Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jimpeterson

  1. Also, Zizek identifies calculative pragmatism as something that characterizes capitalist subjectivity, which he is obviously in favor of subverting. This is one way to read his "Act" which entails a radical leap of faith away from capitalist subjectivity and a suspension of pragmatism.

  2. I run Heidegger, and run into the Nazi argument pretty frequently...


    A couple things we've had success with:


    1. We can learn from Heidegger's mistake to ensure the alternative doesn't fall into the same problematic politics Heidegger succumbed to. This turns thier Nazi argument and allows you to garner extra solvency.


    2. Point out that Heidegger's philosphy changed dramatically after his disillusionment with the Nazis, and your evidence is probably from the later period of his writing.


    3. Zizek has a chapter in his new book (In Defense of Lost Causes) that characterizes Heidegger's Nazism as a "right step in the wrong direction". Cut it...


    4. Hitler liked ice cream. The aff likes ice cream.The affirmative team are nazis.(This rests on the same ad hominem logic that the Nazi argument does)


    Make sure you make them articulate a direct link to Heidegger's philosophy, chances are they can't.

  3. If you want a very introductory book, I suggest "Routledge Critical Thinkers: Slavoj Zizek" by Tony Myers. This will give you the grounding you need to understand his books. when you get around to reading them. (I feel the best ones for debate are The Plague of Fantasies, or The Parallax View)


    I would disagree with previous posters and suggest you stay away from Lacan and the Political. Although its written by a Lacanian, it doesn't coincide with a lot of Zizek's work and probably won't help you learn him in the context of capitalism debates.

  4. The way negation theory is normally deployed, as a generic answer to any theory argument, never made terribly much sense to me. It seems like it boils down to "We are allowed to do whatever we want." This is pretty clearly indefensible.



    That's not the point. Negation theory is just an argument defending the role of the neg is to prove the affirmative is bad.


    Looking for some opinions here, on whether negation theory (running anything you want to, be it contradictory or not, as long as it proves the aff is a bad idea) is good or not.


    Negation theory doesn't necessarily defend the legitimacy of contradictory arguments,it just outlines the role of the ballot. While the thesis of negation theory is often used to justify perf-con, condi, etc, there is nothing intrinsic to negation theory that justifies these things.

  5. Just curious, what are some debate friendly responses (cites/book and article titles/author names would be good) against Schmitt?


    Agamben is always the best answer, because he assumes a very similar theoretical framework but draws different ontological conclusions. Be careful you don't link though.

  6. If you're going to run an aff like this, run something like mental colonization or Becoming the Other (Deluze). This SSA K is really weak and you're going to have a hard time winning that this is more important than a fair debate.

  7. Back to my analogy, if we were talking in terms of reality, the amount of food that would actually be donated would be hardly signficant to feed the Africans.


    This is the conclusion that I came to, and why I'm not cutting the aff. It might make a good K alt though..

  8. I can vouch that frey knows what hes talking about with this K...


    This is actually well answered by any post-modernism like foucault. Foucault would argue that we are all subjects of discourse, and only by interrogating these discursive forces can we gain autonomous identities.


    @sean "zizek for dummies"


    Actually, yeah. Zizek makes the argument that liberals make impossible demands on the system just to retain their position of intellectual purity and power.

    • Downvote 1

  9. WTF!? The ending was the best part. It was an existentialist ending - there is no order in the random Other of love, but fuck it. Make your own truth. Your life is what you make it.


    I was glad it didn't cop out with the cliche ending of ginny and hal hooking up. How corny and predictable would that be?

  10. Badiou's criticism is commonly run in two ways:


    1. Ethics - A good answer is any Derrida/Levinasian position you want to defend.


    2. Identity politics - Zizek is the best answer to this. In The Parallax View he answers this when talking about human rights, sorry no page #.


    For generic answers Nicholas Brown writes an article called "Waiting for something to happen" Muse link

  11. I've read quite a bit from the Lacan / Zizek crowd but don't like the traditional Stavrakakis Utopian criticism. (Mainly because I don't think the kind of Utopian fantasies he is talking about are constructed in a debate round)


    Does anyone run Lacan in a way besides this?

  12. Yeah topicality will definitely be a problem.


    In regard to the accusations of terrorism, this probably stems from their anarchist sympathies. The FBI empirically likes to label anarchist groups "terrorists".


    I like the military funding idea, if I could win extra-topicality I'd have pretty good solvency for militarism solvency.

  13. Food not Bombs is a decentralized charity organization that takes unused wasted food from supermarkets and gives it to the hungry. The whole premise is that the money spent in one day on weapons could feed everyone in the world for a year. This is obviosuly fucked up.


    I was on their site the other day and found out that they have groups in africa. This case would be good for claiming an anti-capitalist/militarist/state advantage.


    Heard of anyone that has cut this? T would be a bitch, but it would be a fun aff.

    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...