Jump to content

deb8

Member
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About deb8

  • Rank
    Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Vontrez White
  • School
    Downtown Magnets HS

Recent Profile Visitors

1588 profile views
  1. Yay more judges the merrier 2nc is 2282 words Splitting block 2NC is just antiblackness, 1NR will be psychoanalysis and case Open for CX 2NC v PailAmbrose.docx
  2. Alright cool CX Case How does the aff ensure that people who already own handguns won't use them illegally? Psychoanalysis What makes Psychoanalysis unsubstantiated? Why is the death drive reductive? Can you explain Gollwitzer 04? You say perm do aff and the alt in all other instances, what other instances? Afropess You say white people want guns because of a fear of blacks, would they go out of their way to get them illegally? How is blackness not ontological? Can you explain how white and black are just signifiers (Hudson ev)? This should be all
  3. CX Hey im not sure how to quote the quoted quote so i just copy pasted Also answered with bolded and underline Psychoanalysis . Wouldn't embracing a trend towards destruction just cause like... destruction? Like how is this not directly violent Not necessarily, a good example is when trump became president and reality kicked in, we were presented with fear and destruction of a horrible Trump presidency. But with this confrontation the emergence of radical politics, women marches, and a unity against him formed How is the "unity" of women's marches not concealing the lack? Like wouldn't embracing the death drive mean we embrace Trump? Its not concealing the lack because it was the result of embracing the system, by accepting that the worst of trump and his conservative party, the system renews itself. This lead to mass marches of democracy and activism. Not embracing trump but embracing the reality that he is president, and from there positive politics can happen (renewed unified democratic movements) Afropess Can you explain Curry? Curry says that humanitarian ethics are antiblack because western ethics stem from a standpoint of white humanity which reinforces oppression. There is really no "ethical" approach because the world itself is unethical How is this a criticism of ethics as a whole? Like why is this an a priori problem with ethics instead of just a problem with current conceptions of ethics? Current conception of ethics has not changed much from the conception of ethics during the middle passage, its a criticism of ethics as a whole because it begs the question of "what is ethical" and time and time again unethical things have been done that have been justified as "ethical" What makes "the world itself" unethical? Like is just the concept of a state anti-black? The modern day world and its underpinings are based off of the enlightment, which was when africans were servered their kinship and became "black", it was also parasitic upon slavery. Everything society has is founded upon slavery and its the reason why in America and other countries blacks are oppressed. So its more than just the concept of a state being antiblack How does the alt work? Like what does the "end of the world" consist of? The alternative is to demand for the end of the world. Since everything (ie the world) is always already against the black body, the only suitable response is to demand for the world, civil society to end. The end of the world would consist of a world where these ideals of race, gender, immigrants and other notions of oppression wouldnt exist. Demanding for the end of the world is a survival strategy for blacks to survive in an antiblack world basically Wait how does the end of the world solve all oppression? Oppression exists in the current paradigm, if we end it then it wont exist no longer. The result of the alternative is a world where civil society and the oppression stemming from it is no more Also what is a "survival strategy?" If literally every aspect of the world is anti-black how in the world can black people survive? Survival strategies are ways that people affirm life, they vary. Demanding for the end of the world is one, and thats the point theres no way for black people to survive unless we affirm strategies like the K, survival strategies (because civil society is always against blacks) exist out of the paradigm How do we achieve the end of the world? Its impossible to envision the end of the world due to the ontological status of the black body, but this is only true because the black body cant explain its relation to civil society. Yeah I get we can't imagine the end goal here, but like what does the alt actually do? Like do we revolt against the state? Do we just think about white supremacy? Its a revolt against the state yeah Also if anti-blackness is ontological how does the alt solve? The alt is the only way to solve because blackness is ontological. Like blackness is ontological and constructued by social structure, an epistemic shift like the alt is precisely what is needed because by demanding for the world