Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'kritik'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive


  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Google Chat/Jabber











Found 212 results

  1. Hello all. I need some help with Heidegger today. I really want to run this K and the impact is the destruction of our essential relationship with Being because the technical thought of the aff destroys nearness and "the thing". I don't really understand what any of that means though. Could someone explain it to me? I tried to read "The Thing" to get a better understanding of what nearness is but that just confused me a lot more. What is nearness? What is thinginess? Why is our relationship with Being so much more important than nuclear war? Thanks in advance. This is the impact card by the way. Please explain it to me ;-; *The aff’s world subsumed by calculative technological thought destroys our ontological relationship with Being. Our instant access to everything as a tool for use obliterates the essential being of all things making even total planetary destruction a radically less important issue and a likely inevitability. **gender paraphrased Caputo 93 (john, Demythologizing Heidegger, p. 136-41) The essence of technology is nothing technological; the essence of language is nothing linguistic; the essence of starvation has nothing to do with being hungry; the essence of homelessness has nothing to do with being out in the cold. Is this not to repeat a most classical philosophical gesture, to submit to the oldest philosophical desire of all, the desire for the pure and uncontaminated, not to mention the safe and secure? (2) In his essay "The Thing" Heidegger remarks upon the prospect of a nuclear conflagration which could extinguish all human life: [hu]Man stares at what the explosion of the atom bomb could bring with it. He does not see that what has long since taken place and has already happened expels from itself as its last emission the atom bomb and its explosion—not to mention the single nuclear bomb, whose triggering, thought through to its utmost poten­tial, might be enough to snuff out all life on earth. (VA, 165/PLT, 166). In a parallel passage, he remarks: ... [Man finds himself in a perilous situation. Why? Just because a third world war might break out unexpectedly and bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth? No. In this dawning atomic age a far greater danger threatens—precisely when the danger of a third world war has been removed. A strange assertion! Strange indeed, but only as long as we do not meditate. (G, 27/DT, 56). The thinker is menaced by a more radical threat, is endangered by a more radical explosiveness, let us say by a more essential bomb, capable of an emission (hinauswerfen) of such primordiality that the explosion (Explosion) of the atom bomb would be but its last ejection. Indeed, the point is even stronger: even a nuclear bomb, or a wholesale exchange of nuclear bombs between nuclear megapowers, which would put an end to "all life on earth," which would annihilate every living being, human and nonhuman, is a deriva­tive threat compared to this more primordial destructiveness. There is a pros­pect that is more dangerous and uncanny—unheimhcher—than the mere fact that everything could be blown apart (Auseinanderplatzen von allem). There is something that would bring about more homelessness, more not-being­at-home (un-Heimlich) than the destruction of cities and towns and of their inhabitants. What is truly unsettling, dis-placing (ent-setzen), the thing that is really terrifying (das Entsetzende), is not the prospect of the destruction of human life on the planet, of annihilating its places and its settlers. Further­more, this truly terrifying thing has already happened and has actually been around for quite some time. This more essential explosive has already been set off; things have already been destroyed, even though the nuclear holocaust has not yet happened. What then is the truly terrifying? The terrifying is that which sets everything that is outside (heraussitzl) of its own essence (Wesen)'. What is this dis-placing [Entsetzendel? It shows itself and conceals itself in the way in which everything presences (anwest), namely, in the fact that despite all conquest of distances the nearness of things remains absent. (VA, 165/P1.T, 166) The truly terrifying explosion, the more essential destruction is that which dis-places a thing from its Wesen, its essential nature, its ownmost coming to presence. The essential destruction occurs in the Being of a thing, not in its entitative actuality; it is a disaster that befalls Being, not beings. The destruc­tiveness of this more essential destruction is aimed not directly at man but at "things" (Dirge), in the distinctively Heideggerian sense. The Wesen of things is their nearness, and it is nearness which has been decimated by technological proximity and speed. Things have ceased to have true nearness and farness, have sunk into the indifference of that which, being a great distance away, can be brought close in the flash of a technological instant. Thereby, things have ceased to be things, have sunk into indifferent nothingness. Something profoundly disruptive has occurred on the level of the Being of things that has already destroyed them, already cast them out of (herauswerfen¬) their Being. Beings have been brought close to Us technologically; enor­mous distances are spanned in seconds. Satellite technology can make events occurring on the other side of the globe present in a flash; supersonic jets cross the great oceans in a few hours. Yet, far from bringing things "near," this massive technological removal of distance has actually abolished nearness, for nearness is precisely what withdraws in the midst of