Jump to content

Ganondorf901

Moderator
  • Content Count

    844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Ganondorf901

  1. I think the idea of a "pre-fiat K" to be kind of pointless. I mean that's how I always run Ks so like it's kind of a dying label.
  2. DnG's appropriation of Schizoprenia is ableist, the lit indicting them for it is really good. I won a debate on that turn.
  3. It was less "death good" and more "death is probably not real and the 1AC conception of death is bad" and the crux of our argument was that consciousness could exist after death of the physical body so reincarnation was good soft defense for us
  4. Ganondorf901

    Utopianism

    Living near Williamsburg, I can attest to the neo-colonial oddity of it. The question of using Anthem or Rand is not the same as decolonial authors working in western academic settings (I think this is a deterministic reading of the evidence that says "western thought bad" which is generally horribly ran in debate), the two things are about as compatible as reading Anthem as an alt to a Marx K. Even if they both criticize utopianism, I think Rand and authors like Mignolo have different conceptions of what constitutes utopia and different alternatives. Rand is, as most decolonial authors would see it, essentially an advocate for imperialism, especially in her universalization of rational egoism and belief in an objective human experience. That goes without mentioning the entire eurocentricity of her scholarship. It just would not be worth it and honestly I think a judge would probably buy an aff perm that says the government can be decolonial over a Rand alt for this K. If anything, you should go for the magical realists, or authors associated with the decolonial movement. However, most fiction in this regard is pretty utopian or at least ambiguous on the question of utopia.
  5. We ran cards saying reincarnation is real and other life after death type cards as terminal defense when running the death good kritik, so it's possible
  6. Ganondorf901

