Jump to content

ConsultVerminSupreme

Member
  • Content Count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

ConsultVerminSupreme last won the day on June 27 2017

ConsultVerminSupreme had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

451 Excellent

About ConsultVerminSupreme

  • Rank
    Vermin Supremacist

Profile Information

  • Name
    amogh
  • Location
    california

Recent Profile Visitors

11405 profile views
  1. Random but related thought: I'm not saying this is necessarily you, but I've noticed that a lot (not all) of "performance" teams that I've debated and judged at the high school level seem to miss the boat on a large part of their performance as it pertains to their criticism. When you present a poem/rap/dance/whatever, make sure YOU have a PURPOSE -- in other words, don't just "perform" to look edgy or feel cool. As long as the performance quite literally IS your argument or has some inherent value in articulating your argument, go for it. Now in terms of "am I allowed to perform in the 2NR/2AR" -- Performance at its core (at least the way you seem to be using the term) is usually an unconventional (but valuable for varying reasons) way to communicate/articulate an idea or argument. Depending on what that argument is, the performance could be characterized by the debaters as a way of disrupting norms or altering the way or the frame in which we choose to discuss the resolution. So generally speaking, I would assume that the "performance" was introduced earlier on in the debate in the 1AC/1NC -- so yes -- I'd say you CAN "perform" rebuttals since the argument is not new, but merely being supplemented/developed. However a reason I can see a team choosing NOT to "perform" in the rebuttals in the sense of reading more poetry or whatever is because they would want to spend the time UNPACKING and CONTEXTUALIZING the underlying arguments embedded in their "performance" (which is an important and necessary part of performance debates) and answering their opponents.
  2. Here's a quote of the part I think you're referencing -- basically the argument that may have been forwarded by UMKC is that [the Aff] only feeds the white appetite to consume the spectacle of black suffering. Wilderson cites Peterson when describing how the performance of black radicalism factors into an economy of anti-black phillia (found in debate) by which a (white) coach found (sexual) pleasure in the performances of black debaters -- "The first example the Negrophilic example, Peterson writes of white coaches who see in Afro-Pessimism a set of arguments that can win a lot off debates. But a coach might act in such a way to demonstrate that he or she thinks Afro-Pessimism to be ridiculous. During a disagreement between a black debater and his white coach, you can't disagree with me you’re not even Human. The same coach stated that, and I'm quoting, "My dick gets so hard" when he comes across sharp literature from the Black radical traditional that might be useful in debates" he regularly had a sexual way of explaining things and even explained that when he hears one of the students speaking in a militant poetic verse it makes my dick hard. In interviews he mentioned and even expressed a regret about this feature of his coaching, he admitted that at points he would establish a Blackness meter and tell his students how Black they should act. Sometimes he would tell his students they needed to coon it up for a particular judge. His goal was to win at all costs and the students and their radicalism was his tools for doing so other coaches did this in less blatant ways but it was clear that they have an intense enjoyment of black speech as well. It would encourage more and more radicalism on the part of the student and suggest a particular ways in which they should or could be more radical or militant. Students were also encouraged to deliver their speeches in rap form even against the unevenness they felt. Many students felt their performances were feeding the white appetite to consume the spectacle of black suffering also they felt trapped becaus0e they relied on these individuals for institutional support and could not easily criticize them."
  3. I'm definitely no expert on Edelman's works (so anyone who is more familiar with his works, please feel free to correct me), but it is my understanding that he critiques the figure of "the child" as the symbolic foundation that defines futurity in terms of reproduction. I believe there is a more in-depth psychoanalytical argument introduced in this literature base about how the figure of the child is a libidinally rooted phenomenon that causes us to project the death drive on to the figure of the queer. This means that placing our hopes in the future (and thus, the figure of the child) is one that relies upon the exclusion of queer bodies because as I said before, the concept of the child and reproduction are intrinsic to futurism. This alternative seems to say that we should reveal and threaten the figure of the child by engaging in the unthinkable project of "queering the child" -- this entails actively exposing the (false) innocence of the child, revealing it as an oppressive figure that is used to justify a future that is always already normative and exclusionary. This alters the way education is structured on a fundamental level -- by putting the child in the position of the queer, the alternative disrupts the way curriculum and schooling is set up in protection and active affirmation of the child.
