Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Good

About ZombieMao

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/09/1995

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Google Chat/Jabber
  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Name
    Peter Heft
  • School
    Denison University
  • Biography
    Denison University / Capital University Debater

    "The slow, lumbering step forward!" - Chairman ZombieMao
  • Location
    Granville, Ohio
  1. ZombieMao


    Ehh, that's not strictly true. The original argument can be bizarre and nonsensical, but explaining why would still probably jive.
  2. ZombieMao


    I mean, you can alwasy read a Burroughs PIC. Cut up the 1AC and claim that that is good for X, Y, and Z. There's evidence, both in Burrough's tapes with Gyson as well by third parties, as to why this produces a better critical method.
  3. I'm posting this here as well for maximum potential exposure. Hey everyone, my name is Peter Heft and I'm a senior at Bexley High School and am currently looking at Denison University, Ohio. Are there any other cross-xers that are considering Denison? I ask because, if there is another interested party, I intend to start a team.
  4. Hey everyone, my name is Peter Heft and I'm a senior at Bexley High School and am currently looking at Denison University, Ohio. Are there any other cross-xers that are considering Denison? I ask because, if there is another interested party, I intend to start a team.
  5. >logs on to Cross-X >sees "Euthanasia CP" >closes tabs Goodnight.
  6. The argument is read on the affirmative as a turn on kritiks, for those wondering.
  7. Okay, so there's this team on my circuit that reads an argument that goes like this: -Philosophy is inaccessible to the common person -People don't understand philosophy -Narratives like the Matrix that engage pop culture are best for public engagement And sometimes there is a permutation that is "Create a narrative based on the Matrix to explain the kritik". (It's based off the book The Matrix and Philosophy) Thus my question: what are some ways you all would answer this argument?
  8. Here's a whole thesis on political pranks and their ability to empower people https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11764/Vanderford_L_Audrey_ma2000.pdf?sequence=3
  9. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49008/1/MPRA_paper_49008.pdf
  10. Irony is superior to all other forms of discourse because of its ability to challenge and overcome deeply entrenched discourses and hierarchies. Kulynych ’97 [Jessica Kulynych – assistant professor of poly sci at Winthrop University, Polity vol. 30, #2] //pheft If we interpret the "to show" here not as pointing out what is wrong with disciplinary society (which would leave Foucault subject to Fraser's normative criticism), but rather as "showing," or "showing up," then we no longer need the introduction of normative notions, we are merely doing disciplinary society one better. Making a point is a function of discourse, the ability to align and arrange arguments that support a position. Yet, the performative protestor does not argue against the state, he mocks it. The protestor works at the margins of discourse, utilizing puns and jokes and caricature to "expose" the limits of what is being said. Thus, performative resistance, when considered as critique, does not need to tell us what is wrong, rather it reveals the existence of subjection where we had not previously seen it. I am not suggesting that we can get a normative anchor out of the notion of performativity. To the contrary, I am suggesting performative resistance makes no such normative distinctions, or rather, that performativity is not about normative distinctions. We bring normativity to our performances as ethical principles that are themselves subject to resistance. By unearthing the contingency of the "self-evident," performative resistance enables politics. Thus, the question is not should we resist (since resistance is always, already present), but rather what and how we should resist. ¶ This notion of performativity is also important for understanding the possibilities for innovation in Habermasian deliberative participation. Just as a protestor exposes the contingency of concepts like justice, a dialogue exposes the limits and contingency of rational argumentation. Once we are sensitive to the performative nature of speech, language and discourse, then we can see that deliberative politics cannot be confined to the rational statement of validity claims. Deliberation must be theatrical: it is in the performance of deliberation that that which cannot be argued for finds expression. Indeed it is precisely the non-rational aspects of deliberation that carry the potential for innovation. In his description of the poignant reminders of demonstration Chaloupka recognizes that it is at the margins that ¶ the actual force of the demonstration resides, no matter what ¶ happens at the microphone. The oral histories of demonstrations (the ¶ next day over coffee) linger over the jokes and funny signs and ¶ slogans, the outrages and improprieties, more than the speeches ¶ and carefully coherent position papers.(68) ¶ Any convincing account of the politics of deliberation must take account of the creative potential that resides in the performance of debate.
  11. Yeah, mich ended so the ev should be up very soon
  12. In case you guys still care: this is the philosophical origin of the series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
  13. break down da racism obvzz - that's a D: RULE Memmi 2000 MEMMI Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris Albert-; RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, pp.163-165 The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which [person] man is not [themself] himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.â€fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,†says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,†which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
  14. Yeah you guys are right, this is a stupid question.... *hangs head in shame and hope this post sinks into the abyss*
  • Create New...