Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by lolwut5

  1. lol if we're getting creative here since the aff is like speed bad increase the development of oceanic walls that block boats from traveling through the ocean ? haha
  2. read it on the neg solves your offense
  3. lolwut5


    Yeah, what arturo said, I don't think it's bad, it's inevitable, I am just laughing inside that Loyola's arguments are proliferating, because they were trolls and their arguments are trolly lighten up To answe martyp, I can't explain it in great detail, because the geniuses who theorized this crap (Baudrillard and Bifo) never get more specific than how I was up there, but I think the arg is pretty simple, just that debate is a form of semiocapitalism (trading knowledge for ballots) and when we try to say "cap is bad" inside such a system we fail to see our own complicity in a mirror system, and therefore we have to just leave the system and let it collapse by itself
  4. lolwut5


    Well, Bifo is cool with like Occupy and movements when their aim is like the end of work for example, so he's cool with some activism, but he isn't cool coupling anticapitalism activism with the forum of something like debate... When i say academia bad I mean args more like ballot commodification, and generally emotional and psychic investment in a system based upon use of activism/subversive knowledge production for competitive reasons, if that makes sense Idk if you've seen the old Baudrillard shells that are like activism on the plane of the Real bad (on my phone rn so can't pull it up sorry), and that cards that's floating around cut from the Spirit of Terrorism that K Affs are using to answer FW, but the argument as I've seen it run generally centers around less terrorism good/we take the ballot as hostage and more that exhaustion is a fatal strategy which "triggers a symbolic trap in the system" — by disinvesting in the power of debate to generate or further activism (parallel to a strike in which we just stop working) we show how hollow the system is and thus symbolically destroy it
  5. lolwut5