such technological frenzy. Nearness is the nearing of earth and heavens, mortals and gods, in the handmade jug, or the old bridge at Heidelberg, and it can be experienced only in the quiet meditativeness which renounces haste. Thus the real destruction of the thing, the one that abolishes its most essen­tial Being and Wesen, occurs when the scientific determination of things pre­vails and compels our assent. The thingliness of the jug is to serve as the place which gathers together the fruit of earth and sun in mortal offering to the gods above. But all that is destroyed when pouring this libation becomes instead the displacement of air by a liquid; at that moment science has suc­ceeded in reducing the jug-thing to a non-entity (Nichtige). Science, or rather the dominion of scientific representation, the rule of science over what comes to presence, what is called the Wesen, which is at work in science and technol­ogy, that is the truly explosive-destructive thing, the more essential dis-placing. The gathering of earth and sky, mortals and gods, that holds sway in the thing—for "gathering" is what the Old High German thing means—is scat­tered to the four winds, and that more essential annihilation occurs even if the bomb never goes off: Science's knowledge, which is compelling within its own sphere, the sphere of objects, already had annihilated things long before the atom bomb exploded. The bomb's explosion is only the grossest of all gross confirmations of the long-since accomplished annihilation of the thing. (VA, 168/PLT, 170J When things have been annihilated in their thingness, the mushroom clouds of the bomb cannot be far behind. So whether or not the bomb goes off is not essential, does not penetrate to the essence of what comes to presence in the present age of technological proximities and reduced distances. What is essential is the loss of genuine nearness, authentic and true nearness, following which the actual physical annihilation of planetary life would be a "gross" confirmation, an unrefined, external, physical destruction that would be but a follow-up, another afterthought, a less subtle counterpart to a more inward, profound, essential, authentic, ontological destruction.
  2. Hey people, I am a 3rd year debater at Olathe North HS, KS, going into my Senior year next year. I'm relatively new to running K's. This will be my 2nd year debating only varsity, and I am very intrigued and interested in learning more about K theory, and running K's. I've been fairly successful and placed in my share of harder tournaments, and I've hit plenty of K's, i just want to get a larger knowledge on K theory. If anyone has any advice or tips on lit that i should read, please post below. Thanks~! P.S.~ I understand the essentials of Cap K, Neolib, Race K, and the Fem K. I am intrigued by the false heroism (Batman K), and other similar ones (not just because the name sounds cool) haha. Thanks
  3. Hello everyone, I am thinking of running one-off psychoanalysis at my next tournament. I have some basic knowledge of psychoanalysis from Freud and Lacan. I am just transitioning myself towards high-theory now. Does anyone recommend any literature that I could read in regards to psychoanalysis, especially pertaining to race and identity. I would prefer articles that are in pdf forms so I could also share with my partner. Side note: SInce I am beginning to transition myself, I hope for something that's easier to digest and gradually build my knowledge up. Thank you
  4. I've been told that the best 2AC FW to read is "evaluate the consequences of the plan against the institutional adoption/enactment of the competitive alternative." Is this the best aff framework? What is the best wording of this FW? How exactly does this framework make sure that they have no access to K tricks, ensure fairness, or education? Or Reciprocity?
  5. I'm supposed to run anthro k with my partner this friday, and I only have a basic idea of what it is. Can someone help me out and really explain this to me?
  6. I was wondering if running theory shells on kritiks in general seems like a plausible strat? I saw a novice round where this girl beat a k by arguing it was an "unfair" stance because she had no choice to fall under a capitalist paradigm/it was non-unique. I know ks dont need to be unique/anything can link into a k- but im wondering if its a possible aveneue if you're stuck. I think its especially intresting when people run "inherent ks" (i.e "The AFF links automatically per the reoslution)
  7. I've been looking a lot into kritiks and was curious how they would do in PF. I know for sure that I want to run a Patriarch or Fem IR K and Freire one on a different case. I've already found previously made Ks for each one, but I'm not exactly sure to cut them and make them effective for PF.
  8. Anyone have schopenhauer or normativity kritik willing to trade?
  9. I'm trying to start expanding my knowledge on the different form of kritiks. One that i'm not being able to really process is the security K. I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain the k to me or provide some cards to use in one?
  10. I am the only policy team on my debate team. My partner and I went to UTNIF last summer so we have a decent grasp on policy so far. We don't have a coach or anyone else on the team with reasonable policy knowledge. I heard that the best way for teams from small schools to be competitive was to become good K debaters, so thats what we're trying to do. Right now, we're trying to qual for state (we're in texas) but idk if that's going to happen. Does anyone have any tips for small schools?
  11. 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!
  12. How would someone go about finding/writing a K about how the aff team isn't open-minded enough?
  • Create New...