Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CharlieH

  1. CharlieH

    Topical K Affs

    tbh it's not the world's best aff however manny and richard are great debaters
  2. Those two cards are good and popular, but there's a card I like that's more recent and better. Also, does anyone have an impact to cap that's like cap --> private military companies -> which are bad? Would really appreciate that. Neolib UQ.docx
  3. haha @ethank. hope nyc is going well for ya tell the tp boys hi! they rock
  4. Yeah. I see what you mean. But the thing is on this topic anthro links are much more common. here's are some cites for agamben with links to the law instead. ====Since World War I, violence has been normalized by the globalization of the state of exception when the law justifies its own suspension, transforming itself into a killing machine, and ushering in global civil war. Return to the legal normal authorizes such violent international aggression==== **Agamben 05**. Giorgio Agamben, famous philosopher, The State of Exception, pg. 85 It is perhaps possible at this point to look back upon the path trav- AND working of the machine that is leading the West toward global civil war. ====Their use of law plays into a rigged game of law which adds more illusory safeguards which can be subverted whenever the government sees fit. ==== **Krasmann 12.** Susanne Krasmann, Professor of Sociology at the Institute for Criminological Research, University of Hamburg, "Law's knowledge: On the susceptibility and resistance of legal practices to security matters, "Theoretical Criminology 2012 16: 379 originally published online 4 June 2012, pg. 380 In the face of these developments, a new debate on how to contain governmental AND can be regarded as a touchstone of law's resistance to its own abrogation. ====Stop using the legal system to fix problems within the legal system—the state of exception and its disregard of its own very laws is the maximum point of tension—use the crisis of the 1ac an impulse to craft a new politics==== **Prozorov 10.** Sergei Prozorov, professor of political and economic studies at the University of Helsinki, "Why Giorgio Agamben is an optimist," Philosophy Social Criticism 2010 36: pg. 1057 The second principle of Agamben's optimism is best summed up by Ho ̈lderlin's phrase, AND biopolitical apparatus prepares its self-destruction by fully manifesting its own vacuity.
  5. hey pacifist, idk if it's quite what you're looking for, but i've found agamben to be a great combination of anthro and more traditional kritiks of sovereignty and imperialism. of course, it's easy if you hit an OCS aff to get links to ocean imperialism off things like russia and china reps, but agamben is slightly more nuanced and allows you to get imperialism links and impacts, with the added benefit of a kritik of anthropocentrism. there aren't any open ev files for it, but if you look at college wikis from 2013 there were a fair amount of agamben args and cards available, try searching for calarco in 8, pugliese in 13, or prosorov in 10. also a couple of the camp files particularly from michigan and wake's k of exploration affs contains some great agamben links based on the sovereign/subject distinction in the context of exploring marine habitats and the "anthropological machine." if that interests you, i'd be happy to pm you a 1nc shell that i read.
  6. Here's a 1NC deleuze state pik as an example of what you could do. 1NC.docx
  7. CharlieH

    Chicago Teams

  8. i heard through the grapevine that nothing will pass Ex-Im bank is the best ptx scenario ;D
  9. What is this Speculative Realist movement?

