Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


alixmath12 last won the day on November 29 2017

alixmath12 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-13 Bad

About alixmath12

  • Rank
  1. A lot of kritiks and affirmatives I've seen have solvency mechanisms that center around rejecting some epistemology or critically investigating it. What are some good ways take out these solvency mechanisms?
  2. A lot of kritiks and affirmatives I've seen have solvency mechanisms that center around rejecting some epistemology or critically investigating it. What are some good ways take out these solvency mechanisms?
  3. How should one frame a link in the 2NR versus framing the link in the 2NC? Examples are very welcome. Thanks!
  4. I'm kind of new to kritik lit and I thought this argument looked pretty interesting. But, I fail to understand the concept of how citizenship plays a role in afro-asian relations (Chinese Exclusion Act etc.) Also, if anyone could give me a good explanation of "black orientalism" that would be great. I'm reading a Jun 2006 article. Here's the link: http://courses.washington.edu/com597j/student%20presentations/Jun.pdf
  5. In what scenario can you say "I don't have to win the alternative." I've seen this in a round before, but I don't really understand why it works. Are the links with linear disads sufficient to win the round??
  6. I'm interested in reading about Lacan, especially his works on self-reflection. Does anyone know which books/articles I should start with? (I have little to no prior knowledge of psychoanalysis)
  7. I plan on running a 1-off settler colonialism K for the China topic. I plan to take case and maybe the perm in the 2NC but I'm not finding ways to do case for 5-6 minutes in the 2NC. Any tips? Any necessary stuff I need to do on case to help?
  8. How could I do this? I want to talk about how the affirmative either can't solve their impacts or the CP solves better. Someone told me that I should do some type of framing and then go for the DA. Any advice? Thanks. Context - US increases space COOP with China. Neg - CP - The united states should offer substantially expanded high level dialogue with the prc concerning non space military crisis engagement and escalation control.
  9. Amid the ever-growing literature on the rise of China, one paradox can hardly escape our attention. That is, evocative of the amusing saying on the Oxford postcard, the more we write and debate about China, the less we seem to know it for sure. Over the years and after so many dedicated conferences, forums and publications, we do not seem to have come any closer to settling the perplexing questions such as what China really is and what its rise means for the rest of the world. The continuing China debate testifies to this lack of consensus. The editors of a book on China watching admit that as a result of the country’s growing complexity, it is increasingly difficult to ‘offer assured conclusions about “China” writ large’.3 Even William Kristol, a neoconserva tive authority on everything to do with international relations, once noted that ‘I cannot forecast to you the action of China. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.4 For some this lack of certainty is all the more reason to keep on decipher ing the China puzzle, but to me it is time to reflect on the ways China knowledge has been produced. As Karl Mannheim reminded us, when people face a bewildering array of divergent conceptions of things and situations, they need to ‘turn from the direct observation of things to the consideration of ways of thinking’.5 Throughout these pages, the book has sought to do just that, beginning with a deconstruction of the very dichotomies between things and thinking, reality and representation. It has explored a different set of issues that may come under the rubric of sociology of knowledge: How what we assume we already know about ‘China’ is not objective knowledge, but contingent representations; how those representations are themselves discursively constructed and worldly situated; and what implications they may have for Sino-Western relations in general and US-China relations in particular. By exploring these questions, the book has turned China writing on its head. From a deconstructive-cum-constructivist perspective, it has sought to watch China watching in a way the IR field of China watching has not been systematically watched before. In particular, it has called into question the ‘scientific knowledge’ status of the twin China paradigms: ‘threat’ and ‘opportunity’. What passes as ‘China’ through these paradigms is not an ontologically stable, unproblematic object ‘out there’ waiting for disinter ested observation. Nor are these Western representations neutral, objective truth of that ‘object’. Rather, there is something more than this: they are situated interpretations intertextually tied to the Western self-imagination, desire, and power. These paradigms tell us less about what is actually seen than about how it is seen and who might be behind this ‘seeing’. They, as examined in Chapter 3, are as much about imagining the gazing self as about representing a Chinese Other. Sorry it's so long, but thank in advance!
  10. In all seriousness, I would like to know the link.
  11. This is taken from Pan's book, Knowledge, Desire, and Power in Global politics, Western's representation of China's rise. I'm not fully getting the many Chinas part. All thinking and writing requires some degree of abstraction and generalisa tion. This is evident in the frequent use of terms such as China, the US, and Europe. Such sweeping terms are not only unavoidable but also useful in many ways. Yet, their usefulness does not alter the fact that the entities they refer to are not homogeneous actors, but artificial products of what Said calls ‘imaginative geography’. It is trite but worth repeating that there does not exist one China, but rather many Chinas, which consist of multiple actors with different and changing ideas, interests, and subjectivities. Instead of a typical nation-state, it is more like a continent.24 For every ‘pro-globalisation’, ‘pro-Western’ view found there, one can easily come across its strong detrac tors.25 In the media, free-market believers constantly battle with influential scholars from the New Left, and enthusiasts of global integration often have to live alongside opponents from a more nationalistic persuasion. In What Does China Think?, Mark Leonard gives an indicative snapshot of significant ideational differences and clashes in China. Even among a select group of Chinese elites, endless debates take place over economic, political, strategic and cultural subjects. At a given time, it may be possible to identify a main stream elite view in China, but it is always problematic to extrapolate it to China as a whole. Thus, the irony is that China is simply too big and too multifaceted to be regarded as a single actor called ‘China’. Thanks!
  12. Got my hands on the book. See what the hype is all about.
  13. More specifically, how would I answer link of omissions on a K such as lesbian separatism or fem killjoy (the affirmative fails to interrogate gender surveillance results in violence). It's not like I can just perm this...
  14. What do you mean by adding it as an afterthought. I don't think the neg would claim it as an afterthought. Right?
  • Create New...