Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Deleuze last won the day on May 1 2014

Deleuze had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

273 Excellent

About Deleuze

  • Rank
    The man who took a line of flight right out the window

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    University of Houston

Recent Profile Visitors

10343 profile views
  1. Deleuze

    Trinity University Debate

    I heard some guy named Steven once went there... i think he was like a hotdog salesman or something? He went to alot of debate tournaments i think because everyone seems to know him. Must've made one hell of a hotdog.
  2. Deleuze

    biodiversity impact cards?

    Here's a small file i just put together, it's highlighted too, some are missing tags, sorry did this in a rush and lost most of my files. Bio D Impacts and Stuff.doc
  3. Deleuze

    Zizek Outed as a Plagiarist

    Sorry if this wasn't clear enough before, I was looking for thoughts about Zizek, not how this pertains to any actual argumentation within a debate round. I don't view this as an indict nor as any sort of mockery of Zizek's overall philosophy or how it's many variations function within a debate round (thought I hate hearing the same Zizek and Daly cards). Regarding Churchill and how plagiarism might be seen as an argument, i've never understood or even seen this argument successfully run within a round, and as GBTL and Natives criticisms with Churchill cites are very abundant in today's debate community (I posted a GBTL k of my own with Churchill cards) I don't see why this accusation of Zizek being a plagiarist would have any adverse affects upon the functionality of his arguments within a round. Now as to my opinion on the issue (which i should have made clear in the OP), I think Zizek is a gigantic asshole, no doubt about it, and i apologize for the vulgarity of my language but to blatantly copy a fellow peers work and claim it as your own due to your own standings in the philosophical realm (which are already questionable to the point where debaters use anal sex metaphors to describe you) is a mockery of philosophy and deeply saddens me. This doesn't affect my opinion regarding Zizek's philosophy, but as Needs more Consult Japan stated, affects my perception of his character.
  4. Deleuze

    Zizek Outed as a Plagiarist

    http://withendemanndom.blogspot.fr/2014/07/slavoj-zizek-philosophaster-and_9.html?m=1 Slavoj Žižek: Philosophaster and Plagiarist. — Under the man’s name, clarity has appeared at last, owed albeit not to some unfogging of mind, but to plain old stealing. It was just this clarity that struck Steve Sailer as odd: “a reader inclined toward deconstructionism might note that Žižek summarizes [Kevin] MacDonald’s controversial argument [in The Culture of Critique] quite lucidly. In fact, the superstar professor achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by Žižek”.1 The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand. Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased. Below I give a side-by-side comparison. The passages from Žižek come from one continuous paragraph, which I have broken up into sections so that Hornbeck’s original might run parallel to it, making the comparison easier. To the same end, I have re-paragraphed some parts of Hornbeck’s original and removed Žižek’s page-citations. (Link) Source: Slavoj Žižek, “A Plea for a Return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua)”,Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter 2006). 2 Source: Stanley Hornbeck, “Cherchez le Juif”: Review of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, in American Renaissance, Vol.10, No.3, March 1999. 3 . . . 1. Steve Sailer, “Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’”, iSteve Blog: Unz Review, 8th July 2014. (The first commenter, “IHTG”, at Steve’s blog also noticed something untoward.) 2. For those who have access, Žižek’s original paper can be found at JSTOR. A somewhat altered version can be found at Lacan.com. 3. The words that Hornbeck, and hence Žižek, attributes to Derrida are in fact those of John D. Caputo. Thoughts?
  5. Deleuze


    Debate isn't real, you aren't real, nothing is real. PS: Disneyland is real.
  6. Deleuze