to end is how the black body contains subjectivity and loses its ontological condition, a world post alt is a world where the concept of "blacks" dont exist Also, forgot to ask last time, but are you black? Yeah Case Explain Stell? Like this just seems to say economic restrictions on gun ownership are bad, how does that apply to a straight-up ban? Gun restrictions in the past have resulted in people gradually relying on police because of the criteria to own a handgun, if you ban them then the only source of protection for people from criminals is the police How is that worse than a world with handguns? Like I get the police can do some fucked up things, but like how is that worse than unaccountable private citizens with guns? Because then there's no way to defend. A 200 pound woman has not much of a way to defend against a 100 pound man with a gun, unless she were to have a gun. There needs to be some way of self defense for people besides the police
  4. Alright thats all Order of 1NC is 2 off then case 1NC v PailAmbrose.docx
  5. Yeah the word count is fine and no problem i dont mind about the suicide CX Inherency Why does China want to push for US gun control reform? Plan Does China have to agree with the handgun proposal in the plan text? Advantage How can you ensure the handguns aren't illegally sold? Can you explain your Weiner 13 card? Do other types of guns (assault rifles, shotguns, etc) account for less gun violence? Solvency Why is China needed for the plan? What is the correlation between criminal use of handguns and militarism? What do you mean by White abstraction? (basically can you explain Pugh 10?) Edit**underlined and bolded headings
  6. Willing to go aff or neg on the china topic, pm if interested
  7. Your aff is our aff now Baudrillard 76 [Jean, Badass, Symbolic Exchange and Death] We will not destroy the system by a direct ,dialectical revolution of the economic or political infrastructure . Everything produced by contradiction , by the relation of forces, or by energy in general , will only feed back into the mechanism and give it impetus, following a circular distortion similar to a Moebius strip. We will never defeat it by following its own logic of energy, calculation , reason and revolution , history and power, or some finality or counterfinalityThe worst violence at this level has no purchase , and will only backfire against itself. We will never defeat the system on the plane of the real: the worst error of all our revolutionary strategiesis to believe that we will put an end to the system on the plane of the real: this is their imaginary, imposed on them by the system itself, living or surviving only by always leading those who attack the system to fight amongst each other on the terrain of reality, which is always the reality of the system. This is where they throw all their energies, their imaginary violence, where an implacable logic constantly turns back into the system. We have only to do it violence or counter-violence since it thrives on symbolic violence - not in the degraded sense in which this formula has found fortune, as a violence 'of signs' , from which the system draws strength, or with which it 'masks' its material violence: symbolic violence is deduced from a logic of the symbolic (which has nothing to do with the sign or with energy): reversal , the incessant reversibility o f the counter-gift and, conversely, the seizing of power by the unilateral exercise of the gift. 25 We must therefore displace everything into the sphere of the symbolic, where challenge , reversal and overbidding are the law, so that we can respond to death only by an equal or superior death. There is no question here of real violence or force, the only question concerns the challenge and the logic of the symbolic. If domination comes from the system's retention of the exclusivity of the gift without counter-gift - the gift of work which can only be responded to by destruction or sacrifice, if not in consumption , which is only a spiral of the system of surplus-gratification without result, therefore a spiral of surplus-domination , a gift of media and messages to which , due to the monopoly of the code , nothing is allowed to retort; the gift , everywhere and at every instant, of the social , of the protection agency, security, gratification and the solicitation of the social from which nothing is any longer permitted to escape - then the only solution is to turnthe principle of its power back against the system itself: the impossibility of responding or retorting. To defy the system with a gift to which it cannot respond save by its own collapse and death. Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation , and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide.So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out, the hostage is the substitute , the alter-ego of the ' terrorist' -the hostage's death for the terrorist's. