Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'alternative'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Categories

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

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 11 results

  1. ok, so this is probably a supes stupid question, but would a non-unique da with an alternative (framed like a K) be legit? Or would you just have to concede presumption, lay out impacts of the squo and plan, and run a cp?
  2. So I was wondering if anyone has like a great alternative for a Baudrillard kritik of simulation (fiat) or what is the best alt to run with Baudrillard on the oceans topic this year. Also can I get some ideas for impacts because I have only 1 root cause arg in my file and need more. thanks
  3. https://youtu.be/MNVKoX40ZAo?t=9m23s Fredric Jameson's "Universal Army" = Star Fleet (& "the power of exception" = Batman). & supplementary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier#Ideas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bahro#The_Alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Janus_(Roman_Forum)#Gates_of_Janus
  4. So at a local scrimmage, we lost to a Queer Theory K and their alternative was to queercrip the 1AC to death, I don't think it was articulated well enough for me to understand it, so our responses were pretty generic - what is this alternative? What does it do, mean..etc. I don't have the card, it was on paper. Any help is appreciated.
  5. Hello So as the title suggests, I run kritiks. I know that the alternative is always the weakest part of the kritik and often time is vague. I have been in rounds where the judge voted my team down for going for the kritik in the 2NR, but my mentor also told me to never kick the alt. So under what situation should I kick the alt and let's say go for the link turn? Thank you
  6. JolenMartinez

    Cap Alt

    When running cap, what alternative do you think works best?
  7. What does it mean to Imagine the Real? I've typically seen it as an alternative for the Nuclearism K, I know that it follows Lacan's psychoanalytic theories but I don't quite get what it means. If you could either or explain or direct me to a place that would explain it I'd appreciate it.
  8. When I was forming an answer to Alt doesn't solve for the K, I came to thinking, "Does this discourse doesn't solve argument apply to the 1AC?" Because the 1AC is engaging in discourse, so that must mean that the 1AC also does not solve. Is this right, or am I extending this beyond regular perceptions? Or is there something that says that philosophical discourse is ineffective and policy discourse, and passing of the 1AC, solves?
  9. Hello So as the title suggests, I run kritiks. I know that the alternative is always the weakest part of the kritik and often time is vague. I have been in rounds where the judge voted my team down for going for the kritik in the 2NR, but my mentor also told me to never kick the alt. So under what situation should I kick the alt and let's say go for the link turn? Thank you
  10. So I'm familiar with Wilderson and his work on Afro-Pessimism, but I watched a round where the negative team went for the wilderson turtle island alternative, and centered the K on both anti-redness and blackness. "return Turtle Island to the savage. Repair the demolished subjectivity of the slave." I've heard of the turtle island k, and have a few files, but I'm not sure I completely understand the thesis of the alt. What actually is Turtle Island? Or WHEN was Turtle Island? How does the alt function, I'm assuming it's obviously not fiating giving back the land? Does Wilderson say that Anti-Redness is worse/same than Anti-Blackness? Which comes first? Is it a matter of ontology? Thanks
  11. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...