  1. Thanks for the explanation. A few follow-up questions; 1, If nonfascist life entails rejecting utopian/binary conceptions of morality, rather viewing ethics more as a flux/transition, doesn't this mean that Deleuze is concerned with metaethics moreso than ethics? Does he have any general conception of the "good" for philosophy to strive or is philosophy merely aimless? Is the only ethical prescriptions formed by Deleuze against the coding/regulating of flows? This is my confusion regarding his collapse of ontology into ethics. What direction is a life without fascism, even if obtaining non-fascism fully is impossible? It ethics a natural force for Deleuze, something not under our control? 2, You say Badiou misinterprets Deleuze by suggesting that Deleuze advocates a univocity, a singular being. But doesn't Deleuze advocate univocity? Deleuze is a monist. Didn't he even say "My only enemy is two" and "A single voice raises the clamor of being"? I'm sure there is some method Deleuze uses to reconcile difference and this obsession with the single voice, but I don't simply understand it and how it interacts with the concepts he presents. 3, D&G make an argument to the effect that we should mimic the strata in ATP. To what extent should the strata be mimicked and how is this argument justifiable given the philosophical mandates D&G propose?
  2. I've been reading through A-O and looking through D&G readers and have been getting some of their arguments, but a good deal of their arguments are still confusing me; 1, In A-O the section on the three syntheses made next to zero sense to me. What are they and how do they interact with the rest of the book (I get desiring-production, schizoanalysis, Oedipus/Lacan=bad and all that in a general, text book sense) 2, How does Deleuze's earlier, more densely philosophical writings relate to his work with Guattari? How do concepts like the virtual/the actual, intensivity/extensivity, the plane of immanence, the image of thought, difference vs identity, his rejection of transcendentalism and idealism in favor of empiricism etc. interact with his political writings in C&S? These ideas are alluded to in A-O, but I guess a general lack of understanding of the implications of those ideas is hindering my comprehension. Also, while I get the conceptual problems with Hegel's theories as per Deleuze, what impact does Hegel's ideas have on the political categories Deleuze dislikes? Like, why is Hegel fascist/capitalist? 3, What is the difference between a code and an axiom? 4, What does D&G's ethics look like? I get that we should reject microfascism, that being, and by extension ethics, is becoming, that we need to resist the seduction of power etc. but what exactly does this look like? Maybe my understanding of becoming-minor is faulty, but I have a difficult time conceptualizing Deleuzoguattarian ethics. Additionally, why does Deleuze collapse ontology and ethics into one category? 5, In D&G's world, what is the relation between subject and object? Do they reject the distinction outright, do they propose an alternative conception of subjectivity, or something else? 6, What does it mean for philosophy to be an encounter? 7, I've tried to read Badiou's "clamor of being" and read parts of Zizek's "Organs without Bodies" and, while I understand their differences in influences and philosophical background, I don't really understand their critiques. What does it mean to be the "ideologist of late capitalism"? I mean, a good deal of the arguments seem rhetorical and disingenuous, but that may be the result of over-enthusiasm for Deleuze. 8, What does Deleuze mean by "association" when he's establishing an alternative to transcendental thought? 9, Though this is probably obtuse and dumb, why does Deleuze adopt the monist, empiricist, anti-identity/morality perspective that he does? Why is difference preferable to identity? What is the ethical mandate to reject the tradition of Kant and Hegel? 10, Is The Logic of Sense worth reading? 11, Is Deleuze best philosopher ever? Thanks to anyone willing to answer all these questions
  3. I wasn't suggesting that those that read continental philosophy understood it better, just that in order to win with it you had to have a good understanding of it. There are plenty of bad K debaters in LD, its just the only good ones I know of generally have a pretty good understanding of the Ks they usually run (there are obviously exceptions, but as a general rule I think this is true). Conversely, under a traditional paradigm, one can win with blatant misinterpretations of these philosophers. However, I don't think this issue is that big since it seems like we pretty much agree on the paradymic stuff.