    AT Deleuze

    There is no answer to my philosophy. Just give up. Here's something for nomadology- Your criticism changes nothing – nomadic politics as a basis for criticism is already incorporated within the logic of territorialization and state-capitalism. Bülent Diken, lecturer in Sociology at Lancaster University, and Carsten Bagge Laustsen, Ph.D. student at the University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Sciences, September 2001, online: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Diken-Laustsen-Enjoy-Your-Fight.pdf, accessed August 24, 2004 The development of the contemporary society confirms that critique is not a peripheral activity; rather, it contributes to capitalist innovations that assimilate critique, which is constantly confronted with the danger of becoming dysfunctional. Capitalism had received mainly two forms of critique until the 1970s: the social critique from the Marxist camp (exploitation) and the aesthetic critique from the new French philosophy (nomadism). Since the 1970s capitalism has found new forms of legitimation in the artist critique, which resulted in a “transfer of competencies from leftist radicalism toward management†(Boltanski & Chiapello; quoted in Guilhot 2000: 360). Consequently, the aesthetic critique has dissolved into a post-Fordist normative regime of justification, the notion of creativity is re-coded in terms of flexibility, and difference is commercialized. This is perhaps nowhere more visible than in the production process of the movie Fight Club itself as an aesthetic commodity: “David [Fincher] said to me, ‘You know, Chuck, we’re not just selling the movie Fight Club. We’re selling the idea of fight clubs.’†(Palahniuk quoted in Sult 1999). Thus Fight Club is hardly an “anti-institutional†response to contemporary capitalism, just as creativity, perversion or transgression are not necessarily emancipatory today. Power has already evacuated the bastion Fight Club is attacking and it can effortlessly support Fight Club’s assault on sedentariness. Palahniuk says: “We really have no freedom about creating our identities, because we are trained to want what we want. What is it going to take to break out and establish some modicum of freedom, despite all the cultural training that’s been our entire existence? It’s about doing the things that are completely forbidden, that we are trained not to want to do†(quoted in Jenkins 1999). What Palahniuk enjoys the luxury of overseeing here is precisely that such strategies are emancipatory only in so far as power poses hierarchy exclusively through essentialism and stable binary divisions. But many of the concepts romanticised by Palahniuk’s Fight Club find a correspondence in the network capitalism and its aesthetic Mecca, Hollywood, today. As Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly emphasized, smooth space and nomadism do not have an irresistable revolutionary calling but change meaning drastically depending on the context (see 1987: 387). Neither mobility nor immobility are liberatory in themselves. Subversion or liberation can only be related to taking control of the production of mobility and statis (Hardt & Negri 2000: 156). In this respect, Fight Club’s aesthetic critique sounds, if not cynical, naïve. Asked by CNN if he is amused by the irony that Hollywood decided to make a violent movie about anti-consumerism by spending millions of dollars, Palahniuk answers that “it seems like the ultimate absurd joke. In a way it’s funnier than the movie itself†(CNN 1999). Yes, indeed, but as we tried to show there are reasons why it is so. Nomadic politics cause genocide. Barbrook 98 [Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at U of Westminster, The Holy Fools] While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari’s dream of destroying the city. Led by a vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime installed by the Americans. Rejecting the ‘grand narrative’ of economic progress, Pol Pot and his organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and genocide. The ‘line of flight’ from Stalin had led to Pol Pot. [22] Nomadism is only possible for those in a position of privilege. Nomadology is a bourgeoise masculine subjectivity masquerading as cosmopolitanism. Hannam et al. 2006 (Kevin, School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland, Mimi Sheller, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Swarthmore College, John Urry, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings,†Mobilities Vol. 1, No. 1, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450100500489189.) Mobilities also are caught up in power geometries of everyday life (Massey, 1994). There are new places and technologies that enhance the mobility of some peoples and places even as they also heighten the immobility of others, especially as people try to cross borders (Timothy, 2001; Verstraete, 2004; Wood & Graham, 2006). ‘Differential mobility empowerments reflect structures and hierarchies of power and position by race, gender, age and class, ranging from the local to the global’ (Tesfahuney, 1998, p.501). Rights to travel, for example, are highly uneven and skewed even between a pair of countries (Timothy, 2001; Gogia, 2006). Many feminist theorists have argued that nomadic theory rests on a ‘romantic reading of mobility’, and that ‘certain ways of seeing [arise] as a result of this privileging of cosmopolitan mobility’ (Kaplan, 2006; see also Pritchard, 2000; Tsing, 2002). Ahmed, for example, critiques mobile forms of subjectivity and argues that the ‘idealisation of movement, or transformation of movement into a fetish, depends upon the exclusion of others who are already positioned as not free in the same way’ (Ahmed, 2004, p.152). Skeggs further argues that the mobility paradigm can be linked to a ‘bourgeois masculine subjectivity’ that describes itself as ‘cosmopolitan’; she points out that ‘[m]obility and control over mobility both reflect and reinforce power. Mobility is a resource to which not everyone has an equal relationship’ (Skeggs, 2004, p.49; see also Morley, 2002; Sheller & Urry, 2006b). It is not a question of privileging a ‘mobile subjectivity’, therefore, but rather of tracking the power and politics of discourses and practices of mobility in creating both movement and stasis (Cresswell, 1999; Maurer, 2002; Franklin et al., 2000).
  7. Deleuze

