Jump to content

jarassick

Member
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About jarassick

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/23/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rob
  • School
    Highland Park
  • Biography
    Who wants to know?
  • Location
    Dallas

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    jarassick
  1. It's not offense in a Nietzschean framework because the values he propogates are antithetical to Nietzschean values. What you're left with is just "politics good" which isn't responsive.
  2. This whole thread keeps going down the wrong rabbit hole. The relevance of the May card to Nietzsche (might want to spell it right) is not "politics makes the world kumbaya and thus solves the link... or happy politics is a disad to the alt or whatever". This is in the context of FOUCAULT'S POLITICAL THEORY, not a Nietzschean philosophy of will. Noone seems to understand that all we're trying to get at is self-describing your politics as "egalitarian" makes your value structure mutually exclusive with will to power, which the AUTHOR of the card admits.
  3. This is a clash-of-civilization question. I think its a fair assumption to use the term "policy" when referencing traditional politics vs. nietzschean politics (if such a thing exists). You just can't attach terms like "egalitarianism" to your politics and expect them to pass the test of the Zoraster.
  4. Going further, May's vision of politics as "egalitarian" is exactly what any good Nietzsche team wants you to admit to: promoting mediocrity guised as equality. Although critique debate tends to avoid discussion of archetypal figures like "the ubermensch", May is definitely using them(the artists/conquerers) to draw a critical distinction between his value structure and the Nietzschean one. The core of this issue is the relation of one's politics to will to power and I just don't think this even qualifies as defense. Is Baudrillard the epistemic benchmark for policy teams now?
  5. Obligatory first post for history being made.
  6. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    What are you interested in? I can always use a new Nietzsche alt.
  7. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    First and foremost, I'd like to say that this thread is awesome, much more so than the other "Inception K" threads that seem to infest this board. To quote Jackie Massey, I think were splitting hairs here. It seems that we both agree that Nietzsche's philosophy endorsed an active affirmation of the will. However, in the debate world, a more passive reading of Nietzsche is sometimes more strategic given the large lit base for "alt=rape/genocide/violence". This means there are two points of discussion in order to answer the OP's question. First, what suits his needs? An active or passive alt? Second, if active, what kind of active alt? This is where we got into the diceroll vs affirm the will to power vs owen and ridley debate. What I can derive from what you're saying is that they all work as long as they're articulated, fundamentally, as affirmations of the will that don't succumb to negative nihilism.
  8. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    So, to clarify, you think his alt should be "endorse the will to power" but you think that the state can't act as a result of the will to power?
  9. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    Since all action is derived from the will to power, if the alt text was just "endorse the will to power" the aff could just make the arg that the plan is an example of the will to power. Don't know why the aff would destroy agonism or what cards you're talking about when you reference this impact. More explanation would be nice... Could you explain how affirming chance and destiny would be passive? I understand the reason passivity wouldn't be optimal, but why would the deleuze alt be considered passive? The arg with Owen and Ridley is just that we should act on behalf of our own fate, not others. Gets you the most perm offense against levinas affs because the herd mentality links function as offense.
  10. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    Endorsing the will to power doesn't solve the critique and gives the aff way to much perm ground. Diceroll or Last Man would be better since they don't link to the will to order.
  11. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    What post are you saying he should ignore?
  12. jarassick

    Neitzsche alt

    Depends. Are you running a security-oriented Nietzsche or a more anti-morals one? The Deleuze alt is more strategic for the security version (if you read Der Derian). You can also read Owen and Ridley, although this requires a bit more nuanced explanation. White is much more strategic if you are just reading a sort of "vanilla" shell.
  13. jarassick

    Pump up songs

    Ante Up - M.O.P. Ground Zero - M.O.P. Can't Be Touched - Roy Jones 'Till I collapse - Eminem and Nate Any and all dubstep
  14. Heteronormativity's basic thesis is that all power structures are framed (in the status quo) as masculine-feminine, good-bad, strong-weak binaries. If you have a heg, colonization, econ or competitiveness advantage you will most definitely link, but the good news is that you can win a substantial no-internal-link argument. The tradeoff with reading a K this broad is that it links to everything, so you can make claims about how the impacts are in a large context, not the specific heteronormative action of the plan. The most on point response though is that Queer Theory is bad and doesn't solve. The alternative revolves around the ability to use discourse to confuse and disrupt status quo hegemony. Find authors that indict this form of resistance. I think Jarvis is pretty good on this question, as well as intersectionality authors. These arguments also function as perm solvency. There is also a card in the Michigan fem file that claims the alt freezes IR boundaries, which is a direct turn to the alt. Other generic args that apply but are less specific: -Realism true/inev -Discourse doesn't shape reality -Utopian fiat bad -Piks bad -Threats real -Objectivity good/truth claims important -That Isaac card might be worthwhile
  15. please don't give K debaters a bad reputation by running these "arguments"
×
×
  • Create New...