Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BatailleLives last won the day on December 26 2018

BatailleLives had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About BatailleLives

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Lil Pump Academy

Recent Profile Visitors

1158 profile views
  1. Whether you use cards in your rebuttals is heavily dependent on what style of debate you do and what arguments you are extending into your late rebuttals. New cards in the 1NR and 1AR is definitely fine, but new 2NR and 2AR cards definitely aren't. You might read a lot of cards in your 1NR if you're doing taking something like a DA where you just need a wall of evidence to weigh against theirs, but you'll probably use much fewer evidence if you're taking something more analytical, like a K. You don't need to prove your point 4 times, you just need to extend arguments that you want to go for throughout all your speeches and build on them so that they aren't new in the final rebuttals. 1NR-Depends heavily on what arguments you're taking, but usually pretty similar in style to a 2NC, so it can definitely read cards and make some new arguments. Make sure you cover every part of the argument you're extending and do line by line and you should be fine. A lot of people think the 1NR isn't a very important speech because the 2NR often goes for whatever was in the 2NC, but a good 1NR can put a lot of pressure on the aff and the 2NR going for the arguments from the 1NR can often catch aff teams off guard. Usually, 1NRs will take 1 off case and a case argument, but I've seen other 1NR strategies that have been effective. 1AR-The 1AR should be mainly concerned with extending the most important arguments from the 2AC, answering the most important offense from the block, and making any new arguments that are necessary to win the debate, such as if the 2AC didn't have enough time on one flow. The 1AR can definitely read cards, but it doesn't usually read very many because it is generally pretty time-pressed and smart analytics can be more useful in many situations. The 1AR varies drastically depending on what was in the block, but the goal of the 1AR is never to win the debate, but to give the 2AR the materials that it needs to win. 2NR-The 2NR shouldn't read new cards, because those would probably be new arguments and it would put unfair pressure on the 2AR. The goal of the 2NR is to extend and flesh out the argument that the neg thinks is best and can win the debate. Usually, the 2NR will go for just T, a CP+DA+Case, a DA+Case, or a K+Case. Going for multiple off case that aren't a CP and the DA net benefit isn't usually very helpful. The 2NR shouldn't really be making many new arguments, but it can definitely build on arguments from the block and can answer new 1AR arguments with new arguments. The goal of the 2NR is to extend offense that can win the debate, answer aff offense so that the 2AR doesn't have an easy way out, and help the judge understand what has happened throughout the debate so that they can feel comfortable voting neg. 2AR-The 2AR should never read any new cards because there is no 3NR for the neg to answer them. The goal of the 2AR is to extend the important aff offense that can win the debate and contextualize what has happened in the rest of the debate to what the 2NR went for to mitigate the neg's offense. The 2AR isn't often a super technical speech, as it is often more big picture and helps the judge understand what went down in the debate so that they know why the aff is winning, but it should obviously answer neg arguments. The 2AR shouldn't really have new arguments, but it often does.
  2. I'm probably not the most qualified to tell you about this but I'll try Humanism isn't great because the notion of the human is necessarily exclusionary. The concept of the human was first created by straight white European Christian explorers who found people that didn't look or act like them and had to codify their supposed superiority, so they invented the category of the human to include themselves and exclude others. The category of the human is usually exclusionary because it always assumes the traits that a "human" has to have, and there will always be someone who doesn't have these traits, so they can't be included as "human".
  3. Presumption is the argument that the aff doesn't doing anything, either because it isn't inherent, can't solve, or doesn't have real impacts, which means that there is no reason to vote aff and the judge defaults neg, because the aff has the burden of truth and hasn't met it. Answering it should be pretty easy as long as you have a decent aff. Just win that your aff can actually solve your impacts, which requires that you have good solvency evidence, that it's possible for your aff to happen, which requires recent evidence about the topic your aff talks about, and that your impacts are real, which you can win by having good and qualified impact evidence that actually makes the claims of your tagline.
