Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Bow2Baudrillard

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    School of Pain
  1. I think that this is just generally a really terrible argument; there seem to be much better ways to perm and I think there is probably a ton of offense you can garner off of the assumptions of the perm. First, sometimes you need a philosophical/leftist lens to attack normative/well-established squo mindsets. Second, there is no brightline for what counts as philosophy (e.g. some people really do use geurilla tactics that DnG talk about) making the argument a bit silly. Third, it assumes that the population can't understand complicated arguments but in reality it just serves to hold us back. Finally, and most damningly, they assume that they have both the subject positionality and knowledge to generate a cultural artifact with both a) enough meaning to the philosophy and enough breadth to become applicable to the 'common man.' As was pointed out earlier, this really doesn't exist but assuming that such a piece of culture can be foudn is potentially damaging.
  2. I have run into too many other people running DnG, but I run various flavors of DnG on the neg and am running a magical realism DnG aff based off of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's stories. I don't really think that I can say that DnG is good or bad on this topic because there are so many different ways to run it and there are so many things that Deleuze says (no one cares about Guattari, honestly). In general I think that it is a strong argument; I think the optimal DnG K (Aff) is probably one with parts of DnG supporting a topic specific K.
  3. I have one, PM me if you are interested I suppose its kinda like speaking for others. The lit is a bit different tho
  4. Bow2Baudrillard

