Jump to content

warpathianwrath

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About warpathianwrath

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Name
    Kedar Pandya
  • School
    Elkins

Recent Profile Visitors

548 profile views
  1. warpathianwrath

    Null.

    Hey! I just graduated HS in Texas, and am looking to coach kids in k-oriented debate. I deeply enjoy reading Critical Theory and Continental Philosophy outside of debate. In rounds, I ran anything from Baudrillard, Virilio, and obscure Italian workerists; to Warren, Wilderson, and Weheliye! I also am experienced in the literature that hasn't been exploited by debate yet, i.e. Speculative Realism/New Materialism. I have a whole bunch of authors and file ideas that have almost never appeared on the circuit that I would love to talk about. I'm good to coach for both summer and season. I also PM'ed you, but it would be easier if we communicate by email moving forward: kedarpandya459 at gmail dot com (kedarpandya459@gmail.com)
  2. Sure. But when we weigh, we still use a "prevent death" anaylsis regardless of our interp. Even when we read Death K's that say there is no death, there is still something worse than death and that's the impact of the Death K. Even pomo relies on some form of preventing the worsening the world by doing something, i.e. afropess says lets breakdown civil society since fatalism is the only way to solve for the "worse-than-normative-death" status of black people. Nietzsche still relies on preventing consequences good, i.e. let's not securitize and chase down particular solutions every moment of every day and give in to our fears because more happiness results from letting go than trying to prevent shit from happening. Everything past humanism is essentially util - especially critical theory since it relies metaphysically on the fact that some form of pleasure and pain exist and pleasure is better than pain. Any "K" written in the last century as a part of modernism, post-structuralism, or postmodernism in a debate context can only be weighed in a consequentialist fashion since it isn't practical to normatively justify another mechanism to vote. Derrrida is a good counterexample though since he advocates unending respect/appreciation/something for the Other in the face of sacrifice of the Subject. This is very non-consequentialist since it prefers a maxim over the aspects of a particular situation. I can normatively justify the resolution by saying we ought to affirm since reducing immigration restriction is a way of preventing totalization of the Other.
  3. Kant has alot of spread, i.e. he talks in depth across a breadth of domains of philosophy and theory. He has a basis in metaphysics, ethics and morality, epistemology, theories of the mind, and a number of other fields. Kant in CX debate is really only referenced at the metaphysical level, since Util is Trutil unless you read Derrida. People don't read philosophy in CX because nothing in resolution indicates you "ought" to, and most philosophy fails to allow prescriptions of specific actions, i.e an advocacy text. In LD, phil is a strat that allows you to apply a higher level of theory to determine if the resolution ought to be affirmed or negated, but relies on the premise that it is logical to apply certain maxims to specific scenarios. In CX you can possible use phil to negate the resolution or pre-req it, i.e. Derrida and deconstruction (check out the UNT file on OpenEv) but affirming is almost impossible since every instance of the resolution is particular e.g. you don't defend that we substantially reduce legal immigration restrictions in every conceivable way but rather just what is bounded off by the plan text/advocacy statement. Also K's are not phil. Almost all of them are utilitarian in nature. Even theories like AnB, Marxism and cap K's, and security K premise themselves off of the deadly impacts of a system that outweigh and turn normative policy commandments. To learn Kant best its a good idea to look at the LD reddit, there are some great posts about what literature to get started with and how to use him offensively. Phil as a strat in LD is very powerful in order to add trickery and shadiness to an otherwise static form of debate.
×
×
  • Create New...