Jump to content

seanarchy

Member
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by seanarchy

  1. Look I'm all for maintaining the integrity of the round, but this is dumb. The use of rhetoric that has been used since at least the civil rights era to discredit anti-racist politics is a nonstarter. He's defending Trump's immigration platform which is commonly recognized among the center to be grounded in racist assumptions.
  2. Uh... a) accusations of racism are not "hurt feelings" and historically discounting them as such has been a tool to delegitimize them as irrational, non-objective, or childish. Don't do it. b) genocide is not "hurt feelings" it's genocide you cretin. Unless you debate in a circuit stuck in like the 70s I doubt that. Consult a coach. The plan is hilariously anti, extra, and untopical. You also have serious formatting issues in the 1ac, with the plan's "planks" and unhighlighted cards as a start. Whatever your politics or arguments, you also need to tone down the right-wing rhetoric. It's grating, anti-intellectual, and will alienate the 90% of the debate community who are part of this century.
  3. I mean yeah but he was always kinda amphetamine fueled. Guess it finally got to him. He also moved to Shanghai and thought Chinese capitalism was the shit.
  4. He wrote The Dark Enlightenment and hangs out with the neoreaction crowd like Moldbug and Thiel. He also posts a lot of scientific racism on his Twitter and stuff like that. My understanding of his new version of his philosophy is that he thinks capitalism is a molecular-individualist intelligence explosion that inevitably trends towards grey goo/skynet. Therefore leftism and egalitarianism are molar regulatory attempts at not accelerating. Also left accelerationism isn't really accelerationism. Also D&G are anti-leftists.
  5. Haven't heard that one before lol. Granted everything in the past two decades from him has ruined his personal legacy, but up until he left CCRU Land's work was pretty groundbreaking. No Nick Land means no accelerationism, no Mark Fisher, no neo-china from the future, etc. My point is that I think we can't discard things that are theoretically related to him just because he's a fascist now.
  6. Much like Diablo of Suicide Squad fame, he fears his own strength. Sounds like someone is denying the will to power. On another note, Reza Negarestani's stuff links to probably every topical aff for immigration. Strong generic if you can stomach the post-Landian jargon. Derrida's work on hospitality is similar but a bit more accessible.
  7. Yeah I'm not disagreeing that queerness is antagonistic to many binaries. My point is just that you can't say "framework is a binary, that's anti-queer." You have to prove why that binary is anti-queer. Like the binary between dogs and not dogs is probably not anti-queer, nor does it attempt to define the world as a binary. I think there are plenty of reasons that T/not T could be anti-queer, like the reasons I listed, but I would caution against just taking it for granted. Obviously there would be a more specific debate about this, but I don't see why this isn't probably captured if you can find ev that natives have decided they want a specific immigration policy. Whether or not the USFG is intrinsically bad or not is a separate question, and one that I'm still not sure makes sense if natives themselves want a specific policy. Good evidence probably solves both of these issues. The TVA just says the plan should pass because natives want it and that this trumps other issues for whatever reasons the aff says. I have no idea how this isn't liberal property. The notion of bounded land which is a possession is a fairly European idea, and even if it's not I don't see why it's not bad for the same reasons (primitive accumulation, sovereign violence, etc.) This seems pretty problematic. I have no doubt that some like the Aztecs or Inca with what were essentially states and laws would adopt such a strategy, but I can't see how this isn't just painting all natives as savages or something. And using this as a justification is teleological and not at all different from any sovereign nation historically - its our land bc we back it up with violence. I'm also hesitant to say that this applies to the entire continent. Versus policy affs this is probably not an issue, given they presume the USFG can control given territorial boundaries, but theoretically I don't think this is totally legitimate. I mean, fuck the gov and all, but no one should control a continent. Establishing a new native gov or territorial control strikes me as similarly if not as bad. See D&G on deterritorialization/reterritorialization.
  8. Love a good necro. Not to say this is a bad argument per say in debate rounds, but on face it's theoretically dubious. I can't think of any critic who actually says that queerness is incompatible with any binary ever. I think you need to explicitly connect the content of the binary with anti-queerness, like with Edelman or something that says the thing that is being limited (political discourse, civil society, etc.) is anti-queer. Alternatively, attack the standards and not the interp. I think skills are almost always a good link to any K - the queer art of failure comes to mind (tho I'm not sure I want to endorse reading Halberstam given the Ronell shit going on). This strikes me as pretty simplistic. It certainly may be effective against a policy aff which already operates on the level of sovereignty and borders and such, I get the argument, and I get that there is maybe even a majority of native theorists and activists who take this kind of approach. That said, the rhetoric employed has a certain Westphalian ring to it that doesn't sit well with me. "Right to decide." "Their land." This strikes me as a classical liberal conversion of land into property and its control under conservative/humanist economic agency. Unrelated point, I think if anyone chooses to run this versus soft-left affs the Baudrillard 94 charity cannibalism card would be a fantastic case turn and link. The whole bottom of that card is about colonialism and the top turns any soft left aff. Also I love the "there's no TVA because the premise isn't topical" arg. Tho I feel like if someone found a card saying some natives support basically any topical immigration policy, they could basically do a "consult natives" TVA.
  9. I assume you're talking about the Kain/Saurette suffering good version? Other than Loyola EM or maybe Steven Murray, I don't think any teams with significant competitive success have read anything close to this version of Nietzsche recently, and unless you have a remarkably in depth knowledge of his work, I wouldn't suggest doing so, or else you'll sound like an indefensible dick to many judges. Most "pomo" args like Baudrillard, Deleuze, or Foucault involve arguments originally made by Nietzsche, like fluidity or acceleration. Teams who have had success with these args include EM and Murray, Michigan KM, Michigan LZ, Berkeley MS, and Stuyvesant DS.
  10. seanarchy

