Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'guattari'.



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 13 results

  1. JolenMartinez

    Ways to argue against a D&G aff

    Hello debate community, noticing that a few camps have put out nomads/pirate deleuze and guattari affs I was wondering what the best way to argue these types of cases would be. They avoid a lot of the usual neg args and even outright counter some important ones. Thank you for your help!
  2. danhep

    Card explanation

    I'm writing a cap K and need a queer theory link (It's a common LD aff for this topic) and came across the card below (Excuse the formatting). What exactly is it saying? What's the warrant for how capitalist goals are furthered? While concentrating on decentering identity, queer theory succeeds in promoting the goals of global cap that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist.Kirsch 6 Max Kirsch (PhD from Florida Atlantic University). “Queer Theory, Late Capitalism and Internalized Homophobia.” Journal of Homosexuality - Harrington Park Press - Vol. 52 - No. ½. 2006. pp. 19-45. Jameson has proposed that the concept of alienation in late capitalism has been replaced with fragmentation (1991, p.14). Fragmentation highlights the it also becomes more abstract: What we must now ask ourselves is whether it is precisely this semi-autonomy of the cultural sphere that has been destroyed by the logic of late capitalism. Yet to argue that culture is today no longer endowed with the relative autonomy is once enjoyed as one level among others in earlier moments of capitalism (let alone in precapitalist societies) is not necessarily to imply its disappearance or extinction. Quite the contrary; we must go on to affirm that the autonomous sphere of culture throughout the social realm, to the point at which everything in our social life–from economic value and state power to practices and to the very structure of the psyche itself–can be said to have become ‘cultural’ in some original and yet untheorized sense. This proposition is, however, substantially quite consistent with the previous diagnosis of a society of the image or simulacrum and a transformation of the “real” into so many pseudoevents. (Jameson, 1991, p. 48) The fragmentation of social life repeats itself in the proposal that sexuality and gender are separate and autonomous from bureaucratic state organization. If, as in Jameson’s terms, differences can be equated, then this should not pose a problem for the mobilization of resistance to inequality. However, as postmodernist and poststructuralist writers assume a position that this equation is impossible and undesirable, then the dominant modes of power will prevail without analysis or opposition. The danger, of course, is that while we concentrate on decentering identity, we succeed in promoting the very goals of global capitalism that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist, and with them, any hope for political action. For those who are not included in traditional sources of community building–in particular, kinship based groupings–the building of an “affectional community . . . must be as much a part of our political movement as are campaigns for civil rights” (Weeks, 1985, p. 176). This building of communities requires identification. If we cannot recognize traits that form the bases of our relationships with others, how then can communities be built? The preoccupation of Lyotard and Foucault, as examples, with the overwhelming power of “master narratives,” posits a conclusion that emphasizes individual resistance and that ironically, ends up reinforcing the “narrative” itself.
  3. Smarf