  4. The distinction is that to do well in round with a kritikal/continental author you generally have to have a better understanding of the author's arguments, while (at least in LD), you could be using a complete misinterpretation of Kant/Rawls/Nozick etc. and get away with it because, besides the intuitive nature of these misinterpretations and their seeming simplicity, the arguments that indict the bastardizations of these authors are too "complex" for traditional debate. Thats why focus on those authors when considering a paradigm, while not in itself destructive, requires special consideration given their commonly abusive and uneducational usage. There is no expectation that you have to improve your knowledge of these authors since you can win on extremely condensed and singular readings of them, while the expectation when approaching a K is that unless you continually improve your understanding of the argument, you will probably fail (at least this is the view that is present among the K debaters I've talked to in LD, I don't know how its like in policy). Its only within a framework where rigorous engagement of an author is mandated that we can start seeing substantive usages of Kant/Rawls etc. emerge, not the dumb "persuasion is a top priority" paradigm a lot of traditionalists advocate.
  5. Maybe I was unclear (I do tend to do that). I wasn't intending that Kant, the philosopher, was unsubstantive, but that Kant as how he's used in traditional LD is unsubstantive. Kant in LD is just simplistic deontology that is used to preclude any other relevant consideration (people will make arguments that deontological arguments function as "side constraints" to the aff and must be answered in their entirety before the aff can access any offense. These are often poorly warranted). When I referred to those authors, I was referencing their normative application in LD, not their theories itself (when you have to debate against those usages of authors like Kant/Rawls/Nozick one's view of their theories tends to be skewed). Although I think the argument that policy-based and philosophical positions can coexist under a single resolution is true.
  6. @tshuman I'm gonna do this line by line since my forum formatting abilities are gimped "Declining popularity" I haven't noticed this, and I'm not just gonna take you word because you told me, but just in case thats true, I think its absurd to turn LD into a game that needs immediate popular appeal, especially at the sacrifice of education. "No warrant for LD becoming policy" I gave you one dude. So-called "policy style" LD contains plenty of philosophical discussion through the kritik. Your only response is a meager ad hominem calling kritiks "kritikal bullshit", which isn't really a warrant sir. So far, your only impact is declining popularity and it isn't being substantiated with any clear empirical warrant. Also, can you please articulate to me how kritiks aren't relevant to helping people in poverty? "Rawls/Nozick published after etc." This issue doesn't matter, because my paradigm still allows for these authors to be included. The reason I called them "outdated" is that current philosophers don't both allow further investigation into them that much because they aren't as radical as, say, Levinas or Heidegger (thats not to say no one writes about Rawls/Nozick, but I bet more people doing philosophy would stress the importance of Levinas/Heidegger) Also, that ad hominem about how I "don't have control of philosophy and rhetoric", I normally ignore dickish ad hominem attacks, and I couldn't give a shit if you think my control of philosophy is bad, but don't bring up the rhetoric dude. I have a language and grammar disorder that stems from a biological condition, so don't complain about my ability to control rhetoric because I read over that post like 5 times before submitting it. I normally hate it when people bring up a "disorder" in an argument because it seems like a distraction, but that remark was just unnecessary dude. "Why does LD need to become fast?" This is defense, not a reason to prefer your paradigm. I already gave a few unique aspects of LD (1 v 1 isn't offered in policy, greater tradition in analytic philosophy, structural differences) and I don't see the impact, beyond speculative doomsaying, to LD becoming more like policy. "Influence in activity stuff" I can tell you, those that have excelled at the NFL in recent years didn't give a shit about the norms the NFL advocates, as demonstrated by someone like Jake Nebel getting to finals of NFL. The community will always have more power than the structure that attempts to control them, and I bet more LDers would recognize the significance of the TOC over the significance of the NFL, so those accomplishments don't really mean much. Plus, this issue doesn't matter since it isn't a reason to prefer the traditionalist paradigm "Speed doesn't make you smarter" Again, this is just defense, to clarify. And I didn't argue "speed makes you smarter". I argued that "speedy debate makes you better at persuasive, traditional debate as indicated by the winners of nats for the last few years. This nonuniques the biggest implication you try to claim for your paradigm. Lets review; My paradigm; -Policy making and philosophical discussions -Makes you better at traditional debate -More educational Your paradigm; -Philosophical debate only (and in some cases, very limited. I highly doubt that a judge in your paradigm would be ok with a Zupancic K) which is nonunique -Makes you good at traditional debate, but not enough to keep the circuit debaters from taking over your biggest event -A "solvency deficit" in terms of declining popularity on the other paradigm HOWEVER 1, there is no empirical warrant for this and 2, there is reason why such a decline is caused by circuit debate, and the onus is on you to prove that. So the only unique impact you have is this solvency deficit, which again is only mitigatory when compared to the educational benefits I have. Remember, you can still debate traditional within my paradigm, but you can't debate technically in yours. Thats decision calc 101.