  4. Framing is usually understood as the debate on how the judge should weigh different parts of the debate, such as impacts. For example, if the aff reads a structural violence advantage and the neg reads a DA with a nuclear war impact, the neg might make framing arguments like "nuclear war causes extinction which outweighs everything-the judge should use a utilitarian lens to save the most lives" while the aff might say something like "structural violence outweighs because we should stop current suffering first." Framework is a very different argument, which is more concerned with the "rules" of debate. There are two main ways that framework is usually read 1-As an off case argument against K affs that says the aff should have to defend a topical plan. 2-As a 2AC answer to Ks that says the aff should get to weigh its fiated implications against the k. The distinction between framing and framework can be confusing, but knowing the difference can be very important to many different debates.
  5. This will be a long post. Sorry if it's kind of messy-it's hard to organize Bataille's ideas. Bataille thinks that the world is chaotic and incomplete, so trying to address any part of the world using an isolated and static approach, such as a plan, inevitably fails, because the world is constantly in a state of flux, or is constantly changing. In these moments where attempts at knowledge fail, authentic communication not chained to static interpretations or isolationistm can take place, so the alt can often try to create a moment like this. If isolationist campaigns continue, they will always be tortured by the utter chaos of the universe, which does not care about rationality or completion (those who consider themselves sane will be tortured by the universe for that very ascription to sanity). If we assume these things, then we can theorize human consciousness as either 1-an attempt for meaning and isolated identification, a quest which is never finished and only tortures the seeker, or 2-a self-defeating process that eventually spirals into madness and chaos, opening up a new space. Bataille thinks that, once consciousness collapses in on itself and becomes mad, the entire paradigm of existence is radically altered inasmuch as traditional value systems are turned upside down, and it is possible to escape from rationalist consumer society (sometimes called a restricted economy) and towards mad indifference and completion (sometimes called a general economy). Within a general economy, excess is always primary, and trying to push it back only causes bad things because it tries to conform the madness and excess into a rational restricted economy. Bataille thinks that one of the ways to escape from restricted economies is to transgress their norms through revolutions in the affairs of everyday life, which can take the form of rule-breaking, "sins" committing taboo acts, or anything else that a system doesn't think can exist within it. Bataille wants to transgress isolated values to access sensory bliss and feelings, to experience the extremes of life instead of bland consumer capitalism. One way to escape from these bland systems is through odious utterances, the "unspeakable" things or actions that will cause sensory extremes of things like emotion and open the possibility of freedom. These odious utterances disrupt each step in the hierarchies of normalcy (norms of society are set up in a sort of hierarchy where each step seems small enough to be reasonable, at least compared to steps next to it, a cycle which quickly escalates). These norms impose taboos restricting deviance, so that the possibility for difference (and "freedom") becomes more and more limited, and systems start to become homogenized as everything deemed unacceptable is "banished" from society, leading to a deprivation of access to life which makes value impossible. Society offers a fantasy of security (think things like military "protection", social security, or other support systems), but this security is also a security of the self, as society's codes for what is acceptable help people imagine who and what they are and what they know that they know. However, once we transgress society, we lose security for unsafe bliss and freedom, escaping society's fear-systems. Bataille wasn't an academic, but a librarian, and never wrote for fame or fortune, but to transgress writing, ruining words and showing that complete communication is impossible. The effectiveness of this strategy is shocking the public is apparent by the fact that the French ministry of culture literally banned his last book "Tears of Eros," because it was considered an "outrage to morality" for its content. Bataille thought that this strategy could open up access to the difference of non knowledge, an absence of traditional meaning-making which opposed many other areas of philosophy trying to impose static identities on the world. He thought that this act of transgressive writing could disrupt the values of the time through creative destruction, literally abusing the meaning of language in disgusting ways. He didn't think that this transgression could create a new world, because imagining possibilities like this is just a quest for attainment and wholeness that is doomed because it relies on isolated understandings of the world, but he did think that it could allow some level of escape from society. Attainment quests are particularly bad in that they establish goals, which lock us to specific forms of meaning. When you say "I want to be a doctor" you have articulated a goal, and have presupposed that you exist in the present, and there is a possible you in the future who has achieved that goal and is now a