    Strange Ecology K

    So, as I wait for my Evazon access to begin, I wanted to announce a K I'm selling. If there's interest I'll finish writing the blocks this weekend and let it go for $10. (Or a trade in Magic the gathering cards is definitely possible.) Basically it's a Guattari (not DnG) K that criticizes the attempt to control the oceans (or nature writ large.) It's really, REALLY good against any aff with an evironment advantage. It takes a large portion from Guattari's Three Ecologies which basically argues that the world is divided into: a. environmental ecologies (how we relate to the world/enviro.) b. social ecology (social science, etc.) and c. mental ecology (the psyche yo.) Now this makes sense because an ecology is simply systems in which the elements of the system relate to each other and how they relate to each other. Socially we have an ecology, environmentally we have an ecology, and mentally we relate to the world and affect it. He argues that things will go down because all ecologies are interrelated. The social is impacted by mental and environ. and vise versa, etc. etc. It requires you to contextualize the K to make it make the most sense in terms of the aff, but the basic argument is this: 1. Links: i. Original Argument: The aff attempts to control/striate/stabilize the ocean (nature, ecology, etc.) which divorces us from the flux of nature and creates a human/nature divide. Each link is a little different but basically there are two main arguments: a. The fact the aff is acting ONTO the ocean or saving it or securing something puts them in a position above and removed from nature itself. This distinction makes that divide. It is also the reason that the three ecologies now can't be fixed together. b. On that note, the three ecologies are now not able to be dealt with together because we're using a. the state, b. large scale movements, c. we're distinct from nature. This is also why no perms work. ii. Now most of the link pieces of evidence also have links to capitalism and the use of the state, which offer interesting scenarios that's can be isolated throughout the debate. These elements also allow for great block responses to common add arguments. 2. Impacts: i. Extinction - The only way that major violence and oppresion, war, etc. happens is if all ecologies are dealt with together. Otherwise violence in one will spill over. These warrants are incredible in the evidence. ii. No Impact to Death - The control and security/stability of the aff forces us to follow that value system to its extreme - To stop that which creates flux and instability (the true nature of everything.) This leads towards a suicidal tendancy towards control and stopping the human element. Think the Voluntary Extinction Society (for environmental stability) or wars we fight in names of security leading to nukes. Security leads to destroying that which is insecure, and eventually ourselves. When we want death then the impacts of the aff are irrelevant. iii. Macropolitics Bad - This is where the state stuff comes in. EVEN if they prove they solve their aff, their lack of fixing all three ecologies together inevitably leads back to their impacts. In fact, state action often messes up and complicates problems because it isn't adaptive enough to solve over the large earth. Basically try or die for the K. iv. Capitalism DA - this follows DnGs basic arguments about capitalism, but integrates them in relation to the Three Ecologies and the aff. v. Expenditure DA - Only understanding and embracing the sheer flux and instability and release/expenditure of nature stops it from building up and exploding. Energy is meant to be spent, not accumulated. This relates intimately with the cap. args of Bataille and DnG... to be frank, this scenario is only okay, but it's an element that'll win the debate if dropped. Above all the evidence on this question is just great. It is literally one of the best pieces of evidence that articulates this argument. However, this is no where close to the crux of the argument, so it is not developed heavily in this k. f. Try or Die for the alt - The world is completely going to collapse RIGHT NOW - The aff can't solve every scenario that can happen tomorrow - The only chance to even solve the aff is the alt. 3. Alternative: While I have provided several alternates which can correlate with different affs, I'd say generally go with the micropolitical ecology one. It's awesome. Basically, it's what Guattari calls for in Three Ecologies. We need to recognize all three ecologies and work at all of them as they interconnect all at the same time in micropolitical, local stuggles. The comparative evidence for micro/local politics vs. macro sovereign state politics in terms of the three ecologies is REALLY hot. It contextualizes the criticism's alternative in relation to specific macro policies and warrants out, line by line, why the alternative is better and solves the aff. That being said, it is definitely a floating PIK. You can definitely solve the aff, solve back the bad parts of capitalism, solve back oceans etc. The only question is sequencing. They say state. We say micropolitical action - Solves the mental, the social, and the environmental ecologies. This leads to BETTER state action, because it started at the right level with the right things in focus (the three ecologies.) Also a reason the K is super strategic, it just becomes a sequencing argument that they can't perm without severing and a lot of try or dies. TOC Topshelf Read First Strategy Dictionary Environmental Policy 1NC 2NC Impacts Strange Ecology 1NC Eco-Capitalism 1NC Environmentalism à Capitalism 2NC Solvency Links Animal Metaphors Animal Rights Avoiding the Human Biodiversity Bookchin Borders Conservation Movements Cruise Ships Deep Ecology Discourse Ecological Goals Ethics Exploration LOST Mapping Oceanic Control Oceanic Development Oceans Generic Parks/ Reserves Returns to Nature Sedative Discourse Singular Goals Statistics Subjectivity Trade Impacts Annihilation Eco-Fascism Everything Rascism Turns Case Capitalism Impacts Environmental Destruction/ Nationalism No Value Oppression Commodification Hierarchy/ debt Control/ biopower War Machine Replication No value to life Death Desiring death Did it all/ AT impact turns Alternative Micropolitical Ecology AT// Aff Solves Specific Problem AT// Not Instantaneous AT// Pragmatism AT// Utopian Spillover Solves Capitalism Solves Desire Solves State State à Extinction State Guts Solvency Turns Kritikal Cases Key to Politics Macropolitics < Micropolitics Becoming-Animal Solves Best Geophilosophy Violently Deterritorialize Solves Heidegger Solves State 2NR Tricks 2NR Desire Framing 2NR No Impact to Death Framework AT// Roleplaying AT// Utopian Desire First Solvency Deficit – Desire Solvency Deficit – Sequencing Micropolitics à Better Education AT// Cede the Political AT// VtL Stuff AT// Threats Real AT// Democracy Checks AT// Extinction First AT// Cap good AT// Consequentialism Answers AT// Darwin AT// Death Drive AT// Infinite Regression AT// Perm – Both AT// Rhizomatics of Domination AT// No Specific Solvency AT// Environmentalism Bad AT// Modern Eco/Science AT// “No Specific Scenarios” AT// Technology Good AT// Vitalism Bad AT// Human/Nature Divide Good AT// Environment Doesn’t Matter AT// Alternative Ends in Genocide etc. AT// DnG = Madness AT// Scientists Prove Deleuze Wrong (Ev Indict) AT// DnG Coopted by Cap AT// Chaos Turns AT// Pol Pot AT// Fight Club Turn AT// DnG Use Binaries AT// IDF AT// Post-Modernism Bad for Indigenous Peoples AT// “Schizophrenics are suffering” AT// Schizo = Totalitarianism AT// Structuralism AT// Subjectivity Bad/Become the Object AT// Masochism AT// Barbrook AT// Psychoanalysis AT// Jameson AT// Cohen AT// Connolly AT// Conway AT// Fasching AT// Heidegger AT// Kettles AT// Kurasawa AT// Levinas AT// May AT// Schell AT// Spivak Affirmative Answers Turns Becoming-Animal Bad Eco-Equality Bad Rhizomes Bad Vitalism Bad Permutation Perm – Do Both Yall can comment or PM me. I was going to use this to coach a team, but UChicago involves too much work for double majors. If yall don't have $10 or magic cards, just PM me. I love helping smaller programs and would be happy to learn your story and help you out for free. I also have several resources to help you learn the argument, as well as several other backfiles, Ks, and books to help with you critical education. 0 QuoteMultiQuote EditReport
  4. Smarf