  10. CharlieH


    Anyone can PM me for more cards if interested. The state military apparatus utilizes nomadic tactics to annihilate indigenous populations. Sedentary institutions and international laws actually constrain state power and prevent brutality. Watson 2005 (Janell, Prof. @ Virginia Tech & Editor of Minnesota Review. “Oil Wars, or the Extrastate Conflict ‘Beyond the Line’: Schmitt’s Nomos, Deleuze’s War Machine, and the New Order of the Earth.†South Atlantic Quarterly 104:2.) As Manuel Delanda points out, certain historical moments favor the state military over the nomadic war machine, especially when technological changes also affect the ability of weak states to resist their more powerful rivals. There are great military machines that only states can afford, such as the stealth bombers and tanks currently in use in the Middle East. Furthermore, the divide between the state military and the nomadic war machine is not always cut and dried. Modern armies have adopted many nomadic tactics, such as the use of small independent commando units conducting raids, even though it is only with difficulty that state armies consistently relinquish enough control that soldiers may use the decentralized tactics of the nomads.11 Also nomadic is the U.S. Pentagon’s marked preference for the desert as a theater of war, as opposed to forested mountains. It is easy to imagine Donald Rumsfeld as he dreams of waging a nomadic war in the smooth space of the Iraqi desert. Damn that state that will not allow his soldiers to act as warriors. Damn the international community that will not grant Iraq the full status of nonstate soil—the space in which international law does not hold. The humanizing, rationalizing, and legalizing side of the state, whose positive accomplishments Deleuze and Guattari fail to acknowledge, does in fact constrain my imaginary Rumsfeld with international laws and policies such as the Geneva Convention, in effect bracketing war, even when a powerful state is fighting ‘‘beyond the line’’ on nonstate soil, such as that of the overthrown Iraq. The international community and its institutions for maintaining rules of military engagement pose the greatest impediment to today’s most powerful state armies, which might wish to employ the brutal tactics of the nomads or to annihilate indigenous peoples—modern-day nomads. The concept of the nomad produces sterile politics and cedes the political. Because it’s too purist it leaves too many questions, like feasibility, unanswered. Newman 10 [saul, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory & Event Volume 13, Issue 2] At the same time, however, we should be cautious here of too easy an identification of Badiou’s thought with anarchism; to do so would be to elide the important ways in which it makes problematic certain aspects of the revolutionary narrative of classical anarchism.9 What would be opposed in Badiou’s account is the idea of the pure social revolution that destroys state power in one giant upheaval. The spontaneous movement of social forces against the state is premised on the Manichean division – central to classical anarchism – between the natural social principle, and the artificial political principle, between, in other words, society and the state. What this opposition neglects, according to Badiou, is the deeper dialectical relationship between these two forces. In a critique of what he saw as the libertarianism of Deleuze and Guattari’s work Anti-Oedipus, with its polar opposites of Flux and the System, the Nomad and the Despot, the Schizo and the Paranoiac – in other words of the spontaneous, revolutionary movement of desire against fixed, authoritarian structures and identities – Badiou argues that this simply leads to a sterile politics of resistance and opposition which leaves existing power structures intact.10 The critique referred to here was written in the 1970s, during Badiou’s more explicitly Maoist and also Marxist-Leninist phase; and, indeed, it is interesting to note the major contrast between his earlier insistence on the iron discipline of the vanguard party and its project of seizing state power - in opposition to ‘anarcho-desirers’ like Deleuze and Guattari - and his more recent attempts to conceive of a politics beyond the state and the party. For all his criticism of the anarchist tradition, Badiou, it would seem, has moved further in this direction in recent years and I can only add that, when compared to his earlier fetishization of the vanguard party, this is a good thing. However, is there anything in this critique of left libertarianism - what he denounced at the time, using the sectarian jargon of the day, as ultra-leftism11 – that is worthy of more serious consideration? What I think can be taken from this is a certain problematization of the absolute moral division between society and power that was central to classical anarchism. What Badiou’s critique forces us to consider is the extent to which this sort of Manicheanism obscures a more complex relationship between the two forces; the way that – in a Foucauldian sense – there might be a more intimate interaction between the society and power, a realisation which would unsettle to some extent the revolutionary narrative of the great, spontaneous upheaval against state power. More specifically, anarchists would be forced to grapple with the realities of power: what does it mean to destroy state power?; how can this be concretely achieved?; can the overthrow of the state be realised without an engagement with other power relations?; to what extent is the idea of a totalising revolution against state power a comfortable illusion which condemns anarchism to a kind of purist position, which in reality is a position of impotence? In other words, such considerations would make it difficult for anarchism to sustain a position of pure anti-politics. It is questions such as these which necessitate a rethinking of certain aspects of classical anarchism, and it is here that we could speak of a ‘postanarchism’.12 However, we must not concede too much to Badiou here.
  11. CharlieH


    I'd check out David Marriott's "On Black Men" and other work (Towson seemed to have a strong strategy with an indictment of black Suffering as killing black political imagination), Kevin Quashie's "The Sovereignty of Quiet" & Catherine Hundleby's "The Epistemological Evaluation of Oppositional Secrets", intersectionality (black feminism, quare studies, ableism), Neoliberalism and Capitalism critiques, ballot commodification (authors like Shannon Sullivan, Regis Marlene, and Marriott can be coupled to make the argument that performance commodifies black bodies for white bodies), Eve Yang and K.W. Tuck wrote a great chapter in a book about refusing research that highlights suffering/pain, as mentioned above Harney and Moten's book "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study", separately attacking the use of the educational space for activism, and should be supplemented by case defense like 'the state isn't racist', 'debate isn't racist', and 'wilderson's theory is wrong'.
  12. CharlieH