doctor. This physical projection into the future only imagines one way that the future could go, which ultimately changes how we react in the present because everything we do works towards that particular future goal. This future with goals makes the present hostile towards anything that seems to threaten your goals. For example, if someone wanted you to go graffiti something with them, possibly an act of transgression, your future-oriented present self will say no, preventing escape, because it thinks that doing that could disrupt the future doctor-self that doesn't even exist yet. When you're always basing the present on a possible future, you fail to live and become hostile, lacking enjoyment. This idea plays out on a global scale as well. We know that the world is threatening, and we try to displace that threat away from ourself onto some other part of the world so that someone else has to deal with it. What this means is that seeing images of other people suffering (dealing with the threat) makes us feel happy and safe because it tells us that the threat is somewhere else and we don't have to deal with it, that the world is dangerous, but not to us. This creates a psychological necessity to continue eliminating threats once one has supposedly been eliminated, to continue feeling safe and scapegoating violence onto the other. One instance of this is the elimination of the other, justified through "safety" which continues on indefinitely because there must always be a new other, as the world is always chaotic and violent and the universe ultimately doesn't care. Bataille had a very hard childhood, with his father going mad and his mother becoming suicidally depressed. His childhood was characterized by solitude and abandonment, causing him to theorize that humans are not thrown into the world or introduced to it, but utterly abandoned into it, and that is is chaotic and evil. This abandonment is incredibly painful, and is of isolation and insufficiency. However, even though abandonment is immense suffering, being with other people also has limits, a sort of contradiction in Bataille's scholarship. However, this contradictory scholarship only reinforces absolute madness, as it brings opposites into proximity. Bataille thinks that laughter is one way to transgress taboos, interrupting community and society and showing utter indifference. Bataille's laughter isn't just snickering at a joke, but an insane and overwhelming laugh, think of the laugh of the joker. Laughter overwhelms us, and ruptures normalcy, allowing actual life, which is usually prohibited by taboos. Bataille was heavily influenced by Nietzsche's ideas, and thinks that God was not destroyed, but that many different gods were reinstated in ideas like rationality. The proliferation of these new gods makes us beg for security at the cost of freedom, as we want to impose security and contained knowing on things that can't be controlled. The world is parodic, and everything that seems complete is simply a disguise for something else. Everything only coheres itself through references to other things, going back to the idea that isolationism is bad. Parody is a mockery of the original which can't be identified and lacks authority. When we focus on our object of mockery, we can reveal that it's built on unstable foundations and doesn't really have any authority. In parodicly demonstrating the absurdity of the world, we can refuse the threats that the system creates by disempowering and mocking them. There are two types of expenditure, productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure. Productive expenditure exists to maintain the homogenous needs of a society based on rationalism and consumption, but unproductive expenditure is useless waste of precious resources. Bataille theories unproductive expenditure largely through ideas like potlatch, extravagant but meaningless celebrations where precious objects were discarded and destroyed. Productive expenditure made the world something that puts people on different tracks so that they can best contribute, but it doesn't have to be like this, as people were sometimes and can bad valued for their chaotic individuality and ability to waste. Useful to unproductive expenditure is ritual and gift giving which escalates in extravagance to force more and more waste while also building communities, as this waste is collective. For example, if you give someone a gift, they're expected to give a better counter-gift, and this cycle causes communities to be bound together by their expenditure on each other. Debate can be used as a site of potlatch and useless expenditure, as we can disrupt it, refusing to gift the aff the ballot because they would productive it towards things like skills and education. The judge could instead potlatch us the ballot, disrupting the ballot and sacrificing the aff towards meaninglessness. Sacrifice wastes honor and prestige, removing the object of sacrifice from our everyday to the point that we can no longer comprehend it. In the loss of the thing, new values are able to exist that transgress taboos. The sacrificial subject affirms the death of the self, abandoning traditional self-consciousness for new ways of existing through laceration, the wounds upon the fabric of being. In the process of laceration, everything causes wounds, but the last wound is what kills, and existence is a constant process of being lacerated by the universe as we are forced to confront our own limits. When things go wrong, we get lacerated and are forced to become something else. Bataille is also very interested in the concept of Acephale, and lead a cult called Acephale. Acephalic means headless, and the acephale is