    lol all these high school kids copying michigan which copied loyola-nothing is new under the sun It's a supposedly very complex argument about what Baudrillard calls the Code and semiotic investment in capitalism—it basically boils down to academia bad and so academia good is responsive. Cap good is responsive too, unless your Aff has already forgone that route. The card itself says that semiotic (IE mental) investments in activism/consciousness raising accelerate our personal investment in the capitalist system through attempts to change it. It then makes a Baudrillard-esque argument about why we need a fatal strategy (in this case Bifo advocates exhaustion, which means complete disinvestment in the semiotic system of capitalism and as such activism and debate, and in the real world something much like a 'general strike') because supposedly trading activism for a ballot props up capitalism. Twisted logic, I understand, but this is what you get from cutting from esoteric Italian political philosophers talking about Baudrillard and then making the transition to debate. For academia good/right forum args, it depends on your aff, but in general Giroux writes a lot of good cards—look for the article that has a title like 'Occupy the University' or something like that Then you can read Baudrillard indicts, ballot good, cap good if applicable, and just generally take down Baudrillard's fatal strategy in general.
  6. because i am feeling generous, here is my written out extension to this card Extend the Antonio evidence: it says that continued orientation towards threats we can’t solve is something we become addicted to, discussing problems that are bigger than ourselves causes overstretch of the will—we'll isolate 3 impacts 1. political passivity—integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by overconcern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think 2.loss of agency—we become so absorbed in simulating effective roleplayers that we lose the ability to enact our personal agency to change the course of events because we are so used to large problems and become detached from the micro level 3. tyranny—their framework makes us constantly desire to control real world impacts which causes us to try at all costs to race to the top of the levers of power – desperate need for confirmation and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant
  7. the argument is that when we role play/simulate ourselves as government actors it causes us to -become superficial -lose track of ourselves in concern about false authenticity (does fiat mean this or that?) -causes ressentiment, or hatred of ourselves/the present because we imagine the passage of the plan yet obviously can't pass it, annoying us -lose morality--focus on advancing our own goals/lose track of our moral compass *edit--someone get lenny in here
  8. you mean this card? Tag it yourself, it's not my job Martinot and Sexton 3 (Steve and Jared, "The Avant-garde of White Supremacy," http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/avantguard.htm) The foundations of US white supremacy are far from stable. Owing to the instability of white supremacy, the social structures of whiteness must ever be re-secured in an obsessive fashion. The process of re-inventing whiteness and white supremacy has always involved the state, and the state has always involved the utmost paranoia. Vast political cataclysms such as the civil rights movements that sought to shatter this invention have confronted the state as harbingers of sanity. Yet the state’s absorption and co-optation of that opposition for the reconstruction of the white social order has been reoccurring before our very eyes. White supremacy is not reconstructed simply for its own sake, but for the sake of the social paranoia, the ethic of impunity, and the violent spectacles of racialisation that it calls the ‘maintenance of order’, all of which constitute its essential dimensions. The cold, gray institutions of this society — courts, schools, prisons, police, army, law, religion, the two-party they then normalise throughout the social field. It is not simply by understanding the forms of state violence that the structures of hyper-injustice and their excess of hegemony will be addressed. If they foster policing as their paradigm — including imprisonment, police occupations, commodified governmental operations, a renewed Jim Crow, and a re-criminalisation of race as their version of social order — then to merely catalogue these institutional forms marks the moment at which understanding stops. To pretend to understand at that point would be to affirm what denies understanding. Instead, we have to understand the state and its order as a mode of anti-production that seeks precisely to cancel understanding through its own common sense. For common sense, the opposite of injustice is justice; however, the opposite of hyper-injustice is not justice. The existence of hyperinjustice implies that neither a consciousness of injustice nor the possibility of justice any longer applies. Justice as such is incommensurable with and wholly exterior to the relation between ordinary social existence and the ethic of impunity including the modes of gratuitous violence that it fosters. The pervasiveness of state-sanctioned terror, police brutality, mass incarceration, and the endless ambushes of white populism is where we must begin our theorising. Though state practices create and reproduce the subjects, discourses, and places that are inseparable from them, we can no longer presuppose the subjects and subject positions nor the ideologies and empiricisms of political and class forces. Rather, the analysis of a contingent yet comprehensive state terror becomes primary. This is not to debate the traditional concerns of radical leftist politics that presuppose (and close off) the question of structure, its tenacity, its systematic and inexplicable gratuitousness. The problem here is how to dwell on the structures of pervasiveness, terror, and gratuitousness themselves rather than simply the state as an apparatus. It is to ask how the state exists as a formation or confluence of processes with de-centred agency, how the subjects of state authority — its agents, citizens, and captives — are produced in the crucible of its ritualistic violence.
  9. What do you think about my new idea "Fascist Framework" 1NC shell includes friend/enemy distinction good/schmitt -> get out of the activity hillman -> war on critical teams good rights malthus/rules key nietzsche/oppression and suffering key to valuation of life ;-)
  10. you must have the wrong debate the 2nr is obviously going to be politics and case
  11. awesome thank god i don't think i could handle a deleuze debate <3
  12. What if we win that the semantic field produces the "material world" if that's true why did Baudrillard not create change? So your aff address digital capitalism - yes? How does eco-pedagogy collapse the Code? eh we'd argue it changes subjectivity through pedagogical imagination leading to personal transformation. whatever the F the Code is (i'm not big on the Baud) it probably is capitalist and we transform subjectivity How is "cultivating democratic pedagogies" not DOING something? How is exhausting debate not doing something? The distinction here is hella sketch Why is it a link turn? Because you are choosing the best line of flight to take out of convienience "The idea behind microfascism is that OCD people cause genocides" - where's the warrant for this? Idk, Deleuze is like "the NAZIs were a result of people's internalized desire for control/fascism" if that's true, OCD people who have compulsions for control should have led to genocides by now I'm sorry but how did those Latin American movements acquire change? Did they just march into the government and ask peacefully for transition? idk, i'm no expert, but I think the kahn ev talks about Freire -> a educational mindset shift in the population that led to a cultural value shift that led to leaders changing poilicies. i could be wrong though What makes something "violent" killing people If there's any risk of violence then should we just reject it? eh no but unnecessary violence is bad Cool - for the neg block is it fine if I combine both speeches into one speech doc (thereby increasing word count?) i'm basically Imploding the debate into one K and case (lol) in the neg block so...is that fine? just warning you going for deleuze is a bad decision, but do you
  13. word count: 2731 a lil over, but so was the 1nc <3 VACUOUS 2AC.docx
  14. Also it's 2918 wordz.. a lil over the limit but that's OK who cares, i shall take more for the 2AC
  15. Nice 1NC. GENERAL -Status of the advocacies? CASE -Without an alternative, these are just alt cause arguments right? -When this first piece of ev says Bataille is like just keep consuming, does that mean if consumption is bad Bataille thinks we should all kill ourselves? -This ev is talking about Marxism---how is that the Aff? -How does Baudrillard have any method besides "this is what I think yo" -What if we agree 100% with the Baud's analysis of consumption being the driving force behind modern capitalism? -How does resistance to capitalism strengthen capitalism? 1 OFF -Link card: Is there a distinction between affect used to accelerate/decelerate productive processes? -Does the 'digital capitalism' described in the Wiltgen evidence explain a. the exploitation/overuse of the oceans as narrated by the 1AC OR b. anything other than changes in subjectivity in the digital revolution? -Does the alternative result in any part of the affirmative?/Is it a floating PIK? -How does exhausting debate resolve any of the case? -More specifically, how does exhausting debate result in a citizenry able to mobilize knowledge production in the academy translating over to broader social movements? -What does it mean to exhaust debate? -If we prove that there is a material dimension (and not just a subjective dimension) to the harms the Aff describe, do we win? 2 OFF -First piece of DnG ev says quote "the danger of a singular line of flight that chooses to not look for other lines of flight or stratum to achieve a seemingly benevolent end" -- this is confusing to me because I don't remember us anywhere claiming that we are the only way to resolve our harms, the whole point of ecopedagogy is 1. forming a critique and 2. developing alternatives to the system, we never actually prescribed any specific way to resolve the Aff. Resolve this tension for me. -What is microfascism, and is the only link to the Aff that it (supposedly) prescribes one solution? -Second piece of DnG ev-- when it says there are "unconscious libidinal investments," 1. what the f#$% does that mean 2. are you really saying that people desire their own subjugation 3. this ev seems to assume the barrier to class revolution is that people don't care, not that they are subjugated by people with guns... is that right? -How does this K have any empirical/analytic validity? -Successful nomadic forms of resistance? -Why doesn't 'perm do both' solve? -Is this a floating PIK/can it result in the case?
  • Create New...