Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ConsultVerminSupreme

  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
  15. Here you go! Red White & Black - Frank Wilderson.pdf
  16. I think a lot of literary fiction (as does cinema/film) serve as a sort of snapshot of where we are as a society, the problems/fears of our world, and possible utopian/dystopian visions of the future of those worlds. So yes, I think that reading literary fiction (not just to be edgy, but with the intention of painting a picture to communicate a kritikal idea) can be valuable. That's probably also why a lot of kritikal scholars in various areas (Psychoanalysis, Afro-Pessimism, Biopower...etc.) often use films or speculative fiction to discuss and describe certain theories about power and behavior. For example Todd McGowan uses the Dark Knight/Batman films to bring an understanding of the state of exception and lawlessness. In terms of debate, I've personally seen teams do things like read George Orwell's 1984 on the surveillance topic (to describe how the Orwellian nightmare of a controlling society has become a reality) or stories of Fu Manchu on the China topic (to describe America's irrational fear of China and depiction of the Chinese as scheming and devious).
  17. Here's some other cards -- Fiat’s purpose is to test beliefs and pose questions in a hypothetical space. Goodman ‘95 – Professor Emeritus, School of Education, University of Michigan (Frederick L., “Practice in Theory,” Simulation and Gaming, June, 184-185, http://sag.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/26/2/178.full.pdf) Simulation Games Those who deal with simulations continue to focus attention on the pressing question of verisimilitude ("the quality of appearing to be true or real" according to the American Heritage Dictionary). Consider the case of the University of Michigan's Interactive Communications & Simulations (ICS) computer-conference-based Arab-Israeli Conflict simulation that has, for a decade, connected secondary school students around the world to play the roles of five major political leaders in each of a dozen or so countries involved in this struggle in the Middle East. While a teaching assistant in 1974, Edgar Taylor initiated the Arab-Israeli Conflict exercise in a political science course at the University of Michigan. Leonard Suransky arrived at Michigan shortly thereafter and worked closely with Edgar on the development of the university version of the game. Edgar also worked with Bob Parnes, who in the latter half of the 1970s was designing CONFER, the computer-conferencing system that allowed us to extend the Arab-Israeli Conflict simulation to secondary schools around the world. Bob by then was also a veteran gamer, having worked very closely with me on the development of MARBLES. In the ICS, college students serve as mentors to the younger students to see to it that they, while playing their characters, stay in role with as much integrity as possible. No single economic or political theory lies at the heart of the exercise; there is no model that drives the game and determines the consequences of the players' actions. The college student mentors meet in weekly seminars to hammer out the advice they might give to the participants to keep their performance in line with anything that they know about that age-old conflict. It is, of course, still practice in theory because no one can be sure that what the students are doing would actually match with the world outside the game. However, because the actions taken and the consequences of those actions within the exercise are actively negotiated between the players and the mentors, the tentative and theoretical nature of the entire undertaking is conspicuous to the participants—whereas the action is de- tailed, exciting and absorbing. That, I submit, is an important step in the right direction. If one is going to build a simulation game around a model, in other words, around a specific theory, then the burden falls squarely on the designer to vouch for the validity of the theory. As economists and political scientists get better and better at modeling slices of their worlds, we may expect better and better games based on these models to appear. In the meantime, another approach may be taken. Simulation games can be turned around in the sense that participants can be switched from the role of players to the role of designers. This was the approach used in the line of the POLICY NEGOTIATIONS games that were developed at Michigan and elsewhere and in the extension of POLICY NEGOTIATIONS known as THE FLOATING CRAP GAME (Goodman, 1981). When this is done, the connections that the participants claim to see between various parts of the world that they themselves are modeling are rendered explicit for review, discussion, and revision. There is little reason to believe that actions that people take while playing such games would be the ones they would take or recommend taking in the real world. Neverthe-less, if people are designing a game with an eye to expressing their best generalizations about something, formulating rules that purport to capture the essence of some phenomenon as they have come to understand it, there are good reasons to believe they are behaving in a way that they would behave outside the context of the game. Put another way, they are practicing making theoretical statements; they are engaging in practice in theory. This twist on the meaning of the phrase "practice in theory" is discussed further in the next section. Fiat isn’t real but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful--our form of experimental geopolitics through fiat is able to actualize new geopolitical presents and create emergent effects within interstate systems.Dittmer 15 (Jason, 2015; Professor of Political Geography, University College London; Editorial Board Member: Political Geography; Professional Geographer; The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship; Turkish Journal of Human Geography; author of Captain America and the Nationalist Superhero: Metaphors, Narratives, and Geopolitics (Temple University Press, 2013) and Popular Culture, Geopolitics, and Identity (Rowman and Littlefield, 2010); editor (or co-editor) of Geopolitics: An Introductory