the image of the headless being, death's head on its body, a labyrinth on its stomach, starts on its breasts, a knife in one hand, and a flaming heart in the other, the universe characterized by risk instead of security and responsibility. Bataille's acephale society is a counter-group that is very secretive, allowing for a break that lets values be rearticulated without consciously describing those values or ascribing meaning onto them. The Acephale was founded on the individuality of each member, and it refused boredom for freedom and life, refusing processes of homogenization. Communication only occurs when you are willing to risk losing a part of yourself to the other, and is often surface-level and meaningless. True community forms when you experience something that you can't articulate with someone else. In this moment that traditional communication breaks, real inarticulable community is made possible. Disrupting the day-to-day communicative operations of debate can forced debate to reconcile why it matter at all and can allow a new community. When most people think of Bataille, they think his concept of the accursed share. Life is super abundant with cosmic energy, more of it than is necessary to survive, and the energy that can't be consumed must be wasted, either gloriously or catastrophically. A lot of problems are caused by society squandering wealth wrong by reinvesting excess back into itself when it can't fit anymore excess. If we don't waste some of the accursed share, everything is going to collapse eventually. The accursed share also incorporates the ideas of general and restricted economy, the different ways that society can deal with the excess, or accursed share. If you want to read Bataille, you need a very deep understanding of his theorizing, and you should read some primary source Bataille in addition to some modern reinterpretations of his work. It's very confusing at first, but you'll get it eventually. Good luck!
  6. When reading a k aff, you should be most worried about framework, because it's what the majority of your debates will be about. I don't think framework is a particularly good argument, and this aff especially is built to answer it. You should have a generic top level answer to framework that you can read in every 2AC that just has generics like we meet, a counter interpretation, how the counter interpretation solves their offense, and DAs to framework. You should also have specific answers to framework arguments like switch side debate or dogma that you can read depending on what was in the 1NC or block. You can be very successful running a k aff if you have good answers to framework, and you will likely win the majority of your debates. You should read the entirety of your evidence for this aff and think about how that relates to common framework arguments, then write blocks based on that, because this aff is very different than many other k affs. Good luck!
  7. Soft left affs are good at answering some Ks like cap or security, but there are a lot of Ks that link just as hard if not harder to soft left affs. Generic k links shouldn't be that hard to answer, as they're mostly either links of omission which are easy to answer or say something like "you use the state" which you can answer with reformism good and state inevitable stuff. I don't think that doing a lot of the work on why the state is good then saying you're negative state action is very convincing, because they kind of contradict (if the state is so good, why are you taking away its power?). For a soft left aff, probably don't focus as much on state good, but focus more on things like negative state action, reformism good, state inevitable, cede the political, etc. For negative state action, definitely try out the Newman 10 evidence, but I can't think of the cites for anything else right now. Most good k teams will be able to answer negative state action and reformism pretty well, but I've seen affs win the state inevitable and cede the political debate many times. Think up the answers that sound the most persuasive to you against these arguments and write them out so you at least have generic pre-written answers. Any good k team will also have at least a few links that are specific to your aff, and these are probably more important to answer because they're a more convincing 2NR. It's hard to pre-prepare against these some of the time, but just read through your aff and think of anything that could be spun as problematic. Good luck!
  8. 1-Maybe but they probably aren't very good and I can't think of them off the top of my head. 2-Beat dedev by winning that economic decline is a bad thing, and doing line by line, evidence comparison, etc. You can dissuade the neg from going for it by not reading an economy advantage/kicking it or putting a lot of answers on dedev in the 2AC. 3-You can use your other advantages to outweigh dedev, so if you have a tech leadership advantage where the impact is extinction from China war and an econ advantage and they dedev the econ advantage, even if they win that economic decline is good you can win that china war outweighs and still win. Also just like have answers to specific dedev arguments, because there are some convincing reasons why economic decline is not such a good thing. 4-I don't have one off the top of my head. This also probably wouldn't be a very great answer to dedev. There was a lecture on dedev and how to answer it by Jonah Jacobs at the Michigan camp this summer and there might be a recording floating around somewhere. I'd suggest listening to that to get a better understanding of the different ways that dedev is read and some of the common ways that it is answered. Good luck!
