Jump to content

theorderis15offandcase

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About theorderis15offandcase

  • Rank
    Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry I forgot to turn notifications on for this, so I'm seeing this after a good while, but thanks for the advice. I guess bias does differ according to each judge, but I have to say that I wouldn't necessarily want to run one aff the whole year, so I guess it's a possibility. I think the idea of letting them read DAs and CPs on a K aff is an interesting take, I did think about that but I'm not 100% exactly what that looks like absent "We the People" We Meet arguments. I guess I'm just kind of afraid I'll be roasted by my coaches for reading a hard right aff because I kinda like policy more than Ks but it's really hard to win heg good when all your opponents run is Ks lol. Anyways, thanks again.
  2. Yeah, that is true. I just didn't want my coach to get mad if I shared it without him knowing. Could you explain why it would work against some ableism affs? I guess I really don't understand the argument at all Ok, thanks. Do you know why a lot of the cards in the file might be citing Lacanian psychoanalysis? Because I asked my coach and it really made even less sense after that. Could you think of why the Other is important in relation to identity-based affs? One more thing. They were thus caught in a strange forced choice; if they admitted their guilt, they were guilty; if the insisted on their innocence, they were, in a way, even more guilty. On the other hand, this example of the accused in the Stalinist show-trial clearly expresses the tension between guilt and anxiety: the Party leaders needed the accused’s confession of guilt in order to avoid the unbearable anxiety of having to admit that ‘the big Other does not exist’, that the historical Necessity of the Progress to Communism is an inconsistent phantasmic fake. The blocks in this backfile say at the very worst it decks solvency and cites this line out of Zizek's book. Do you know why forced guilt through confession might undermine the aff's attempts to create change through personal experience? Sorry for all the questions. Thanks for replying though, I really appreciate it.
  3. So in one of my coaches files he shared with me, there's a very interesting kritik that is meant to be read against affs of personal experience. There is no alternative for it, but it's meant to be read as a case turn. I read it on case against an aff of legalizing undocumented migrants that talked about forced harm and internalized racism. There's only two cards, but in cross-ex, I stumbled a little bit because I didn't quite understand it well enough. My understanding was that the 1AC was simply a forced confession of a story in exchange for the ballot which ultimately trivialized the violence they truly faced. Their answers were that we don't give a sh** about your guilt. The judges said that their answers were good and that we shouldn't be reading those authors if we didn't understand them, but we won on a procedural so it didn't end up mattering. Can someone help explain the argument made by Foucault and Zizek in these cards? I don't want to put the whole thing in the event that someone takes our evidence and I am blamed, but I'll put some excerpts and if anyone could help me understand them, I would greatly appreciate it. First card- Aff is a process of confessional-their demand is an exchange of truth of experience as the price of redemption. Foucault Excerpt 1: The mad would be cured if one managed to show them that their delirium is without any relation to reality. Excerpt 2: Leuret wishes to obtain a precise act the explicit affirmation, “I am mad.” Excerpt 3: To declare aloud and intelligible the truth about oneself – I mean, to confess-has been considered for be a long time in the western world either a condition for redemption for one sins or a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty. Second Card- Their confessional is tantamount to a Stalinist show-trial that locks us all into an unproductive forced choice – their criticism deploys guilt as a means of avoiding a full questioning of privilege. Their argument enforces a kind of metaguilt, implicated by individuals who participate in their own oppression-their project doesn’t allow for the possibility of escape, meaning there is no alternative Zizek Excerpt 1: the subject experiences guilt before the big Other, while anxiety is a sign that the Other itself is lacking, impotent – in short, guilt masks anxiety. Excerpt 2: The more they proclaim their innocence, the more guilty they are!’) therefore contains a grain of truth; the ex-Party cadres wrongfully condemned as ‘traitors’ were guilty in a way, although not, of course, of the crimes of which they were explicitly accused – their true guilt was a kind of metaguilt: that is, it lay in the way they themselves participated in the creation of the system which rejected them Excerpt 3: their condemnation meant that they got from the system their own message in its inverted-true form. Can someone help me understand these cards better? I would really appreciate it, because I think the literature is very interesting but I only understand a small fraction of it. Some key things I don't understand include-"a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty" "Stalinist show-trial" "metaguilt" "their own message in its inverted-true form". Thanks!
  4. I am a novice debater and I just finished my first year of debate. Me and my partner both agreed since I am the 2A I will write our aff, and since my partner is the 2N, he will write most of our neg arguments. We are both going to Michigan (although I have not been accepted yet) him 5 week and me 7 week. My team is a primarily K team, however, reading a hard right aff thoroughly convinced me it links to everything. What are some pros and cons of reading a soft left aff with framing and taking the util debate every time vs reading a K aff and taking the framework debate every time?
×
×
  • Create New...