Jump to content

DML

Member
  • Content Count

    1325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by DML


  1. this is pretty subjective.  i have no idea what you're basing this on

     

    just as a quick data reference, as far as i can tell there have been four female top speakers at the TOC in the last 40 years

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_of_Champions_(debate)#Past_Policy_Debate_Top_Speakers

     

    not saying guys are better or whatever.  there just doesn't seem to be any particular link between gender and spreading ability

    • Upvote 1

  2.  

    I'm talking about "common themes", plural. Having arguments against solely micropolitical approaches or against historical geneologies, for example, is neither obvious or dependent on oversimplification, but could be very useful in a Foucault debate.

     

    only gonna respond to this part bc i don't wanna get involved in the rest of it

     

    while those might be useful to some degree it definitely still suffers from the reductionism problem--like, foucault could be described as micropolitical, sure, but so could deleuze or really any poststructuralist, and often the literature will be responding to one vein of "micropolitics" which most half-decent k debaters will be able to differentiate from theirs (honestly i think that the concept of "micropolitical approaches" suffers more from my argument than anything, in that it's really hard to craft an argument that refutes "sometimes stuff changes stuff on a local level which may effect more change").  similarly, genealogical approaches have been used by everyone from libertarians to frank wilderson.  my argument is just that it's hard to have a generic refutation of any of your "common themes" without either being nonresponsive or just plain dumb ("lol lets not look at the past this time guyz").  there is literally no disadvantage to pursuing an approach that focuses more on the application of the aff to the k rather than refuting the individual parts of the k--it's much more strategic to see the forest from the trees in that looking at how the k interacts with the aff will be much more productive than seeing the phrase "ontology" in the context of a wilderson debate and pulling out your "heideggerian ontological approach wrong" frontline.

     

    by the way, you should know that taleb's name is actually "nassim nicholas taleb", and not "nicholas nassem taleb"

    • Upvote 3

  3. even if an author can be boiled down to a "common theme" that's usually either far too gross of an oversimplification to represent the nuances of an argument (as snarf is saying) or it's so basic it can't be refuted (e.g., "sometimes information is different from reality" for baudrillard or "power exists" for foucault or "stuff is different from other stuff" for really any post-structuralist).  you're best off applying your "general" blocks (which really shouldn't exist, you should have case-specific applications of your aff to arguments which don't necessarily have to be pre-scripted) to the specific round--figure out what part of the aff they're applying the k to and then defend it.  that will guaranteed be more responsive than "heidegger had something to do with nazis rite" 100% of the time

    • Upvote 5

  4. It's not like the city doesn't exist any more though.

     

    I mean he was referring to the "military presence" topic

     

    For the record, he might have been confusing Fukushima with Futenma, our marine base in Okinawa which is what has drawn the most flak


  5. Why not just look at backfires on the military pullout topic?  Japan was one of the topic countries.

     

    Its on NDCA/Open evidence.

     

    I imagine Wikipedia has something as well.

     

    I seem to remember the two key ones as Okinawa and Fukishima.

     

    Okinawa's tension was based on rape of locals--although I'm sure the issue is more complex.

     

    lol uh definitely not fukushima


  6. File Name: Unbroken Secret Aff

    File Submitter: DML

    File Submitted: 17 May 2013

    File Category: Affirmatives

    Resolution: Transportation

     

    This is an aff that I've had ready for a while but has never been read (not just by teams that I've worked with but by any team on the circuit). To keep the element of surprise in play I'd prefer not to post public information about it but I will answer any questions about it through PM that you might have prior to buying it (as long as you don't tell). This aff is strategic, surprising, and has a different angle on the topic that hasn't really been taken much advantage of this year by any big team.

    Also it's a policy aff so it's NFLs-friendly.

    All necessary blocks are there, the file is highlighted, and explanation is provided in the file, all for the price of $10. Again, let me clarify, if you are interested in the file send me a private message and I will answer any and all questions you have in confidentiality. You don't have to buy it to do this, and you don't have to buy it after PMing me--if you decide you aren't interested then that's fine. Of course, there's always the option of taking me on my word and buying the file without asking, but to each their own...

     

    Click here to download this file

    • Upvote 1

  7. File Name: Ecosophy K

    File Submitter: DML

    File Submitted: 03 May 2013

    File Category: Critiques

    Resolution: Transportation

     

    A smaller version of the Ecosophy aff that I have also submitted reformulated into a K with appropriate blocks. Strategy wise, this can be either a one-off position or an insular position in the 1NC that becomes 13 minutes of the block. The card quality is fantastic and can likely carry over into other Ks that you wish to run.

     

    Click here to download this file


  8. File Name: Ecosophy Aff

    File Submitter: DML

    File Submitted: 03 May 2013

    File Category: Affirmatives

    Resolution: Transportation

     

    An aff written for the TOC that never got to be broken. (Un)surprisingly enough there's only one card that actually has to do with transportation so this will be applicable for other topics beyond this one. The argument revolves around Felix Guattari's idea of ecosophy as a new form of philosophy that brings the personal in touch with the social and the environmental, and advocates a new form of transportation infrastructure that was never read in high school to my knowledge this year.