  9. There's a good chance you won't win the cap good debate in front of a lot of judges, and there's some pretty phenomenal cap bad evidence out there that has answers to most of the cap good, so I might not advise going all in on cap good in the 2AR. If you do choose to go for cap good, the links probably don't matter because if there isn't a link then there isn't a k and there's not really a reason to vote neg, and if there is a link then the cap good debate will protect you. All of our links are DAs to the plan doesn't really mean anything except that the neg can kick the alt and just go for a link and impact as a reason that the aff is bad, even if they don't have a way to address it.
  10. 1. Impacts are a very broad topic, and you can find impact cards in many different places. There are plenty of news articles about things like nuclear war, economic decline, supervises, and many other impacts that you could consider traditional. Impacts are also often built into articles, and many academic articles that are making a political argument will have a section about the ramifications of not endorsing their suggestion. I would start from just a google search, then maybe try google scholar or a journal. 2. Uniqueness is probably best found in the news, because more academic articles are better and take more time to write, so they won't be as current. Just use common news sources. You can also use google search tools to set the publication time of results so that you will only be shown articles in the past hour, day, week, etc. This is useful, because it allows you to simply search for a topic, like "trump immigration" and you will find the most recent articles. 3. Politics DA stuff is also probably best gotten from news sources, see 2. The impact cards are often of a higher caliber than news sources, and are often sources from academic articles. 4. T interpretations are often kind of tricky. There are some legal journals that have analysis of cases that define and debate specific words, and these are often pretty good for T cards. You could just go to a dictionary website and do a search for a word, but that might not be the best evidence, due to there being multiple definitions that may conflict. Personally, T interpretations are one of the hardest things for me to research. A. I don't know the best websites to get court analyses from 5. Kritik stuff can be easy to find, but it can also be difficult to find, depending on the argument. You can start with google or google scholar, but I usually use online databases and journals, and I've found a few websites very useful. One big drawback of kritikal literature is that it is often paywall protected, but you can get around that. Evidence for kritiks is often found in surges, and you may find an article or book with 20 or 30 cards, but the next one has none or only a few. The most important things are to read the works cited/sources as a jumping off point, and read the abstract or summary to see if the article looks promising before you spend a few hours on it. B. Try academia.edu (free and has lots of articles), http://aaaaarg.fail (You need an invitation to get the actual articles, but it has a pretty large database and most of the articles are kritikal and applicable to debate in some form) , tandfonline.com (articles can be paywalled or hard to access) 6. Aff stuff is kind of hard to fit into one category, because there are many different kinds of affs. For K affs, look at 5. Policy affs will be mixtures of the other research types, as they will have uniqueness, impacts, politics stuff, etc. Finding evidence (especially good evidence) can be pretty difficult, but getting good at it will be very good for your debate career. Learn to use google search tools effectively, look at sources/works cited, read abstracts, and figure out how you research best.
  11. A kritik is an argument that usually calls into question some underlying assumption, language, or idea made by the other team. For example, a common kritik (commonly called a "K") is the capitalism kritik. This kritik might say that the aff's plan somehow supports capitalism or relies on capitalist logic. This part of the kritik is called the link, because it is a link between the affirmative and the rest of the kritik. The next part of a kritik is the impact, which talks about something bad caused by the link. The impact of a kritik is often something that is systemic, or already happening, that the kritik wants to stop from continuing. In our example with the capitalism kritik, the impact may be "capitalism destroys the environment". The next part of the kritik is the alternative, some action endorsed by the team running the kritik, which should not link back to the kritik, and should offer some way to resolve the impacts. In our example with the capitalism kritik, the alternative might be something like "workers unite to fight against capitalism". Some kritiks also include additional arguments, such as framing, which defines how the judge weighs the debate. In our capitalism kritik, a framing card may say something like "there is an ethical responsibility to resist capitalism." So the whole story of a kritik is this: the plan relies on flawed logic, that flawed logic causes bad stuff, we can do this to not have that flawed logic and stop that bad stuff, and stopping that bad stuff is the most important thing. A "K" debater is simply a debater who often runs kritiks. A "Policy" debater is simply a debater who runs Disadvantages, Counterplans, and Topicality arguments more than they run kritiks.