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act.The stakes are death without any possibility of negotiation , and therefore return to an inevitable overbidding. Of course , they attempt to deploy the whole system of negotiation, and the terrorists themselves often enter into this exchange scenario in terms of this calculated equivalence (the hostages' lives against some ransom or liberation , or indeed for the prestige of the operation alone). From this perspective, taking hostages is not original at all, it simply creates an unforeseen and selective relation of forces which can be resolved either by traditional violence or by negotiation. It is a tactical action. There is something else at stake, however, as we clearly saw at The Hague over the course of ten days of incredible negotiations: no-one knew what could be negotiated, nor could they agree on terms, nor on the possible equivalences of the exchange. Or again, even if they were formulated, the 'terrorists' demands' amounted to a radical denial of negotiation. It is precisely here that everything is played out, for with the impossibility of all negotiation we pass into the symbolic order, which is ignorant of this type of calculation and exchange (the system itself lives solely by negotiation, even if this takes place in the equilibrium of violence).The system can only respond to this irruption of the symbolic (the most serious thing to befall it, basically the only ' revolution' )by the real, physical death of the terrorists. This, however, is its defeat, since their death was their stake, so that by bringing about their deaths the system has merely impaled itself on its own violence without really responding to the challenge that was thrown to it.Because the system can easily compute every death , even war atrocities, but cannot compute the death-challenge or symbolic death , since this death has no calculable equivalent, it opens up an inexpiable overbidding by other means than a death in exchange. Nothing corresponds to death except death. Which is precisely what happens in this case: the system itself is driven to suicide in return , which suicide is manifest in its disarray and defeat. However infinitesimal in terms of relations of forces it might be, the colossal apparatus of power is eliminated in this situation where (the very excess of its) derision is turned back against itself. The police and the army, all the institutions and mobilised violence of power whether individually or¶ massed together, can do nothing against this lowly but symbolic death. For this death draws it onto a plane where there is no longer any response possible for it (hence the sudden structural liquefaction of power in '68, not because it was less strong, but because of the simple symbolic displacement operated by the students' practices) . The system can only die in exchange, defeat itself to lift the challenge. Its death at this instant is a symbolic response, but a death which wears it out. The challenge has the efficiency of a murderer.Every society apart from ours knows that, or used to know it. Ours is in the process of rediscovering it. The routes of symbolic effectiveness are those of an alternative politics. Thus the dying ascetic challenges God ever to give him the equivalent of this death. God does all he can to give him this equivalent 'a hundred times over' , in the form of prestige , of spiritual power, indeed of global hegemony But the ascetic's secret dream is to attain such an extent of mortification that even God would be unable either to take up the challenge , or to absorb the debt . He will then have triumphed over God, and become God himself. That is why the ascetic is always close to heresy and sacrilege , and as such condemned by the Church , whose function it is merely to preserve God from this symbolic face-to-face, to protect Him from this mortal challenge where He is summoned to die, to sacrifice Himself in order to take up the challenge of the mortified ascetic. The Church will have had this role for all time, avoiding this type of catastrophic confrontation (catastrophic primarily for the Church) and substituting a rule-bound exchange of penitences and gratifications, the impressario of a system of equivalences between God and men. The same situation exists in our relation to the system of power.All these institutions, all these social, economic, political and psychological mediations, are there so that no-one ever has the opportunity to issue this symbolic challenge, this challenge to the death , the irreversible gift which , like the absolute mortification of the ascetic, brings about a victory over all power, however powerful its authority maybe. It is no longer necessary that the possibility of this direct symbolic confrontation ever takes place. And this is the source of our profound boredom. This is why taking hostages and other similar acts rekindle some fascination: they are at once an exorbitant mirror for the system of its own repressive violence, and the model of a symbolic violence which is always forbidden it, the only violence it cannot exert:its own death. Would the symbolic terrorism alt be a pik because you're "claiming" the 1AC?