  7. @tshuman; First off, a better clarification of the implications to "policy-style LD" and "traditional LD" is needed for this argument to go anywhere. The main reason I mention the kritik is that I think the so called "policy-style LD" captures any benefits of traditional LD through these philosophical discussions. The assumption that granting DAs/CPs legitimacy will lead to a destruction of philosophical debate is absurd; just look at policy debate, where the two styles are prominent. I'm arguing that the impact to traditional LD is terminally nonunique, and I don't see the problem in exposing LD to a new area of education. Keep in mind that I'm a HUGE K debater and the closest thing I've run to a policymaking case had kritikal advantages, so I'm not against philosophical discussions by any means. I'm against arbitrarily closing off relevant discussions because of archaisms. That seems to be antithetical to any true pedagogical project. In terms of your two bottom questions: 1, I don't see any problem for LD to become "1 on 1 policy". That structural difference is huge, plus community norms make LD more distinct to an extent (like the greater usage of analytic philosophy in LD). I don't see any implication to this beyond the tired and untrue argument "this is LD, not policy". 2, Kritiks solve back any of your "ethics and morality" qualms. In fact, authors like Badiou, Zizek, DnG, Levinas, Heidegger etc. offer much more substantive, advanced views than the outdated traditional authors like Kant, Rawls, Nozick etc. (I'm assuming these are the authors you thought of when you mentioned "ethics and morality"). I'm arguing a system that combines both policymaking arguments and kritikal arguments is the best combination when compared to your alternative. In terms of how many people prefer technical debates, I don't have the raw numbers, but I know those with actual influence in the activity prefer the paradigm I'm advocating than the paradigm advocated by debaters from isolated traditional areas. I'm willing to bet your response to this will be to emphasize the merit in "persuasive, traditional" debate as a unique educational advantage over fast, technical versions of my paradigm. The problem is that the type of education I advocate is a lot better at teaching debaters to be persuasive than even your slower paradigm. Look at NFL nats the last few years; those who were in the finals rounds were big nat circuit debaters who debated technically and fast at every other tournament they went to (here is a video of one of the finalists of last years NFL nats in his normal debate style; ). Learning how to debate fast generally helps you when debating slow because your mind will be able to prioritize and strategize better than the debater who is used to slow, simple debates (and yes they are simple. I've been in a lot of these debates and usually the decision calc boils down to one measly issue that could've been discussed in one minute under normal conversational speed, but instead is debated for 45 minutes and with an entry fee). I, for one, want to get more out of debate and not have to work with a partner. I know a large number of people in LD right now that want the same thing. The traditionalists are fighting a losing battle. My question is why bother? In terms of topics, I really don't like the following trends; -Translate some kind of kritikal position into the resolution (ie crit pedagogy for SEE, the proposed anthro bad resolutions in this thread). They are way too specific and cripple neg kritikal ground. We need more "open" resolutions that allow for a variety of interesting and varied aff and neg positions. -Negatively worded resolutions. Anyone whose debated LD before knows these suck. Suggestions; -USFG ought decrease reliance on the scientific community for policy-making decisions (Feyerabend's arguments are highly relevant here and can lead to some really really interesting debates. Kritiks of science and the effects of empiricism on the state make for interesting aff ground, and negs can point to the positive effects of things like climate science and the state) -USFG ought reform education (bidirectional, offers lots of good stock and kritikal ground) -USFG ought bolster animal rights laws (anthro can go aff or neg now since there are a lot of authors who condemn the institution of animal rights, there exist substantive policy making impacts, more deontology debates) -USFG ought reform the legal system in one of the following areas; the penal system, law enforcement's ability to search and seize etc. (I couldn't think of that many categories for this but I think the idea of reforming our legal system leads to interesting debates about statism)
  8. The distinction between LD and policy on a substantive level is arbitrary. Even in seemingly "policy" oriented topics, philosophy can still come into play (through the kritik). As truth testing is phased out more and more and as LDers urge for more substantive debates I think regressing into dated topic structures is just unnecessary and futile. If you want to do simple debate, do PF. Some of us want intense technical debates without having to work with a partner, and I don't see why we can't have that. On topic; Resolved; The USFG should fund and support initiatives for space colonization. Do it.