    I don't really want to be a part of any further conversation on this, I don't think we align enough to agree on much. I'd prefer to leave my thoughts like this and then not respond any further, to avoid heat coming into this. It was just my 2 cents, and I know very well most people don't and won't agree with me. Thanks for keeping it respectful and civil. I don't think anyone's associating a lack of civility with the inclusion of black students, but with the advance of project teams. I've judged CDL rounds with black student debaters all year, and they've been unfailingly civil in every round I've seen (the same goes for other CDL minority students). The Atlantic article that's biased in favor of project teams discusses a final round featuring a lack of civility ("fuck the time!"), and profanity and racial slur-laced tirades ("nigga authenticity.") If project teams want to defend their behavior, that's one thing, but don't argue that it's racist to point out that project teams are introducing behavior into debate rounds that isn't acceptable in most of society. Well, I don't defend bad language and uncivil behavior. What is think is misplaced is the assumption that we suddenly have a need for 'anti-harassment' policies which stem from performance debates, and I think that sets a poor example because it delegitimizes people's identities and also is intrinsically racially biased. That's also what SRB is criticizing. "Oh look, a Negro! How dare he criticize our institution and use racist language! Let's put him in his place by protecting our students from his performance." Of course, that's a bit of an overdramatization, but I think it does capture the underlying sentiment here. If administrators were so concerned about civility in debates, why was that policy not put in place earlier? In addition, I question the inappropriateness of the behavior and the language. This is his second CEDA final round, obviously a very emotional experience, and people are going to hate on him because he went a bit over the time limit and said "fuck the time"? It's not like he does this every round, nor is it like he's actually intimating violence against anyone, but the response almost feels like he is just because he is black. Also, think we need to distinguish between language meant to offend and language that's being reclaimed, eg. the word "nigga" does not mean one thing in every context. In the round, nobody was offended, nor was anyone meant to be offended. "Vested financial interests"? Bull****. The law firms and UDL organizers sponsoring these events have no vested financial interests; they're contributing charity to support their communities. And they don't have a clue what goes on in these project rounds. Look at the NAUDL site; does it mention what, exactly, the champion UDL teams are arguing? The finalists this year were: University Prep DK - I don't know what they argued at NAUDL. According to the NDCA wiki, at Glenbrooks they ran the pro-Black Panther "free Assata Shakur" Aff slamming America as fascist. St. Paul Central BN - Their NDCA wiki page lists "black female rage" and "free Assata Shakur" Affs. In the semifinals, add Whitney Young DS (anti-capitalist Maquiladoras) and East Side MW (Dia de los Muertos) Now, do you think the boards of the banks and law firms that make up most of the NAUDL's supporters want to support that kind of rhetoric? I work for a national law firm and have the support of my firm in coaching a CDL team; I guarantee I wouldn't have that support if I was teaching the kids how to argue in favor of, to describe it most accurately, Afro-Nazism (probably the most accurate description of Black Panther philosophy). That changes my mind on that point. Obviously I was wrong. However, I was also criticizing the "ghetto kids gone good" narrative more broadly, not just the freedoms of UDL debaters. Possibly true in college-land, not true in high school-land. The schools dominating NAUDL with performance Affs may be in poor locations, but they have the funding and support to travel nationally. In CDL, the teams without that kind of support can't compete with the much whiter performance teams from National Circuit-traveling schools like Whitney Young, Walter Payton, and Northside. Well, I'm not sure how successful performance Affs are in high school land, but I am sure there is continuing controversy when Towson, Emporia and Oklahoma are beginning to dominate the college circuit. Fact, in the Atlantic article where Hardy from Northwestern talks about how they should have a policy circuit only is just further evidence for my claim. Except that these bad debates happen in final rounds! It's one thing when I watch teams not clash in a novice policy round in CDL; it's another thing when it happens in the out-rounds of college tournaments. Well I'm sure there will always be bad teams but singling critical race teams out as unique smells funny to me. Sure, I don't agree with all of their strategy (cough cough Emporia NDT '13 finals 2AR), but clearly they are persuading judges to vote for them, and I don't think judges pick them up simply because