    Free Thyme Cube 1NC

    This is what i did today instead of studying in my economics class. Enjoy! Edit: THIS IS NOT A TIME CUBE SHELL, ITS THYME CUBE, THE SPELLING WAS INTENTIONAL. Edit 2: I just realized i accidentally typed Gene Ray instead of Green Ray in one of the tags, I apologize Dr. Green Ray for confusing you with a bigoted imbecile. Edit 3: All the evidence is from Thymecube.com THYME CUBE 1NC.docx
  8. Deleuze

    Business Confidence DA

    I've always already loved both of you
  9. GBTL means give back the land. I don't see how this is not related quite honestly. Please elaborate
  10. Alright peeps, I'm sorry I had to make a new thread but i forgot I can't edit old forum titles XD. Anyway, this thread will be the official dumping ground for my stuff. I realize the process is slow, and the cases aren't great but it's really all i've been able to do in the limited time i've had since the beginning of senior year. Disclaimer: I am in no way a good case writer. I have two reasons to post my stuff here 1) It opens up room for discussion about what might make it better/ understanding a concept/whats wrong with the case etc. 2) If even one case can help a novice, i've done my job! I know how it feels to be the only CX team at your school, to never go to camp or even have a coach or anyone else to talk to, and to have to write all the cases by yourself. Trust me For now, here's a GBTL K (GBTL MEANS GIVE BACK THE LAND, it's a common acronym for a Natives K), try to go easy on me Update1: Rhetorical Borders is up! Ran it only once, had fun with it, not very good but it's something at least Update 2: The very first policy aff I ever wrote, I bring you, Mexican Agave with a lil Anthro on the side! Update 3: OOO (Object Oriented Ontology) is up! GBTL K.docx Rhetorical Borders 1AC.doc Mexican Agave Biofuels with a lil Anthro.docx OOO K For days.doc
  11. Hey peeps, high school debate is done for good, but unlike the other awesome people on this website, I have slacked off all year long! I'm making this post in advance since I'll obviously edit it with other files. For now, here's an unbroken and extremely rushed Hauntology aff! Disclaimer: I wrote this aff overnight right before state, never got a single K friendly judge on aff, so it remained unbroken. I realize it is poorly written and i deeply apologize. I didn't know how to cite the Johnson evidence so I used UNT's cite. I also lost my 2AC stuff and A2's plus clarification stuff, SORRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Yes, I realize it's a weird VTL spin off, but remember life=death=life=death=life=death=life=death etc. So just think of VTL as VTD and vice versa. As James Stephenson once said about Hauntology, "It seems like a k of death". Hauntology Aff (Olmecs).docx
  12. Deleuze