  8. I've been looking into Baudrillard lit (particularly simulacra and simulations) and I've been wondering what is the best alternative for a Baudrillard K and how would it work? Or the most common ones since I know Baudrillard is often ran
  9. Alrighty, 1AR will be up sometime tonight or tomorrow
  10. THIRD, THE HUMAN SPECIES MUST BE WIPED OUT ENTIRELY—NOTHING SHORT OF EXTINCTION WILL SUFFICE GAIA LIBERATION FRONT 1994 (“A Modest Proposal,” Winter Solstice, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/resources/glf/glfsop.html) 1. Our object is not merely the continuation of life on Earth--which is, for all we know, the only life in the universe--but the preservation of the planetary ecosystem (Gaia) with as much of its integrity and variety as can be saved.1 2. The Humans have been usefully compared to a cancer2 or a virus.3 But it seems to us that the must fruitful way of viewing the Humans is as an alien species (which is why we use the definite article and the capital H). The Humans evolved on the Earth, but have become alienated from it. They are conscious of their alienation, drawing a distinction between the Human and the natural, and proud of it. Like the alien invading species of science fiction, the Humans possess a superior technology (superior, in this case, to any of the defenses that Gaia can throw up against them). Every species tends to multiply, but while every other species stops multiplying when it overshoots the carrying capacity of its ecosystem, the Humans use their technology to keep raising the planet's carrying capacity for their own species (and a few other species that they exploit),4 at ever higher levels of consumption. They are even able to ward off infectious diseases, which keep every other species from attaining overly high population densities. 3. The planet's carrying capacity for a few species can be raised only at the expense of other species, and, eventually, only at the risk of a general ecological collapse. Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelming that we are rapidly approaching that stage. For all we know, we may have already passed the point of no return. The Humans' technological propensities are probably genetic, because their basic technologies--agriculture animal husbandry, metallurgy, writing and mathematics, hierarchy and bureaucracy--have all appeared independently more than once. The Humans come into full view, then, as a hostile alien species, programmed to kill the planet. 4. Because of the uncertainties involved, we can ensure Gaia's survival only through the extinction of the Humans as a species. Q. But don't you believe in the interconnectedness and inherent worth of everything in nature? A. Yes, but the Humans have disconnected themselves from everything else in nature, so that principle no longer applies to them. Anyway, there's no way to preserve a species that's programmed to kill the planet. The only question is whether that species can become extinct before it takes the planet with it. Q. Wouldn't it be enough to reduce the Human population to some optimum level? A. No, because the first chance it got it would bounce right back. The cancer analogy is useful here: what's the optimum number of cancer cells in a body? Q. But what if the Humans went back to a paleolithic way of life? A. You're forgetting that the paleolithic experiment has already been tried, and that about ten thousand years ago it failed. Their technology, after all, is in their genes. The technologies that have appeared in the past could be expected to appear again, and this time their reappearance would be accelerated by any surviving knowledge of formerly existing technologies. But the appearance of specific technologies is less predictable. In particular, the specific technology that now makes it possible for us to--assuming we still have time--head off this crisis (more on this below) might not be available for dealing with the next one. Q. Shouldn't we make an exception for tribal peoples, who are living in harmony with nature? (Another version: Shouldn't we make an exception for non-Europeans, who were corrupted by Europeans?) A. No, because they're all Humans. Remember that those basic technologies were invented independently by Humans of different races, in the new world as well as in the old. And remember that the Humans, Europeans included, were all tribal once. Anyway, there are no Humans left on the planet who are still totally ignorant of those technologies. Sure, some Humans picked up certain technologies from other Humans, but that doesn't matter to the Earth.5 If any Humans are left, they'll start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances. That's it. You can be sure that the Humans won't like it. They'd much rather listen to somebody telling them how wonderful they are: What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! -Hamlet, II, ii They're not only in denial about what they're doing to the planet, they firmly believe that the death of the planet would be a small price to pay for a few more years of life for their species. You may even lose a few friends. But somebody has to tell it like it is. same
  11. Alrighty CX Harms What is the flaw within the people? If Marxism is a horrible fit, is there any system that won't oppress the Zambians? Inherency Is your overall inherency argument that the case is non unique? Correct me if I'm wrong Solvency How does utopian thinking result in a loss of freedom? How is the affirmative the oppressor? Kritik Does capitalism allow for gender equality? You say capitalism can't be the root cause of something that predated it, was there a cause of gender inequality prior? What does it mean to be culture blind? Is Greenberg 2014 says women have had more equality with men since 1995, does that mean the alternative is a better option than the case? Framework How does the round show that the principle that profiteering off of suffering can only worsen and prolong said suffering.the principle that profiteering off of suffering can only worsen and prolong said suffering ? Does the framework say that capitalism is bad? How is critical pedagogy a tool of dehumanization? Also that's all the questions so you can post 1nr whenever
  12. K, Framework, and T blocks are the main blocks you'll need. And maybe a block answering some kind of policy vers of your aff (since its rejecting the res tho it will be hard/unlikely for someone to do that). I'd answer with framework and a K that has a good root cause arg but probably go for the K because k affs turn the shit out of T/FW standards They'll probably perform and use that to their advantage, usually rejecting the res will stem from some other k like orientalism, anthro, antiblackness, cap etc.
×
×
  • Create New...