Reader (Routledge, 2014), the Ashgate Research Companion to Media Geography (Ashgate, 2014), Comic Book Geographies (Franz Steiner, 2014), and Mapping the End Times: American Evangelical Geopolitics and Apocalyptic Visions (Ashgate, 2010); “Playing geopolitics: utopian simulations and subversions of international relations,” GeoJournal, Volume 80, Issue 6 , pp 909-923) *gender modified* Considering geopolitics in a world of becoming directs our attention to the way geopolitical spaces— such as games—are immanent and ultimately temporary: ‘‘[T]hough any species, thing, system, or civilization may last for a long time, nothing lasts forever. Each force-field (set in the chrono-time appropriate to it) oscillates between periods of relative arrest and those of and those of heightened imbalance and change, followed again by new stabilizations,’’ (Connolly 2010, 44). In such a world view, the geopolitical ‘present’ is produced out of the intersection of a range of temporal force-fields: e.g., the cycles of capitalist accumulation and crisis (Taylor 1996), the emergence of new technologies like Twitter (Pinkerton et al. 2011) the breakdown of a long-time dictator’s health (Masoud 2011), the tinting of an individual’s political perception by affect-imbued memory of past events. One of the many ways in which the present emerges out of the collision of both past and future is through play. Play and politics ‘Play’ is a deceptively simple term. Perhaps associated first with frivolity and childhood, the term broadens when we consider play in the animal world. In evolutionary theory, play contributes to the development of animal behavior and physiology, as well as the maintenance of cognitive and emotional stability. ‘‘Social play is not easily summarized, but play fighting, chasing, and wrestling are the major types recorded and occur in almost every group of animals in which play is found,’’ (Burghardt 2005, 382). It is clear that play is future-oriented, preparing bodies for future action and encoding new pathways between muscles, the brain, and the nervous system. In other words, play encodes the future into our corporeal selves, shaping not only our responses but our field of sensibilities. Equally, such play is done in anticipation of the future need for such responses and sensibilities. Anderson and Adey (2011, 1093) make exactly this point for humans in their discussion of disaster simulations in the UK, in which governmental actors play themselves in fantasy scenarios: ‘‘conditions of response are made present through the composition of particular atmospheres and sensibilities. And it is by making those conditions present affectively that the exercise can function as a technique of equivalence, allowing future events to be rendered governable.’’ Past play enables present action through embodied memory, enhancing capabilities for action (and arguably limiting capabilities for other kinds of action); the future is similarly brought into the present as an anticipatory impetus for training and action. Play emerges through the collision of these temporalities. It is important to note that in the above I am privileging a particular understanding of play, which can be critiqued as functionalist. As Tara Woodyer notes in her excellent review of ludic geographies (2012), there is a spectrum of play, from the improvisational and unstructured (paidia) to the formal and structured (ludus). When play is formalized through competition and rules, it becomes a game, and games have been observed to limit the amount of experimentation vis-a´-vis improvisation (Katz 2004), and therefore might be understand as enforcing social roles and orthodoxy. Games are a popular metaphor for social processes because, like society, there are rules that shape behavior and outcomes. For example, the association of American football with discourses and physical capabilities associated with war, and the related relegation of girls to the sidelines as cheerleaders representing the home front, has been criticized as the reproduction of social roles perpetuating the gendered national security state (Gagen 2004). However, as this research will show, highly-coded games are nonetheless spaces of improvisation. As Woodyer (2012, 318) puts it, ‘‘Playing works through aspects of the mimicked activities that are somewhat mysterious; identities, social relationships and sociomaterial practices are played with as details are tweaked or wildly (re)imagined.’’ Therefore, I would argue that the paidia/ludus spectrum is misleading in that it generalizes about types of play (e.g., tic-tac-toe games are ludic while fantasy role playing games tend toward paidia) rather than recognizing that individual enactments of a game can fall at various points on the spectrum. It is my contention that the specifics of games matter, not only in which game is played, but in how individual games unfold. Each game is necessarily its own unique assemblage of game, context, and players. Each game is thus also its own world, which necessarily has a spatial dimension. Game spaces have been referred to elsewhere as the ‘magic circle’ (Klabbers 2009). Entering the magic circle entails a crossingover from one world to the next, with its own rules, morality, and so on. Nevertheless, the magic circle is at best leaky and at worst nearly impossible to spot as you cross it (Castronova 2005). Games are experimental spaces set apart from, and yet folded into, our everyday world. Ingram (2012) conceptualizes experimental geopolitics as occurring through four elements: staging, play, modulation, and effects. ‘Staging’ refers to the preparation of the game or, in Deleuzean terms, the coding of the assemblage. As the term ‘staging’ implies, this coding is always spatial, providing space for performance. ‘Play’ refers here to the simulation’s enactment. ‘Modulation’ is the ongoing process of re-coding undertaken during the simulation, reminding us that these assemblage spaces are intentionally created, and may or may not be allowed to deviate from expectations. Finally, Ingram identifies the emergent ‘effects’ of the assemblage as systemic output. It is these that re-shape the simulation but also ripple out into tangential worlds (like ‘ours’). These effects can be regressive or progressive, or