  9. I debate LD and analytic philosophy is (or was, rather) extremely common. This stemmed from the "truth testing" paradigm which viewed the resolution as a descriptive statement to be tested as true or not (its easy to see where analytic philosophy would have huge relevance). This year, however, more and more people are moving to the offense/defense paradigm, so the usage of analytic philosophy has declined, but there are still a lot of debaters who know a lot about analytic philosophy and it tends to come into play in rounds sometimes. Here are some ways I think analytic philosophy can be effectively used; 1, Bolster link stories of Ks. There are a bunch of analytic philosophers with political ideas (Singer and animal liberation, McIntyre and communitarianism), but the way they justify these arguments are much more heavily focused on the "link level" than the "impact level". These authors will spend a lot of there books meticulously constructing a normative conception of ethics before even applying it. Mix a really good analytic link story with some good impacts and you'd have a pretty bomb K (although, a practical consideration is that analytic philosophy is really hard to highlight down in cards since they literally justify everything as if it were a mathematic proof). 2, Answering Ks. I haven't really seen any specific usages of this, but it seems the claims found in analytic philosophy could take out the internal warranting of tricky Ks. However, again, there are practical considerations because these arguments would take a lot of time to develop and would only be defensive since they attack the link structure solely, but I bet you could catch certain K debaters off guard. 3, More nuanced framework debates. In LD, there were a lot of intense debates about the inner workings of different theories of utilitarianism/deontology that would occur. Though these debates are being phased out somewhat, I think that in a debate that comes down to ethics vs bodycount, knowing a little analytic philosophy can help you massively. 4, The analytic method is fucking amazing. Seriously. Being trained in analytic philosophy has significantly improved my ability to explain Ks in a clear manner, as all analytic philosophy is written as if every single sentence is going to be checked for perfect coherency. Just learning analytic philosophy is useful alone because of this. Its going to be interesting to see if debate ever embraces analytic philosophy. If I were to wager, the next major intellectual shift in debate would probably originate there. Regardless, I fully support people running more analytic philosophy if only to counter the culture of obfuscationism surrounding K debate.
  10. Substantively, LD is slowly becoming similar to policy, so your general paradigm for judging policy could still be applied to LD. The V/VC is merely a way to provide an implicit weighing mechanism for offense in the round, and isn't really crucial for cases (Think of the V/VC like stock issues in policy. They really aren't necessary). One particularity of LD is that more people appeal to textuality as being absolute in rounds (ie X definition of a term means we should evaluate offense in X way) regardless of whether the definition is good. However, those practices are becoming more unpopular. Rounds are generally slower, but you'll probably still see some fast, technical rounds. Also, Ks have kinda fallen out of favor in LD this year for some reason, so expect a lot of DA/CP debate. Any other questions? Also, out of curiosity, which tournament are you going to?
  11. Bennett


    Mainly how they're used in debate. I know they kritik Lacanian psychoanalysis, but beyond that I don't know anything else. Definitions/explanations of their jargon like "rhizome", "becoming-X", "schizoanalysis", their views on production/capitalism, "bodies without organs", territorialization/deterritorialization etc would be nice.
  12. Bennett


    Can someone explain how DnG are used in debate and give a general summary of their philosophy?
  13. Ok so I read through Labor of Dionysus's introduction and couldn't find any cards that aren't already argued better in Empire/Multitude. Maybe I wasn't reading carefully, but where and what exactly are these cards?
  14. What specifically does virno write about? Is he good for alt cards? Thanks Edit: Do you have any recommendations for further reading on hardt and negri beyond the obvious empire/multitude/commonwealth?
  15. What are the best places to get cards out of Labor of Dionysus and Virno's Grammar of the Multitude?
  • Create New...