Jump to content

Evan Scribner

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Evan Scribner

  1. How would it get into space? Phalluses are aerodynamic....
  2. No, I should've been more clear about that. I want to hear what other people are interested in, I'm open to anything. I ran a lot of Heidegger, Deleuze and Bataille last year.
  3. I'm interested in getting a couple people together to write a K aff for the space topic between now and camp. If anyone is interested, PM me.
  4. Evan Scribner


    Your teeth will feel funny for a day or two, then its fine. The actual removal process itself is pretty painless if I remember it right. Spreading is easier.
  5. What are some K authors that you think are underused in debate?
  6. "Baudrillard K" could mean a hundred different args. Which one specifically?
  7. I'm going to Summer Survivors. Is that a good lab?
  8. Do you mean the google document won't display any more after page 110? Google books will only load so many pages of a book before making you buy it. If you clear your cookies or something and then scroll down to that page you should be able to see the whole card.
  9. http://books.google.com/books?id=8CAFyPUNa7EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Power+Without+Responsibility:+How+Congress+Abuses+the+People+through+Delegation&source=bl&ots=XOMcxVjYEh&sig=8JfQmuw0NooNMFjLXD_BiFZfRI0&hl=en&ei=ydC-TatNyJS3B62t8bMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false Cut it yourself page 110 on that version
  10. Can you explain how a hypothetical NASA conspiracy aff would work?
  11. Where can I find that? Thanks for the recommendation, the parallax view is exactly what I was looking for.
  12. In Spurlock's doubling K there's a card from Zizek about short circuits: A short circuit occurs when there is a faulty connection in the network—faulty, of course, from the standpoint of the network’s smooth functioning. Is not the shock of short- circuiting, therefore, one of the best metaphors for a critical reading? Is not one of the most effective critical procedures to cross wires that do not usually touch: to take a major classic (text, author, notion) and read it in a short- circuiting way, through the lens of a “minor” author, text, or conceptual apparatus (“minor” should be understood here in Deleuze’s sense: not “of lesser quality,” but marginalized, disavowed by the hegemonic ideology, or dealing with a “lower,” less dignified topic)? If the minor reference is well chosen, such a procedure can lead to insights which completely shatter and undermine our common perceptions. This is what Marx, among others, did with philosophy and religion (short- circuiting philosophical speculation through the lens of political economy, that is to say, economic speculation); this is what Freud and Nietzsche did with morality (short- circuiting the high-est ethical notions through the lens of the unconscious libidinal economy). What such a reading achieves is not a simple “desublimation,” a reduction of the higher intellectual content to its lower economic or libidinal cause; the aim of such an approach is, rather, the inherent decentering of the interpreted text, which brings to light its “unthought,” its disavowed presuppositions and consequences. And this is what “Short Circuits” wants to do, again and again. The under-lying premise of the series is that Lacanian psychoanalysis is a privileged instrument of such an approach, whose purpose is to illuminate a standard text or ideological formation, making it readable in a totally new way—the long history of Lacanian interventions in philosophy, religion, the arts (from the visual arts to the cinema, music, and literature), ideology, and politics justifies this premise. This, then, is not a new series of books on psychoanalysis, but a series of “connections in the Freudian field”—of short Lacanian interventions in art, philosophy, theology, and ideology. “Short Circuits” wants to revive a practice of reading which confronts a classic text, author, or notion with its own hidden presuppositions, and thus reveals its disavowed truth. The basic criterion for the texts that will be published is that they effectuate such a theoretical short circuit. After reading a book in this series, the reader should not simply have learned something new: the point is, rather, to make him or her aware of another—disturbing—side of something he or she knew all the time. In the context of doubling its about short circuiting debate by breaking down the aff/neg binary, but I'm interested in using it in another context. However, I can't find any cards. Does anyone know where to find more lit about this concept? Are there other names for it?
  13. Is running an argument copied from a wiki page ethical? What if its modified? Is it ok to use tags/blocks that have been posted on NDCA wiki in other rounds?
  14. Yes. I'm wicked sorry for disappearing. Computer troubles, AP classes, etc. very sorry, i have had a 1nc ready for 2 weeks but i've been unable to post it. Does anyone know how to do a word count on a mac?
  15. to continue with 9, I guess my question is whats the spark for the war, any given one. How will it start?
  16. Sorry again for the delay, 1nc will be up as soon as CX is done 1. Why vote aff? 2. Who is your agent? 3. What is the plantext? 4. What are your impacts? 5. Why are they the most important impacts in the round? 6. Who wins in a nuclear war? 7. What can be done to avoid nuclear wars, both impending and in the future? 8. What does your 1AC do in terms of worldwide, longterm stability? 9. Please outline how a hypothetical war with china would go down, from today to the terminal impact.
  17. hey, sorry for the delay, mediafire didn't agree with my laptop and I had to get another computer to download the 1ac. cx within a few hours, 1nc tonight/tomorrow
  18. I think that explains what doubling IS very well but not how to handle a no link claim...sorry if I'm missing something.
  19. I'm on a small, new team with a coach with no debate experience and a small, uncommitted varsity squad. I'd like to hear any advice anyone has about getting better at debate without anyone to do practice debates with or any feedback from coaches. I'm really serious about the activity and I want to put a lot of time into it, but I don't know what to do. I just read the article on the3nr about doing 30 minutes of practice speaking a day, and, well this seems like a great idea, I don't think it's a substitute for an actual debate. Thanks in advance for any advice
  20. If you run cap as a reps K you don't run into this nonsense...
  • Create New...