neither. Therefore, it is important to recognize that games are crucial sites of the political. A game can be highly structured and yet an individual enactment of it can be unexpected in its outcome, or in the style of play within the rules. Such deviance can be explicitly political in its intent, but it is far more likely to be tacitly political and driven by a carnival-like pleasure in improvisation and unbounded vitalism. Play then is not just about participating in games, but it is a way of participating in games, or work, or conversations, or anything at all. ‘‘In this sense, the proximity of play is self-perpetuating as the vitality emerging from it encourages one to be more responsive to others,’’ (Woodyer 2012, 319). As an everyday sensibility that can be carried over into various spheres of life, play is more political than simple resistance to rules and social norms. Summing up Experimental geopolitics and the ‘magic circle’ of games/simulations both represent spaces that are set aside from, and yet are fully part of, ‘our’ world (Shaw and Warf 2009). Each experiment or game is an assemblage that, when actualized, produces emergent effects (DeLanda 2006; Cudworth and Hobden 2011). While these gameworlds are virtual, they nevertheless produce actual effects through embodiment in habit and experience, which can be drawn upon in future political rationalities (Connolly 2002). This focus on embodied action can be juxtaposed with MacDonald’s (2008, 623), argument that ‘‘playing at or with war is a constituent part of warfare itself.’’ In other words, the emergent effect of ‘the inter-state system’ is as much the result of people playing at diplomacy and geopolitics as it is the stuff of tanks, ambassadors, and passports. Given the inability of realist IR theory and neoclassical geopolitics to account for the complexity and interconnection of social systems in our world (Cudworth and Hobden 2011), it is worth imagining a whole swath of games that purport to mimic the world of geopolitics and IR as utopian in that their coding, algorithms, and ludic structures produce spaces in which reductionist notions of geopolitics and IR can unfold without the messy complexity of real life. Using games as a proving ground for neoclassical geopolitics and realist IR theory hardly segregates the ideas from people’s geopolitical imaginations and perceptions. Rather, gamers shuttle between these worlds, learning the algorithms that are the key to game success with the possibility of applying them in ‘real’ political contexts: As the player proceeds through the game, s/he [They] gradually discovers the rules that operate in the universe constructed by this game. S/he [They] learns its hidden logic, in short its algorithm. Therefore, in games where the play departs from following an algorithm, the player is still engaged with an algorithm, albeit in another way: s/he [They] is discovering the algorithm of the game itself. (Manovich 1999, 83) Thus, the coding of neoclassical geopolitics and realist IR into games risks both the seeming confirmation of ‘real world’ geopolitical and IR theories through their transposition to utopian game spaces, and also the reimportation of those theories back into ‘our’ world. Luckily, the gaming experience is not limited to what is coded. Considering the body as a component of the gaming assemblage opens up possibilities whereby the singularity of the game-as-type fragments into a multiplicity of games-as-played (Massumi 2002). After all, a game without players is a dead thing, unworthy of attention. Only when it is infused with players’ vitality does the assemblage come alive, with people and objects (e.g., chess boards and pieces, videogames and consoles) co-constituting the emergent effect of ‘the game’. This provides hope that this excess play provides room for critical engagement with neoclassical geopolitics and realist IR theory. Methodology This research contributes to new methodologies through which everyday geopolitics can be analyzed, elsewhere referred to as ‘popular geopolitics 2.0’ (Dittmer and Gray 2010). This complicates top-down accounts of geopolitics that diminish both political possibilities and the agency of everyday people and things. This research holds that games are assemblages with agency, intervening in the world through their very existence. That agency is emergent and coconstituted through the interactions of rules, material objects (such as game pieces or computer code), and players. Understanding the intertwining of these agencies requires methods that approach the complexity of assemblage organization. Recent work in political geography incorporates more ethnographic methods, especially participant observation and interviews (Megoran 2006; Pain and Smith 2008; Kuus 2011). Applying these methods in the university setting (Mu¨ller 2011) is useful for understanding how theories are enacted (and thus reworked) in an organized effort to produce geopolitical subjects.
  18. - Framework/T (if they're not defending a plan) -- if a lot of their args are a defense of creativity, you can make arguments about why limits and forcing yourself to advocate within the bounds of the resolution is key to creativity. - K's/indicts of performance and affective strategies (This can be anything from a Berlant type arg about empathetic identification, the Phelan '96 "performance bad" stuff, or simply Bryant '12 type args about why the Aff's method is a form of useless abstraction) - K's/indicts of other parts of their method/plan (I am confident that the Aff operates under a variety of assumptions that you can criticize -- futurism, faith in law, representations...etc.)
  19. I mean if you're just looking for general kritiks on the negative, you could always go for critiques of state action/Legalism type args (Biopower, Necropolitics...etc.). If you're looking for a more nuanced critique of things like the very notion of striving for "civil liberties" you can try pursuing args like Afro-Pessimism, Settler Colonialism...etc. Pls don't bring back the Terrorism DA. Thx.
  20. Not that I know that many Oklahoma teams, but Heritage Hall DV are fantastic debaters
  21. I don't have the first one, but here's "Higher Education and Technological Acceleration." hoofd2017.pdf
  • Create New...