    Even though the topic is drawing to a close, this file still has some of the best and most comprehensive framework answers that you will see. If you plan to read any kind of shifty non-fiat-y aff at some point this file is worth purchasing just for the framework and cap answers.

     

    Click here to download this file


  9. I think that pace does have a "command" of their evidence. They do research and have a very good coaching staff at the TOC. The TOC is a tournament in which people often break new arguments that people are unprepared for, so researching and having a command of one's own evidence is probably not as important as usual. Albeit said team should have a grasp of their new aff or off-case positions. The TOC will be very close but Carrolton and Pace definitely have a good chance at the TOC. Pace did lose some debates this season on lack of research, but that also overlooks debates that they have won vs other teams such as stratford or hooch. Again, the playing field is even and Pace could still very well lose early - the post above was way too critical of that team. 

     

    Also on a sidenote the pace team does a ton of work - i hear brian klarman is an incredible researcher who works his butt off for everyone at pace, victor cuts alot of good cards, paula does a ton of work, and jordan also does work. 

    i bet this person goes to pace

    • Upvote 4

  10. Kioupkiolis 11 – Lecturer in Political Organization at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

    (Alexandros, “Keeping it open: Ontology, ethics, knowledge and radical democracy,†Philosophy & Social Criticism vol. 37 no. 6 691-708, dml)

     

    As he understands it, the ‘political’ implies primarily the subversion of social fixity, the questioning of established order, transformative praxis and the construction of new subjectivities and social aggregations. Therefore, politics should break loose from ontology, which is entangled with order, stabilization, unity. 45 Critchley takes issue with notions and practices that ontologize politics and its agent, the people, by tying them up with a unified Volk or a state grounded in a communal essence. He assails Marx’s communism on the grounds that it is informed by an essentialist metaphysic of species-being which comes laden with an organicist notion of community and recalls ideas of fusion, fullness and harmony. 46 Politics, by contrast, is a manifestation of the multiplicity of the people who challenge established relations of power with various demands, 47 expressing a dissensus that disturbs and antagonizes instituted forms of society. Hence, politics should not be confused with any given order. Politics is at one with democracy construed as the ‘deformation of society from itself through the act of material political manifestation’. 48 A further reason for minding the gap between politics and ontology is that political action does not emanate from systemic laws and ontological determinations. It requires the intervention of a subject that is vested with powers of imagination and the will to fight and endure. No ontology can initiate political action and secure its outcomes. ‘We are on our own and what we do we have to do for ourselves.’ 49 Political agency is focused on the creation of a collective will, and this can only be the product of invention, struggle, negotiation and hegemony in specific situations, not the windfall of any pre-given ontology. After the collapse of grand revolutionary aspirations, the politics of resistance, emancipation and empowerment moves, for Critchley, in a particular direction. If the breakdown of the revolutionary proletarian subject has dashed the hopes of a final dissolution of the state, the politics of self-determination in autonomous associations should situate itself at a distance from the state, which operates vertical hierarchies of control and seeks to tighten its grip on society as a whole, stifling human freedom. 50 The politics of radical democracy should strive to bring about fissures in the order of ‘police’ and to carve out spaces of freedom within state-controlled society. Political resistance should undertake transformative praxis by bringing together dissenting subjects that struggle to attenuate the perverse effects of state politics and want to enact relations of conviviality and freedom. ‘True democracy would be an enactment of cooperative alliances . . . that materially deform the state power that threatens to saturate them.’ 51 Ethics in the guise of ‘anarchic meta-politics’ is lodged at the centre of this democratic vision. 52 Critchley’s anarchic ethics captures and upholds the political moment of democracy in which existing relations of control are questioned and unsettled by the dissenting demos – the moment when the contestability and mutability of social institutions are acknowledged and acted upon. But a narrower ethical dimension is equally pivotal for Critchley: the experience of an infinite demand of the other that calls on me to act in the name of my responsibility to the other, in response to particular injustices and conditions of distress. Anarchic meta-politics is propelled by the ‘exorbitant demand at the heart of my subjectivity that defines that subjectivity by dividing it and opening it to otherness’, 53 a demand which is posed concretely in particular situations and can arouse feelings of anger at the injustices suffered by others. In Critchley’s view, this ethical inflection, inspired by Levinas’ ethics of an infinite responsibility to the other, should provide the guide, the fuel and the glue for democratic resistances today. 54 If ontological schemata or structural laws cannot sustain radical politics today, anarchic, Levinasian ethics should step into their shoes. This ethical conception chimes with the disorderly, contestatory politics of democracy as it registers the experience of unruly encounters with multiple singularities, which elude full grasp and could not be contained within a single collective structure. 55 Moreover, if politics is not the outcome of objective mechanisms but consists in uncertain action and struggle, an ethics of responsibility can offer the guidance and motivation that are required for political agency. 56 Critchley commends his Levinasian ethics for these purposes because it stands out as a cogent expression of ethical experience, it can be detected on the ground of contemporary activism, it articulates a demand which is not arbitrary but universal in scope and it is energized by a feeling of anger at a situation of global injustice. 57 These features make the ethics of infinite responsibility well suited to produce the hegemonic glue that will hold the various dissident groups together in collective aggregations that fight global inequities.

    • Upvote 4
×
×
  • Create New...