Gonna have to double-post because the original post was too long, lulz. Alright, I'll play your game bro
Arenâ€™t we all critics at heart? Besides, this sentence seems to be an excuse to criticize me â€“ arbitrary much?
Why do I believe judges are becoming less reliant on offense-defense? Letâ€™s use some actual evidence here â€“ quick search of the phrase â€œzero riskâ€ on the judge wiki (which is a phrase commonly used in conjunction with a section on offense-defense) reveals that a grand total of one result supports the offense-model, and thatâ€™s Cat Duffy, so take that how you will. Every other result on that page has a phrase saying something like â€œoffense-defense is stupidâ€ or â€œI am willing to assign zero risk to an argumentâ€. I donâ€™t really feel like going through the rest of the pages, but I have a funny feeling that the vast majority (the phrase you chose to use) would seem to prefer a model of debate that rejects offense-defense.
check urself b4 u wreck urself bro
who needs an alt â€“ owen 97
The â€˜universalâ€™ intellectual, on Foucaultâ€™s account, is that figure who maintains a commitment to critique as a legislative activity in which the pivotal positing of universal norms (or universal procedures for generating norms) grounds politics in the â€˜truthâ€™ of our being (e.g. our â€˜realâ€™ interests). The problematic form of this type of intellectual practice is a central concern of Foucaultâ€™s critique of humanist politics in so far as humanism simultaneously asserts and undermines autonomy. If, however, this is the case, what alternative conceptions of the role of the intellectual and the activity of critique can Foucault present to us? Foucaultâ€™s elaboration of the specific intellectual provides the beginnings of an answer to this question: I dream of the intellectual who destroys evidence and generalities, the one who, in the inertias and constraints of the present time, locates and marks the weak points, the openings, the lines of force, who is incessantly on the move, doesnâ€™t know exactly where he is [they are] heading nor what he [they] will think tomorrow, for he is [they are] too attentive to the present (PPC p. 124) The historicity of thought, the impossibility of locating an Archimedean point outside time, leads Foucault to locate intellectual activity as an ongoing attentiveness to the present in terms of what is singular and arbitrary in what we take to be universal and necessary. Following from this, the intellectual does not seek to offer grand theories but specific analyses, not global but local criticism. We should be clear on the latter point for it is necessary to acknowledge that Foucaultâ€™s position does entail the impossibility of â€˜acceding to a point of view that could give us access to any complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limitsâ€™ and, consequently, â€˜we are always in the position of bargaining againâ€™ (FR p. 47). The upshot of this recognition of the partial character of criticism is not, however, to produce an ethos of fatal resignation but, in so far as it involves a recognition that everything is dangerous, a â€˜hyper and pessimistic activismâ€™ (FR p. 343). In other words, it is the very historicity and particularity of criticism which bestows on the activity of critique its dignity and urgency. What of this activity then? We can sketch the Foucault account of the activity of critique by coming to grips with the opposition he draws between ideal critique and real transformation. Foucault suggests that the activity of critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are but rather of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, uncontested modes of thought the practices we accept rest (PPC p.154) The genealogical thrust of this critical activity is â€˜to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident is no longer accepted as suchâ€™ for â€˜as soon as one can no longer think things as one formerly thought them, transformation becomes both very urgent, very difficult, and quite possibleâ€™ (PPC p. 155). The urgency of transformation derives from the contestation of thought (and the social practices in which it is embedded) as the form of our autonomy, although this urgency is given its specific character for modern culture by the recognition that the humanist grammar of this thought ties us into the technical matrix of biopolitics. The specificity of intellectual practice and this account of the activity of critique come together in the refusal to legislate a universal determination of â€˜what is rightâ€™ in favour of the perpetual problematization of the present. It is not a question, for Foucault, of invoking a determination of who we are as a basis for critique but of locating what we are now as the basis for reposing the question â€˜who are we?â€™ The role of the intellectual is thus not to speak on behalf of others (the dispossessed, the downtrodden) but to create the space within which others can speak for themselves. The question remains, however, as to the capacity of Foucaultâ€™s work to perform this crucial activity through an entrenchment of the ethics of creativity as the structures of recognition through which we recognize our autonomy in the contestation of determinations of who we are.
Explain the difference in the context of this, kthx
I honestly do not know what you are saying here â€“ the post that we are both citing seems to be an attempt to take a very specific instance and generalize it to every debate round ever (â€œIf there's only a .001% chance that a nuclear war kills us all without the plan, I'm still voting affirmative if the negative has failed to make an offensive argumentâ€ â€œThe negative needs to prove that there's a greater chance that the plan causes extinction than that the plan stops extinctionâ€ â€œmany people find that reading cards about how nuclear war is improbable is a strategically bad ideaâ€). This also doesnâ€™t change the fact that this is a stupid way to debate â€“ if you are ever judging a round and your RFD is â€œYeah, I vote aff, I know that the neg absolutely won that there is no chance that the plan solves or that there would be a Russia war in the first place, but BOSTROM MAN THAT SHIT IS AN EXISTENTIAL RISKâ€, you would get post-rounded like there was no tomorrow and then struck by most everyone. 9/10 judges would recognize why this model is flawed and an outdated way to debate (even Calum agrees and are you really gonna disagree with Calum Matheson? â€œâ€œAny riskâ€ is inane. Below some level of probability, the effect identified should be overwhelmed by random noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. You know whoâ€™s bad at applying math to policymaking? Jonathan Schell. The exact calculation of risk is similarly hilarious. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure itâ€™s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation.â€ ).
You say, after you spend a few paragraphs trying to defend an exhaustive model of debate and insist upon the absolute truth of the strategic necessity of existential impacts. Seriously, stick to your guns. If you think offense-defense is good, donâ€™t back off from it just to maintain some kind of high ground.
Or, if you donâ€™t really care, then donâ€™t respond. Problem solved.
I feel like to a novice who had never done debate it would seem more obvious that we should try to stop things like poverty or global warming even if they do not cause extinction over a tiny, tiny risk of a nuclear war (something that, in the real world, is incredibly unlikely â€“ lending more salience to the impact defense that this thread is supposed to be about anyways). Novices do not enter debate with debate-y mindsets â€“ they see everything through a more real-world lens. They often donâ€™t understand why we always race to the extinction impacts, which is probably a flawed mindset in the first place â€“ thereâ€™s a good post by Odekirk a couple years back on puttingthekindebate on this. I can find the link if itâ€™s really necessary.
Lol while I wonâ€™t dispute that Iâ€™m a rude person on this forum, you picked probs the worst example of it â€“ I canâ€™t understand how that sentence is objectively rude