    Big affs

    I dunno about you guys but there is no way I am not writing a Deleuzian Piracy aff Ra Ra Fight the Power
  5. So... the varsity kids on my squad may have just handed me an irony file in my first debate that was fun We lost though; apparently zombie nazis from the dark side of the moon is not a pragmatic political choice relevant to the space topic...I can't figure out why
  6. I am not saying that its strategic to use the terrible argument of 'you look like a guy so you can't help women.' I won't even begin to delve into the man problems with that line of attack and I completely agree that males can and should try to resolve the problems they have created. I generally agree with you - the vast majority of Fem Ks don't have alternatives that rely on subject positionality but, as I stated previously, people who identify as cisgendered males should be careful when running versions of Feminism Ks that do rely on the position of the speaker - while they may not be as common they certainly exist and are still quite popular. My original post gave the example of Lesbian Feminist rage K which depended heavily on the reader being just that.
  7. I am quite cognizant of this, especially since most of my close friends are LGBTQ and I was bullied during my middle school years for being too feminine. Nonetheless, this forum (I thought) is centered mostly around the Feminism (IR?) K and how that is complicated when it is run by the typical/average male debater (even if the approach of traditional Feminism Ks are problematic - which they may be - it is at least less problematic than the model they criticize)
  8. ... First, no. The subject positionality of the speaker is inherently tied to the efficacy and political value of what is spoken. Understanding where we stand (excuse the pun) is especially important when dealing with issues of identity politics (and this is even more relevant in the context of policy debate, where legitimate experiences are often, but not always, co-opted for a ballot). Second, that is not the position being taken on this thread - none of us are saying that men should be, without exception, prohibited from running a feminism K. Rather, I was simply pointing out the importance of one's socio-political standing in relationship to specific brands of arguments and alternatives. To draw a parallel to race Ks, there is a difference between being a white person running Wilderson and saying that we should do a paradigmatic analysis of oppression and saying kill all the white people and burn the state. It is not a question of ad hominems, it is a question of what constitutes genuine interaction with the Other.
  9. Yeah, I know. I don't think that anyone should start off their debate career with anything but generics. But, once you get a feel for the arguments and the activity I think that branching out can never hurt. I have seen several truly interesting debates on both sides of the kritikal/policy line (1NC was Nietzsche, Heidegger and 4 min case, the 2AC made a mistake and undercovered case, the entire block was this awesome argument about paradigmatic shifts in the geopolitical arena) and bad ones as well.
  10. Does anyone have a Guattarian Ecosophy Aff that they would be willing to trade? PM me, I have tons of Ks
  11. Lol sorry In general I think that we agree on most things (although you might disagree with me) regarding what an optimal alt should be in debate. Personally, I abhor the generic 'reject' alts because they fail to propose much of an alt; I tend to view it as a shady DA and judge if the amount of bad that the aff creates outweighs the benefit (which should be small if the neg is smart and debating case...funny that never happens). I think that (using security as an example) stuff like 'step away from security logic' is clearly bullshit (as the successors of Rumsfeld and Cheny continue to wreck IR havoc) especially when compared to alts like radical empiricism/realism - something that either gives a methodology for the judge or at least provides a platform to find their own method. I think that mindset-level Ks are some of the most legit Ks, actually. You correctly note that Capitalism hasn't started being more fair to workers since K debate started; this is clearly true (and also why I think Cap is an unintelligent argument). More 'radical' and (certainly) more loopy Ks such as Deleuze and Guattari (I think) have become much more persuasive as they solve for creativity and individual choice rather than the monolithic system under which the world operates. In the same way that I think talking about the newest Congressional mudslinging doesn't really grant new education or agency after four years screaming 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or even reading Zizek and Daly 4 EVERY. SINGLE. ROUND. really doesn't do anything to change the world as a whole. I may be mistaken in this, but I think that if one was to look at 3 different scenarios there is at least a certain amount of weight to my argument: 1: A typical, policy debate: people debate Iran, or CIR, or god knows what for the ump-teenth time. Perhaps for the first couple years this was relevant but after a while it seems a bit mechanical to me. 2: An uber generic K debate: where the other team runs generic neolib and maybe a bunch of Kappeler cards if they are feeling especially creative. No one cares (because ultimately this is now a stock type of debate too) and this similarly becomes mechanical. 3: A genuinely interesting clash of methods debate: I choose this over clash of civ because it is different every single time. Instead of reading generic links again and again I think that teams that try to go beyond OpenEv and write their own interesting, new Ks/preformances end up having the most engaging debates. I saw an amazing debate this topic where the aff was running a topical K-ish aff and the neg read a 1-off prefomative/historical decol K. The aff responded by reading some evidence about how revolutions should bond themselves to their oppressor to deprive them of the pleasure of domination and thereby achieve liberation. Then the debate essentially turned into a discussion about the merits of our opposing strategies in the context of feminist, anti-racist, and post-colonial struggles (e.g. Ghandi, MLK, Mandela, Seneca Falls, etc.) and how they related to the debaters' agencies in the round. I realize I've been rambling a bit, but I think that the debates which move beyond the spewing of cards into genuine and nuanced discussion about method and personal agency are the most valuable for the debaters themselves.
  12. This is a really, really big question. The simplest way to describe a K is a non-unique disad and a counter-advocacy on the same flow. It goes down something like this: -Link: The reason why the aff's plan, method, or discourse is bad. This almost always describes the status quo (although it does make it somewhat worse) and even if the alt is kicked it can still be used as a reason to prove the aff undesirable --> neg on presumption. An example of a link would be: the aff's fear of nuclear weapons locks us into a love/hate cycle where we constantly have to increase our stockpiles just to feel safe (when in reality we are just increasing tension). -Impact: In all honesty most K links have their impacts packed up nicely inside. I think everyone knows what an impact is; K impacts vary too much to be adequately described (in all honesty). Each author and each type of argument (again) has their own brand of bad stuff. An example of an impact would be: reliance on the state leads to a eugenic cleansing of the population as the government inherently removes 'sickly' parts from the body politic. -Alt: The counter-advocacy. As I explained above, all Ks are ultimately utilitarian. However, many are not run that way. The most important part is that they resolve the link. K alts manage to vary even more than the other parts of a K. An example of an alt might be to act as a specific intellectual and interrogate the underlying assumptions behind the aff's grand narratives. If you are trying to figure out what K you should start with I highly recommend the development/Foucault file that UTNIF put out this year. Security is also a great choice. They should mostly run side by side to your DA (if you are careful they won't link).
  13. I think that it depends on 3 things: -the perm -the aff -the alt A perm is a way to combine the aff, in some manner or other, with the alternative. Some alts are literally phrased as 'run away from the aff' but many of them simply advocate a change in individual mentality. I think that the smartest perm a typical aff can make against method/discourse Ks is 'perm do the aff through the lens of the alt.' For example, even in the neg wins that the aff is complicit in threat construction the perm allows the aff to be enacted through a lens of multilateralism away from threat con. This is made much easier for the aff if you win that the impacts of the K are to some degree inevitable (so there is a risk of solvency + pragmatism at once) or if you win that 1) severance is good because the alt is fluid too or 2) you win that reps don't matter. In other cases I think that 'perm do the aff and non-exclusive parts of the alt. Double Bind: either the alt can overcome 1 instance of ____ or it is too weak to change the system' for obvious reasons. Perm do both is generally pretty dumb unless you are winning the link so hard that the K doesn't matter anyways. 'Perm juxtapose our advocacies' is a decent option, since they aren't being combined it isn't severance but it still creates the mindset shift that most Ks need to solve Naturally, some Ks just can't be permed (Wilderson, Death Good, etc.)
  14. I think that people are failing to address the nature of fiat. No one in the room is a policymaker (and probably will never be) and no one in a round will be able to affect the aff's impacts at all. This means that the only value generated by a debate round comes from the skills that we are able to take out of the debate sphere (e.g. decisionmaking, education, etc.). Thus, if the neg can prove that the aff's methodology leads to poor decisionmaking later in life (examples: alarmism in news reporting that led to the Iraq war or EVERYONE at JP Morgan) then that is a reason to discourage such thinking in the round. Yes, I understand that selecting against certain methods of thought is, in a theoretical vacuum, bad. However I ask you to consider models of thought such as Nazism, Stalinism, etc. There is no competent educator anywhere in America (I hope) who willingly encourages those types of pedagogy and learning; if the neg wins that the aff's method is harmful (although it probably won't lead to a Holocaust, no matter what Dillon 99 says) then the aff should lose. As a fervent hater of generic Cap Ks I would like to point out that most smart alternatives 1) aren't as generic as reject the system and 2) is able to solve by affecting the only others a debate round can reach - the debaters and the judge. Based on my definition of fiat earlier, this would seem (ironically) the most pragmatic alternative (thus all Ks are util, most people just don't exploit this).
  15. Bow2Baudrillard


    Regardless, I have zero doubt that you can find a better article...seriously, that quality leaves much to be wanted for
  • Create New...