they happen to be a nontraditional team. Perhaps you can beat them on their own terms, but the dominant debate culture wont let you beat them on substantive terms by attacking their premises. The judges who will happily vote on Wilderson will never vote for the Neg team that refutes with conservative authority like Sowell or Posner. Well, I ask: whose "substantive terms"? There will always be biased judges, but just because one strategy against Wilderson isn't working doesn't mean that say everyone runs that strategy and that it is the only way to answer Wilderson. Isn't the point of debate to adapt our strategy? No one is making anyone read Sowell or Posner, and I am sad that many arguments do not cut it in policy debate, but I recognize that some arguments are stronger than others and are simply more persuasive. No one has a problem with diverse participants! What we have a problem with is with an ideology taking over the debate community and forcing it to play an entirely different game. We're all very welcoming of diverse participants in chess tournaments, but not if they're going to throw the pieces on the floor and insist we play mancala or go instead. What the problem here is is taking a "diverse" team that is very clearly making a statement that they don't feel comfortable switching subjectivities and constructing them as an 'ideology' that is 'taking over the debate community' and 'forcing it to play an entirely different game' where everyone must perform and the poor traditional teams are excluded. That's obviously not the aim here. How exactly are they doing this? I mentioned the three tier framework of SRB: (Organic Intellectuals, Personal Experiences and Academia) But I don't claim to speak for anyone except myself and I think that listening is the first step to working towards substantive change. If you want I can refer you to some scholarship. An organized activity can't be anarchic; there are always some limits. The problem is that the alternative debaters don't seem to be calling for a debate without limits, where their opponents can say anything; they're demanding a debate format where the only thing a team can do in responding to their performance is engage the performance on the exact same level. In debate methodological arguments are made all the time. I don't see why this is different. My argument acknowledges that some limits are good, and others are exclusionary, and it's my opinion that compromise between the two is necessary. What does it mean to encourage people from a different social location to participate even if they do not want to assent to these debates? Can the kids from Marshall go to the Illinois state chess championships, refuse to play chess because of their "social location", and then insist on participating by playing a different game? Aside from that, for the same reasons Squirreloid addressed above (and a lot of commenters on the Atlantic have pointed out), it should be grossly offensive to suggest that minority students can't debate policy at the same level as white students. Who said we are forcing people to do anything? The chess motto falls flat when you realize chess isn't a political statement, while debate most certainly is. And no, I'm not suggesting inferiority, and I never would. I am pointing out that there are minority debaters that feel traditional debate is exclusive and harmful to themselves and while they would like to participate, they would like to do so in a way that doesn't betray themselves. Well, isn't that what the situation is? The argument for project teams is that they can't debate policy on the same level as richer, whiter programs (an argument that should be offensive to minorities). This is an admission that they can't debate as well in a traditional format. Their arguments depend on their having disadvantaged social positions. By logical extension, they are using their disadvantaged social positions to win rounds that they would not have otherwise won. No, some debaters have a sense of self and identity that is strong and ought to be treated equally. That means that we should respect their choice to debate in a way they feel comfortable. What I said earlier is a gross mischaracterization of what is going on here. The current trends in college and high school debate suggest otherwise. As college debate becomes an increasingly marginal activity relative to the rest of the world, high school debate is trending towards more publicly accessible formats. Public Forum and Student Congress are growing; my old high school's policy and LD teams have almost entirely disappeared relative to its PF and SC teams. The comments on the Atlantic, odious as some of them are, reflect the general public's opinion when they hear what policy debate has become--incredulity and disgust. What precisely does this mean? What has debate "become"? Why should we be incredulous and disgusted (I assume because it wasn't specified) that there are nontraditional teams (if that was the question)? And --> ? I don't think that performance is any less publicly accessible than straight policy.
  13. CharlieH