  12. You probably shouldn't do this. Pomo authors make real arguments, and you don't need to mock them. Saying you're satirizing debate or trolling the other team or whatever and then reading actual arguments that people make is not only rude and hurts the validity of those arguments, but also not very effective. I've seen that, in the debate space, there is often a dismissal of teams who read high theory and pomo stuff as trolls or lazy debaters, especially on some circuits. This isn't true. Many pomo authors may be eccentric and make some arguments that seem odd, but all of these authors are very very smart, and a lot of their arguments are really applicable and make a lot of sense if you actually understand and apply them to the world. If you want to run a humor k or satirize an argument, use something else. Onion cards are great. There are a lot of people who are writing things a whole lot stranger than pomo literature. Use stuff like time cube and ashtar. But probably don't use pomo. If you satirize pomo stuff, that same pomo stuff could be read against you and you could lose to it. If you want to read some of the pomo stuff that talks about satire, and not use the argument as the joke, then go for it. Other than that, I'd suggest you don't try to satirize real arguments.
  13. 1. Strike the judge. 2. Make sure your coach knows, and see if they can talk to the judge and try to resolve it. 3. Be nice and polite to the judge whenever you can. Being rude will only make it worse. 4. If none of this helps, you could try to contact people who coordinate debates in your circuit or tabrooms to see if they can intervene or at least prevent her from judging your school as much.
  14. BatailleLives

    Alt stuff

    I mean, it really matters a lot what the alt is. If you have a policy aff you can read alt framework, reform good, cede the political, etc. It really comes down to what kind of alt it is.
  15. This is a good question. It should be easy to avoid word ks if you are careful. 1. Don't be a jerk. Don't say slurs etc. Easy. 2. Don't reduce people. Don't say "man" to refer to people kind. You could even get in trouble with some teams for saying "humankind". I've seen some teams gets around the masculinity attached to terms by changing it to terms like "womyn" "humynkind", etc. Also don't reduce whole groups of people using questionable wording. I've watched one of my novices say "police violence overly affects the blacks" in round, and get penalized for his language. Just try to be nice when referring to people, and don't reduce people or stereotype whole groups. 3. Don't use words out of context. There are a lot of terms and metaphors built into english that are kind of questionable and that should probably be avoided. Many of these can be called ableist. If you say "cripple the economy", you could get a word k. Don't call arguments "dumb" or "stupid". Don't use ability metaphors like "fall on deaf ears". RT what nonegfiat said about that. 4. Know the limits of what you can say depending on who you are. Some debaters use language that some teams would call problematic in round as an active argument. North Broward has a consult Ni**as CP that they have run a lot and been extremely successful with. It's probably going to play out differently if it's two white people reading that CP. If you are worried about how to interact with these arguments, just ask the other team how you can interact with their arguments respectfully. Just know words you can say based on your subject position. 5. Don't discuss certain types of violence without asking first or posting a warning on your wiki. Debate is often just about finding the worst sounding impact, but discussions of violence can be harmful to some people and you should make sure that you opponents are willing to debate you. 6. Ask for pronouns. Don't misgender people. It's not hard. 7. Hold you opponents to the standards they are holding you to. If they say to reject x word but then use it on another flow in some way that could link, make sure that the judge knows about it. Make sure that the bounds on what you can say in the debate space are reasonable. If a team says that they aren't comfortable with you debating them and they want you to concede, you should call them out. Unless you've done something that would make it harmful or triggering for them to debate you, in which case you should concede and apologize and not do that ever again. Just be responsible and make sure your opponents are responsible. If you just generally are nice and don't abuse language, you should be fine. If you think saying something could be harmful or get you into a word k, just don't say it. It probably doesn't help you that much anyway.
  • Create New...