    Utopianism

    Decoloniality and Rand would be like chocolate covered scallops, they don't go together and it will probably be a massive double turn in the 1AC. Honestly, a lot of the lit on the side of decoloniality/anti-imperialism is pretty positive on utopianism. https://ohiostatepress.org/Books/Book%20PDFs/Tlostanova%20Learning.pdf http://books.google.com/books?id=qQhZEei4hS0C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=utopia+imperialism&source=bl&ots=hXowVrE8bN&sig=x5kZ4su4c3Ifzn_PGkOwWqinqW0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s_F8U_r5OIfjsATCxYHADw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=utopia%20imperialism&f=false http://jmems.dukejournals.org/content/42/2/461.abstract
  7. My problem with that metaphor is like Artaud is probably not the affirmative, like unless it actually is Artaud. I get it's a metaphor but Artaud had a super specific and radically unique political and metaphysical ideology and method that is nothing like what the affirmative will be. I'm actually surprised he is critiquing Artaud because Baudrillard's earlier and later writing both jived really well with Artaud and endorsed aspects of Artaud's thought. Maybe try making a more vague metaphor like "idealist" or maybe dropping the metaphor and instead using it as a 2NC story/explanation. Idk it probably isn't a big deal but as a judge I would have a super hard time understanding why the affirmative is in any way Artaud.
  8. I've ran different parts of Baudrillard with Mann. Personally, I see cards as more self-contained arguments and a bit of a proponent of "defend the card, not the author's entire work" type approach, so maybe that's how I am able to reconcile For the K, you're tags make no sense. They are overly long, don't make many actual claims that a judge can flow, and become too wrapped up in their metaphor to make an argument. It's ok to have flowery/poetic tags I suppose, but right now it is just reiterating the metaphor in the cards without contextualizing it to the debate. Having done a lot of super vague metaphorical tag-kritiks, they really only work if they serve a performative/strategic performance (for my Negarestani K, I read a long abstract story about oil destroying the world because it was my solvency mechanism). Most of all, I don't understand what the link argument is in this kritik.
  9. Someone get DML in here on the buddhism question. As for the Heidegger aff, a Heideggerian framework would probably criticize the word "resolved" on a fundamental level. It's definitely doable, there is a good freely available Heidegger aff both on the v debate forum from the space topic and also a camp one from the energy topic way back. You might have a hard time answering "why don't you read this on neg" but the answer to that would depend on how your choose to run this aff. Idk, I love Heidegger Ks, I have a hard time seeing them as affs. It's always doable, just tricky.
  10. My teams will be playing Ahab and The Ocean's Anthropocentric. Metal is probably the best bet for the topic (probably bands like Aghast or Alestorm that do the whole pirate metal thing)
  11. Eh, as cool as a concept it is, I don't really think there is a strong impact or framing argument for this aff. I agree with Dancon that more thantotheology (Death of God theology) or critical eschatology type args and evidence would make this a more aff. Right now it kind of reads like a non-topical policy aff as opposed to a kritikal aff. Like I think your interpretation of the resolution is cool, but this aff would have a hard time winning on the impact debate or the framework debate. If anything, I would kick the tags of the first contention, read it as a narrative, don't defend a plantext (just read it as an advocacy statement, this will save you a lot of pain on agent questions and counter advocacies, your interpretation of the topic will be equally valid anyway), and provide a more robust methodology, like this could work now but you'll have a lot easier time winning debates with these types of args if the reason to vote aff is something more than "we should be talking about this" but a reason why what you did or why the way you talked about something was good.
  12. A lot of the answer to K files UMich 7 week puts out are really just massive author indict files, I would try compiling a few of those (they are pretty comprehensive tbh)
  13. Step 1) Be neg and record the 1AC Step 2) Run it through a live caption-er while recording Step 3) Read the manuscript as the 1NC Step 4) ??? Step 5) Profit
  14. That's actually really funny and I'm sad I didn't get it at first.... props +1
  15. Look up some of the backfiles from the Space topic, lots of good stuff on the panopticon and Weather/GPS satellites. Honestly this is a easy research thing, you can just type "panopticon, Foucault, GPS, Google Earth" into google and get results. http://peregrinations.kenyon.edu/vol2_3/current/s.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lic3.12019/abstract
  16. All Space topic backfiles are applicable. There was a ton of evidence on this during that topic. Spanos is the go to. This article is great : http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/boundary/v029/29.2marzec.html . I haven't done any oceans specific research, but it is a pretty simple link argument on the epistemological implications of development/exploration discourse.
  17. Don't quite understand what are you getting at or think is funny, are you mocking my description or trying to make a joke? Yes but not so much the writings of Negarestani. I take a lot of different authors and have different variants of the K, Morton is my favorite author so far but that entire blog is filled with great writings. Since it is an emerging field there will be progressively more authors coming out with good lit. To be honest, it is a lot better of a kritik if you have an actual appreciation for and experience with Black Metal.
  18. .. hah. Um heteronormative social relations sustain neoliberalism, which ultimately breads unhappiness? It's kind of a difficult question to answer since the book has a lot of different facets. I think the best way to look at the book is "The issue with the world as it is is not what we have or don't have, but the relationship we have to those objects"
  19. Plenty of affs have been cut from ZAMM. I've hit at least one that I remember. It's an amazing book, definitely can be used for some cool affs.
  20. Since this just seems to be a competition of the zaniest Ks Zagorin Qritiq (a K cut entirely off shit Edmund Zagorin has wrote) Semiocaptialism/Bifo/Autonomism Cruel Optimism Queer Anarchism Heideggerian Death Kritik DeLanda Kritik Black Metal Theory Kritik (I ran a variant of it but it was a smaller shell) Anthro Performance Kritik (spent a lot of time writing this one too) Nuclearism mega K (complaition K with a 1NC that has every version of nuclearism and then it splits apart in the block) Solar Extinction Walt Whitman Deleuze (I ran it once but not the way I wanted to since it wasn't one off) There is also one specific kritik that I wanted to run but didn't finish cutting it, but I am super disappointed I did not get to run it. It is entirely original and has never been run (to the extent of my knowledge) on either the high school or college level. I'm probably releasing it on Evazon over the summer, it will be an interesting K to see ran in debate(if it ends up working as an argument).
  21. This is a forum about potential Ks for the Oceans topic, NOT you two to circlejerk about the fact that the entirity of the left fails to understand your intellectual prowress and amazing objective grasp on reality, I hate to overlimit this topic but this has happened in several threads prior where the discussion on the OP or topic goes wildly away from explaining an argument to having pointless arguments between Squirelloid/Edgehopper and the rest of the forum where you two expect us to have to prove to you why something is objectively true when 90% of the time y'all just don't want to read the text or even attempt to acknowledge it as a potential legitimate viewpoint. This is not a place to discuss Deleuze's passages on Chess/Go. Period. I say this because I know that even though I'm saying this discussion ought to end here, we will continue down the rabbit hole and not go anywhere. Some one else can answer the rest of the posts. This is unproductive.