    Trading Etiquette and TOS

    Hello everyone, I'm creating this post just to give a general heads up and a few tips on evidence trading to ensure an efficient and worry-free environment when trading. Hope this helps! First a few rules 1) Do not ever trade Evazon files. Should any member be caught in the act of offering or requesting such files, they will be temporarily banned as a first offense, or permanently banned for a reoccurring offense. If the member you are trading with offers or asks for such a file, report them immediately. 2) Do not trade open evidence files unless specifically requested. If a member requests a file, always assume it to be home-cut. The member receiving the open evidence file (if applicable) should be made aware BEFORE the transaction occurs that the file being offered is one that may be freely downloaded from the NDCA website. Giving a TOC (Table of Contents) is not a justification for passing on an open evidence file as home-cut. Should someone send an Open Evidence file, they will be temporarily banned as a first offense, or permanently banned for a reoccurring offense. 3) Provide a table of contents for your file, and request one from the member you are trading with at all times. If one is not made available trade at your own risk. 4) Do not trade other member's file unless given explicit permission by said member. This rule is similar to the Evazon rule, as the file in question is a homecut file by a member who owns all rights to said file on this website unless explicitly stated. Same offense policy applies. 5) Do not trade money or physical assets for files, evidence trading is for file trading/sharing, Evazon is where you should be purchasing files using any form of currency. 6) Report all behavior in private message chats that violates the TOS of Cross-x.com. These includes inflammatory remarks, threats, racism, sexism, and any other form of bigotry. 7) Do NOT ever lie about the contents of a file. IF any member is found to give false information upon trading a file, report them immediately. 8) For all reports, screenshots of conversations outside of Cross X (and in Pm's) will aid in effectively determining whether the member should be permanently banned or not. 9) Perma bans may be administered on the first offense, should anyone decide to blatantly violate the above rules in an unusual fashion (you'd be surprised). 10) IP Bans can be administered. TL;DR: Don't be dumb, trade smart, be smart, be nice. Now onto some tips 1) Don't worry about reputation, it's amalgam of the communities liking or disliking to said member, but this does not reflect how trustworthy they are in any way. Look through their post history and see why they were downvoted, if it was for inflammatory remarks or something rather unintelligible (blatantly), then I would suggest to stay away from the user. 2) If the person does not have any comments or posts at all and their account is only a day old, stay away for now. 3) If the person is rude in any way, keep in mind that you hold as much power as they do when it comes to trading, I'd highly recommend simply not doing the trade 4) If the person asks you to send the file first without even giving you a TOC or any info about the file you need, be wary, request a TOC at the very least 5) Always check open-evidence and online files when given the TOC for a file. Usually I just copy and paste a few lines off of the TOC on google, if a word doc shows up report them and cease the trade immediately. 6) Don't be too hesitant to send a file, if both traders are relatively new it may turn into a game of chicken in which both sides are refusing to send their file first. If you are that hesitant about sending a file you probably shouldn't be trading with this person. Check their post history, not their reputation. If their posts are funny (in an intelligible way, which you and only YOU are the judge of), intelligent, or pleasant, don't be too afraid. 7) Try to trade through email first before anything else. Be very wary of strange links. Most file sharing links are fine, with mediafire being the go-to website if emailing the file is unavailable. 8) Reputation doesn't mean a single thing, up to a certain point that is, but you will know by their post history, sorry if that wasn't already made clear in the last 7 points. 9) Be very wary of anyone named xxcuntdestroyer69xx or anyone with relatively immature usernames that have probably never had any interactions with the outside world (including debate). 10) For those of you with absolutely nothing to trade, there are free files posted on cross-x.com weekly from former debaters and soon-to-be former debaters. These files should not be traded. Any questions? PM the other mods, I'm tired! Just kidding, you may pm me as well, but be warned, i'm not the mod of this forum, and if i'm caught by the other mod, it'll be the hole for me again!