    So, first I would say I think it's great we are having this conversation in the community, and that everyone should calm down and realize everyone here is having this conversation because they *care* about policy debate and its future. What would be even more worrying is if the question were not addressed. I think it also raises some important questions about the future of debate: what is the value of debate? what is fair for debaters? what is the educational benefit? and, how does that translate to policy? To segway into the 'alternative/nontraditional' (a term that in itself is somewhat homogenizing and offensive, but I apologize for the sake of clarity) side of the case, I believe Shanara Reid-Brinkley's Panel on Ghetto Kids Gone Good that was posted here a while back was fun and informative to watch. She makes some telling points about exclusion and the 'anti-harassment' policy that was mentioned, in that it seems suspect how these rules are being introduced as black students are starting to become successful in the largely white policy debate community. I think it is also telling that people are associating "a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions" and "profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and...racial slurs,", quite frankly, with the inclusion of black students in debate. Think of that what you will. I also read her paper Ghetto Kids Gone Good and it makes quite cogent points about how UDL organizers (mostly middle class white men) impose their ideal of 'at risk/model minorities' on what kinds of arguments are made and the way these debaters are represented in the media and to the administration. I think that's very harmful to everyone involved, especially considering the vested financial interests in the education of young students who are conventionally disadvantaged from the very beginning. I also get the distinct feeling of annoyance and even anger among a lot of the traditional teams who are losing to these nontraditional teams that I find unproductive considering where the nontraditional debaters are coming from. Personally, I find a lot of the arguments about social location coming from these 'nontraditional' teams quite compelling, and a lot of the hyperbole lodged at Oklahoma CL and Towson JR (just to name two) seem to play on overhyped fears of debates in which two ships sail by each other without actually connecting. That's not unique to teams that make arguments about race, and happens in all sorts of bad debates. If anything, there is more literature than ever to address race teams and beat them on their own terms. As a person who cannot connect on a personal level with most of these non-traditional teams, listening to what they had to say was both an eye opening and very positive experience. I think also that contrary to the statements of 'traditional' coaches, the 'resistance' movement in debate has been more than willing to engage in conversations about race, exclusion and debate, and that conversation seems to simply be dismissed in fears that the activity will have to substantively address the influx of diverse participants. I don't think that there cannot be a compromise between both sides in debate, and part of the strategies of these non-traditional debaters is to bring that conversation to the forefront instead of outside where the power is decisively placed in the hands of administrators. In addition, it is important to note that regardless of the value of a three-tier framework, it isn't simply 'destructive' change coming from the other side, I think it's important to note they are engaging constructively with the framework of most traditional teams. Now, all that doesn't mean that we should have debates where the topic is not discussed, or even where the desirability of topical USFG action is discussed, but I don't think the response of a lot of traditional teams is measured, constructive or even helpful. I think that a lot of the lack of empathy is concerning as well as the lack of a wider vision of inclusion is present, and that particularly harmful is dogmatism concerning the very debaters that many 'pro-alternative' and 'anti-alternative' debaters purport to help or address. On the other side of the spectrum, we of course have the traditional debates in which affirmatives must provide reasonably topical (eg. substantial USFG action on the resolution) cases and negatives should defend the status quo or a competitive alternative. This is, of course, best suited to an activity and environment that is conducted largely by mutual consensus, as it provides a depth of education on the topic, portable skills, fairness in that everyone is reasonably prepared to engage everyone else on their arguments, and a reasonable area upon which to gain advantages and to provide alternatives. I think it is naive to think that everyone will assent to this because what is happening in debate right shows that not everyone feels that they are in a position to conduct such debates or that conducting such debates offends and harms them on a personal level. Despite that, in the past, there is obviously quite a lineage of such debates and it seems to have produced good citizens, critical thinkers, and morally upright people. However, it is also important to note how demographically similar these debaters were, and it begs the question of whether people from a different social location ought to be allowed/encourage to participate even if they do not want to assent to these debates. I think it has been hashed out well how this framework of debate is beneficial on numerous levels, but I think missing is a lack of addressing the question of who is necessarily harmed and excluded by this framework of debate is, and who is benefiting? I think it is coarse to say that if people have personal objections to this framework, then they should not participate in the activity, or even create separate leagues for certain arguments. Of course, being quite cynical, you could accuse nontraditional debaters of using their disadvantaged social position as a easy way to make judges vote for them and make them win over and over again without having to research the topic and engage their opponents. I don't think that's what the situation is, and I think such accusations are offensive and should be avoided. I think instead debate ought to change to be more safe and welcoming to people who aren't traditional privileged bodies. What is that change? I don't know. But it could involve something as radical as a departure from traditional framework altogether to something more palatable like an acceptance of a three-tier framework in addition to the traditional framework arguments. I think the very fact of exclusion is compelling enough to consider a change in the structure of debate, and one could make the argument that debate must do that or lose out to more progressive activities.
  14. CharlieH

    Kritik list

    Positive Peace.
  15. I think Foucault and I would have been BFFs

  • Create New...