    help

    Yeah I mean when it comes down to it all thought is violence according to D&G. /s Actually answering the post, kinda sorta not really. Often they look similar. Lots of people call framework T-USFG. K debaters often call framework T, probably to annoy the team reading framework. Framework tends to articulate a model of evaluation, i.e. the conditions for a team to win are x. For the framework typically read against K affs, x is contesting the desirability of a topical plan. Ks also often articulate a framework, where x could be having a good relationship to capital or training revolutionaries or something like that. Topicality attempts to determine the scope of the resolution, i.e. regardless of how we evaluate a debate, it should be about a limited topic with a particular definition. Almost all impacts are related to this limit. Is the limit predictable, is the limit equitable, etc. Usually a framework shell will contain T components, hence T-USFG: the debate should be limited to issues of government policy. It also may have components not directly related to topicality; premising advantages off of hypothetical plan action is builds decision-making skills.
  11. I'm personally of the opinion that semiocap isn't the best argument this year. This made some more sense in context to education and certainly China, but immigration reform is a bit trickier. Baudrillard already has a tenuous connection to the topic and I'm not sure Bifo has any. I'm also not sure in general that semiocap is the best argument to invest time getting to know everything about. The only team I've seen pull it off was SVDP for a couple years after Adam Martin, but I suspect that was just his individual skill. Bifo argues for this weird mix of Baudrillard, Guattari, and Heidegger that I'm not sure is the most theoretically defensible. It also rarely has a non-contrived link or impact, and there are usually better strategies. The basic gist is that capital and technology have accelerated to the point where they overwhelm the human sensory apparatus, producing a deadened and hopeless affect that has gutted political potentiality (per Baudrillard). Bifo terms this semiocapitalism, because it operates through disembodied value and empty signifiers (semiotics). He thinks the solution is poetry, in this weird quasi-Heideggerian sense that overlaps with Guatarri's lines of flight, but which slows down to try and recover the human subject. The issues: Guattari is probably most in line with Bifo's project, although much of his work with Deleuze is in tension with Bifo's defense of humanism. Neither Baudrillard nor Heidegger defend humanism either. Bifo borrows most of Baudrillard's description of contemporary society, but Baudrillard argues for virtually the opposite solution: the acceleration of meaninglessness to the point of where the whole system implodes and becomes untenable, not slowing it down, something he views as pointless and naive. Bifo doesn't grapple with this much. Heidegger's poetry is also a response to a different problem than what Bifo poses (modernity itself, not cell phones). There's also the kind of global issue endemic to Bifo's work that he's extremely vague. He rarely nails down why or how poetry can save subjectivity, or why it is desirable to do so. I'm inclined to think you'd get more out of researching any one of those constitutive parts, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, or Heidegger, since almost all of them are more generalized and make clearer arguments. They also lead into other arguments, like Bifo if you're really interested, but also preserve other options for specialization (cybernetics, homonationalism, Empire, fear of death, etc.). That's my take.
  12. Yeah probably. I think it's still a really interesting take on topicality. The idea isn't original though so if anyone is interested in watching this strategy executed find Cal MS vs UCO HS.
  13. It depends. Lots of K affs do take an anti-state stance because it synergizes with the literature base they are drawing from. I ran a Deleuze aff last year for which I would determine the 2AC's stance on the state based on framework standards read in the 1NC. I could say that the state is always bad and inaccessible, or I could say that we simply shouldn't be forced to debate in a particular way (usually some kritik of the metaphysics implied by predictability or something to that effect). I actually wrote my sophomores a pro-state "K aff" last year that advocated grassroots movements with the end-goal of implementing anti-capitalist reforms. The main argument against framework was 2-fold, that 1) we still defended the desirability of the resolution as an endpoint, so we met their interpretation, and that 2) it was more valuable to debate strategies to implement the resolution than to imagine ourselves as idealized technocrats. It was meant as a bait and switch for framework to draw out the strategy and then reveal that really we were "topical" just in an unconventional and better way. The upshot of this is just to say that you should have a reason you shouldn't be or shouldn't have to be topical: why shouldn't we have to debate about fiat? You need offense to this question. David Graeber has written a number of pieces that argue against the concept of policy and devising it, which have made their way into Michigan's Border K file. Gordon Mitchell's 1998 article is often cited in K debates on how traditional modelscan create the spectator mentality of the detached technocrat or corporate lawyer, which itself is relevant to grassroots, but also could be used to argue why creating a perfectly fair debate shouldn't take priority over creating a debate that produces the most democratic education.