  4. Who's this? I didn't even know Monta Vista did policy debate lmao
  5. Some other teams I can see being successful this year (based on previous trends and/or assumed improvement, also in no particular order) - Westwood GN, Camas LL, Brophy GS, Berkeley Prep MY, Nevada Union AM, CK McClatchy LP, Polytechnic WH, and definitely College Prep (idk they're always switching around partnerships).
  6. I'm pretty sure Thomas Brooks is the only one remaining from BS, Jack graduated last year.
  7. If nobody else has a complete copy, I can access the book by the individual chapters via project MUSE. lmk which ones u want and i can get em for u.
  8. If U of Chicago truly is your dream school, I don't think you should let policy debate stop you from pursuing it. That being said, you can remain involved with policy debate while at UChicago by actively coaching, judging, working at camps -- in fact, one might argue that involving yourself in these ways will allow you to be in the debate space you have come to love without the stress and commitment. College is going to be much more work than high school - your priorities change, and debate can be a big time commitment. Or you can always do what tommy said above, work to create your own team at UChicago -- I personally know a lot of former policy debaters who have gone and started policy programs at their universities. While it may not be as funded, respected, or large as a "debate school" like Northwestern or UMich, there is arguably something special about creating your own team and working your way to the top.
  9. I can access the book by particular chapters. If you tell me which chapter or chapters you need, I can get them for you.
  10. attached! Sylvia Wynter- On Being Human as Praxis - Katherine McKittrick.pdf
  11. If you want more wack Baudrillard answers lmk lol I’m only getting 1/5 of what you’re saying, Baudrillard—it’s 2 in the morning, we’re all high, you have a really heavy French accent with bad translation and none of us are philosophers. But at least you’re wearing Liberace. Kraus ‘7 (Chris, author of “I Love Dick,” (no, seriously, she wrote that, look it up) an American writer, filmmaker, and professor of film at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Part of a collection of tributes to Jean Baudrillard, published in Le Nouvel Observateur, 7-23-07, http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/file/325233.pdf) At The Chance Event at Whiskey Pete’s Casino in Primm, Nevada, November 1996, 400 people lay on the floor at 2 in the morning to hear Jean Baudrillard deliver a lecture on the Demise of the Real. Because of the drugs, the lateness of hour, Jean’s heavy French accent, the bad last-minute translation and the fact that few of us were trained as philosophers, the people assembled at best heard every fifth word. The response was ecstatic. Jean was wearing a gold lame Liberace suit, and though he was a reluctant guru, he was willing to accept what the audience gave him: a pure, undiluted unconditional love. Think, Johnny Cash performing at Folsom Prison. (We were prisoners of our highly evolved senses of irony.) The Santa Claus factor. Baudrillard was – like William S. Burroughs at the end of his life – one of those rare public figures whose presence conveys a promise of happiness beyond any literal content, beyond any hype. His books were written in aphorisms — the kind of texts where every page is marked with a Post-It, every sentence is underlined. For his last public appearances in New York in November, 2005, hundreds of young people lined up in the streets outside his venues. It was clear that they’d come not just to hear his (breathtaking) lecture on Abu Ghraib, but to be able to say years later: they’d been there, they’d heard Jean Baudrillard. Modest, independent, and devastatingly humorous, Jean’s work transmitted the lost urbanity of the mid-20th century while speaking of and into the future. His writings described the present with breathtaking accuracy without ever becoming programmatic. No wonder fans gathered around him. Cheerfully nihilistic, Baudrillard’s work gave us ways our own vague perceptions could become something larger, systemic and totally crystalline.
  12. here you go! postmodernblackness.pdf
  13. I don't think Wilderson said "don't cut cards from the AMA" rather don't use his responses from Reddit as a primary means of understanding, interpreting, or advocating for his work. If you're going to cut evidence from the AMA, use it only to supplement or approach an existing concept that you have introduced from his primary texts. EDIT: I found the particular post I'm referring to [–]kappanokap 2 points 7 months ago What do you think about your answers in this AMA being inevitably used and reused as evidence in scholastic debate [–]wilderson11Dr. Frank Wilderson[S] 6 points 7 months ago I would not take the stuff that I am writing at breakneck speed here today as the gospel according to Frank! I would always deal with the texts. My answers are based on my relationship to- and memory of what I have written and what I have read. It's like that comic books series "For Beginners" (like Marx for Beginners or Fanon for Beginners) you want to use these Reddit answers like you would use those books: as a means of approach, but not as a substitute for what's in the primary texts.
  14. smh I spent the last month writing a Lewis/Agamben Study Aff, and then UT just puts out an entire Aff starter pack and Neg answers for it feelsbad
×
×
  • Create New...