  22. I think Capitol debate is an institution of whiteness and actively produces the type of "spectacularization of black suffering" that some of their teams criticize, especially when they are mass taught to run the "Race K" (Crenshaw link of omission plus prewritten blocks) and only to go for it when it is mishandled (quoted from a capitol debater). I am not one for Wilderson's sweeping generalizations about non-white races (which definitely whitewashes the violence non-black people of color experience), but even as a Middle Eastern person I know it is naive to assume that brown and yellow people aren't able to experience whiteness. The Capitol model is one defined by whiteness, and specifically how Centennial chooses to run a policy aff when it's strategic and Asian Conscientiization when it is strategic and then Wilderson when it is strategic is having the reflexive orientation to the state that Wilderson and most of the ev they read argues is problematic. Obviously I understand that debate is ultimately a game and people will have to do what is strategic, like I run Wilderson on occasion even though I disagree with him, but something erks me about the absolute reduction of Wilderson's argument to debate economy for the exact reason that the K says, it commodifies and spectacularizes the suffering of blackness for the purpose of white people to win debates, especially in a world where said teams have no problem switching over to a policy heg aff is it would give them the ballot. This would be less of an issue for me if I haven't seen Capitol make these arguments at the expense of the Baltimore UDL and other inner city Maryland schools (who are predominately black), who ran anti-racism arguments because of the reasons that DSRB says, this is their only method of argumentation available to them and their personal experience, but they were crowded out by Capitol teams who read these arguments as strategy and had the resources/coaching to outtech those teams to the point of non-existance. I'm mostly providing some rambling thoughts on this, I have no serious opinion or stance towards the people of Centennial or Capitol debate, but rather considering the implications of this type of debate engagement.
  23. Wow....... I am experiencing serious cognitive dissonance here. In one regards, I don't believe either of you two read ATP because you have been attacking strawman arguments and literally not bringing up a single counterargument against the substance of Deleuze, but on the other hand you are indeed providing quotes, so I suppose you have read the books. What I will say is that I do not care nor find the need to provide a defense of Deleuze as a philosopher, because as usual this is not a thread for Squirelloid and Edgehopper to espouse their highly dogmatic opinions on the merit of widely accredited philosophers that they know are objectively wrong simply because they have a superior knowledge of the world, but rather this is a thread to discuss kritikal arguments for next years topic and provide some clarification on them if the need arises. The reality is that people not only read Deleuze as an argument in debate, but a fuckton of people win on it. Whether or not you have a personal dilemma with whether or not Deleuze use's the word "rhizome" (which is absolutely asinine and nitpicky and links back to the entirety of Deleuze's criticism on the ontotheological nature of language, which I keep saying but evidently no one has read enough Deleuze to understand the most basic elements of his writing) is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is a valid debate argument. If you want to have a debate on the merits of his philosophy, start another thread for it. If you really want someone to explain how brutally you have missed the point of Deleuze's analysis on Go and Chess (which I was about to concede as being potentially superfluous until I read Edgehopper's analysis, which literally does not attempt to understand what Deleuze/Guattari's point is at all; hint, the relation between Go and Chess for Deleuze is not that they both have rules and their pieces move but that Chess is a matter of codification where the piece is produced as a static subject in relation to 'the state' (defined by what they 'are') whereas Go pieces are defined relationally as desiring-machines (defined by what they do and how they relate to one another, not what they are), therefor conceptually the pieces in these two games 'achieve' their identity in different ways, which serves as a metaphor for Deleuze's political methodology), I suggest talking to Maury because he probably has more patience than I do. The reason I won't is not only because I think an actual attempt to engage Deleuze's text, as opposed to an approach coming in where one is convinced they aren't saying anything relevant, will MASSIVELY improve your understanding (especially in the context of the distinction between coded/encoded and deterritorialized/territorialized, which is like literally defined in that paragraph), but ultimately I do not care because based off my past attempts to have a dialogue on a kritikal argument with you two, there never seemed to be a desire for understanding/compromise in the first place. I'm saddened that the attempt to seemingly deconstruct Deleuze with a 'superior and qualified' knowledge of Chess and Go instead appears to be whining about why it's so hard to understand. Like yeah, Deleuze wrote arcanely, no one is denying that. That doesn't make him objectively bad or good, rather, if you want help with his style of writing, ask someone on the thread instead of assuming he is not saying anything, producing a strawman argument based off 4 or 5 quotes you looked up out of context, and expect that to be a valid criticism. I feel like at a certain point, when he is the 9th most quoted philosopher of all time, you can believe he is right or wrong about things, but if you think he isn't saying anything at all, you are a little in denial.
  24. [insinuating that there is a potential discussion of the implications of Centennial appropriating this argument and I would like to have someone provide their perspective]
  25. Nomos is a particular socio-cultural construction of norms, rules, and ethics. The whole "Deleuze appropriates science and math terms" thing is both laughable and a stupid argument, like no one gives a shit if he does or not and most of the time he doesn't, it's just that Sokal doesn't understand the postmodernism he tries to criticize and thinks he is a pop star because he managed to get a nonsense article published (which is still bad, granted). Those three excerpts are as vacuous as he claims Deleuze's writing is, but the reality is the style of AO and ATP is in such a way that these words are meant to be neologisms or appropriated and the definitions are meant to be contextual, which is like their entire thesis on the ontotheological nature of language and language as desiring-machines (Dialogues II). Also while those reactionary right wing groups are frightening, I would hardly say that is a reason post-modernism is bad and an awful look at the historical trends within far right 'intelligentsia'. Because reactionary right wing/neo-fascist ideology/discrimination is steadily going out of fashion, those structures are constantly looking for ways to maintain their dominance, which in part involves appropriating methods and discourse of the left that has proven successful. Take anti-queer in the US, for example, who in the past year alone have move entirely away from the "Homosexuality is a sin and gays are going to hell" discourse because it proved to be massively unsuccessful to lobby for discrimination, and now instead they are filled with rhetoric on "religious freedom" and "discrimination against Christians" which we all know of full shit, but in order to adapt to changing socio-political landscapes, they have to appropriate the discourse that was once used for resistance. Now of course that's problematic (like the now infamous article on "Against Heterosexuality" which atrociously misinterpreted/misrepresented Foucault to make the argument that sexuality was a choice and homosexuality is evil), but that doesn't mean we should not abandon those notions of critique and resistance, like that's just nonsensical and also not how we approach any other practice (do people stop using reddit because white nationalists also have begun using it to organize?). The article "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?" By Bruno Latour is great on addressing the misappropriation of post-modernism and how to deal with misusage (which is largely based off of a lack of understanding of the source text) edit: that last sentence grammar'd awfully
×
×
  • Create New...