  14. Yeah I'm not really sure this is a great option for most versions of biopolitics. Queer necropolitics, sure. "Managing people is bad" probably doesn't require suicide bombings to solve. I mean you can probably get away with it but it's not as strategic outside of Puar's Deleuzian background compared to other less abstract alts.
  15. I mean, there are a lot of reasons the regulation of immigrants is bad biopolitically. A bit more specificity would help get a better answer. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you want an alt that answers the reform good debate, outside of associated framework arguments. I tend to see a lot of rethinking type alts associated with biopolitics Ks, especially if they're concerned with power/knowledge. These usually contain implicit framework arguments that let you bypass the reform debate to a certain extent. If it's more of a K of managerialism, David Graeber has written some good cards about anarchist direct action, as well as a fiat K that uses very Foucauldian arguments.
  16. I haven't looked at the negative section of the file too much but that was definitely the case last year.
  17. Cybernetics usually refers to the intersection of communication and control. This is often related to technology or the will to technology/mastery, which is a Heideggerian expression that describes efforts to render the world perfectly knowable or useful. I'd recommend having a decent grasp of Nietzsche's arguments about ressentiment and metaphysics before reading this stuff in debate. It's also good if you're familiar with, in order of importance, Deleuze, Heidegger, Baudrillard, and/or Bataille. There are a bunch of different ways that this is deployed in debate. Exits to a Posthuman Future by Arthur Kroker is definitely the most common one. It provides a pretty strong introduction to the field, but it's kind of dense. Dark Deleuze by Andrew Culp is also about cybernetics, although a bit more specifically to Deleuzian theory. It has a more militant and anti-communication attitude than other authors. Planet Utopia by Mark Featherstone has more of an anti-productivity bent to it. It's maybe a bit more hopeful than the other two books. Each of those authors have written a number of smaller articles that also have great cards. Michigan put out a cybernetics file this year that's pretty good and has cards to contextualize to this topic. I wouldn't suggest reading all the way through each of these books, just enough to get a good grasp of whichever argument you plan on making. Underlying knowledge of the authors cybernetics is based on is more important imo.
  18. It's a book by Andrew Culp which has been read a lot recently as a K of traditional Deleuzian concepts like accelerationism or affirmation. It says that Deleuze's work has been coopted by capitalism through a "canon of joy," which creates a regime of compulsory happiness making the status quo inescapable. Culp says we need to learn to hate the world as it is and to disengage from capitalist forms of connectivity and production that make us dependent upon the state and markets. This leads him to advocate for something resembling guerilla warfare - secret, violent resistance and conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the current world order.
  19. Homonationalism - there's a ton of lit about this in immigration law, solvency might be a bit generic (eroticism, suicide bombing, etc.)
  20. Just a correction: Loyola Marymount University EM was a college team who got to semis of the 2012 NDT. There is also a Loyola high school, but EM was from the University.
  21. In antiblackness debates the most important line of argumentation on case is almost always the ontology debate: is blackness ontological, yes or no. Cards like Kline, Gordon, or Marriott are all good ideas. In performance debates I think reading cards about the ballot or narratives are also good. Stuff like Ritter, Harris, or Levasseur are good on this question.
  22. Shit I just realized I can't funny.
  23. The chapters are able to be read in any order. Like chapter 1 then 5 then 2 Obviously the sentences are coherent.
  24. Aaditya hmu at Cal this weekend. You prob don't need to read all if ATP. The book is written as a rhizome so that it doesn't have to be taken as a totality or in any particular order. Definitely read the intro tho.
  25. Yeah don't edit it. Personally I never edit anything describing a specific person. In my mind doing so is arguably worse since it may misgender a specific person. No one should think you're categorically saying something about the labels she or he, since you're describing people who *presumably* use those pronouns. Example: if there's a trans woman who prefers she, calling her they all the time is probably rather alienating.
×
×
  • Create New...