    Strange Ecology K

    So, as I wait for my Evazon access to begin, I wanted to announce a K I'm selling. If there's interest I'll finish writing the blocks this weekend and let it go for $10. (Or a trade in Magic the gathering cards is definitely possible.) Basically it's a Guattari (not DnG) K that criticizes the attempt to control the oceans (or nature writ large.) It's really, REALLY good against any aff with an evironment advantage. It takes a large portion from Guattari's Three Ecologies which basically argues that the world is divided into: a. environmental ecologies (how we relate to the world/enviro.) b. social ecology (social science, etc.) and c. mental ecology (the psyche yo.) Now this makes sense because an ecology is simply systems in which the elements of the system relate to each other and how they relate to each other. Socially we have an ecology, environmentally we have an ecology, and mentally we relate to the world and affect it. He argues that things will go down because all ecologies are interrelated. The social is impacted by mental and environ. and vise versa, etc. etc. It requires you to contextualize the K to make it make the most sense in terms of the aff, but the basic argument is this: 1. Links: i. Original Argument: The aff attempts to control/striate/stabilize the ocean (nature, ecology, etc.) which divorces us from the flux of nature and creates a human/nature divide. Each link is a little different but basically there are two main arguments: a. The fact the aff is acting ONTO the ocean or saving it or securing something puts them in a position above and removed from nature itself. This distinction makes that divide. It is also the reason that the three ecologies now can't be fixed together. b. On that note, the three ecologies are now not able to be dealt with together because we're using a. the state, b. large scale movements, c. we're distinct from nature. This is also why no perms work. ii. Now most of the link pieces of evidence also have links to capitalism and the use of the state, which offer interesting scenarios that's can be isolated throughout the debate. These elements also allow for great block responses to common add arguments. 2. Impacts: i. Extinction - The only way that major violence and oppresion, war, etc. happens is if all ecologies are dealt with together. Otherwise violence in one will spill over. These warrants are incredible in the evidence. ii. No Impact to Death - The control and security/stability of the aff forces us to follow that value system to its extreme - To stop that which creates flux and instability (the true nature of everything.) This leads towards a suicidal tendancy towards control and stopping the human element. Think the Voluntary Extinction Society (for environmental stability) or wars we fight in names of security leading to nukes. Security leads to destroying that which is insecure, and eventually ourselves. When we want death then the impacts of the aff are irrelevant. iii. Macropolitics Bad - This is where the state stuff comes in. EVEN if they prove they solve their aff, their lack of fixing all three ecologies together inevitably leads back to their impacts. In fact, state action often messes up and complicates problems because it isn't adaptive enough to solve over the large earth. Basically try or die for the K. iv. Capitalism DA - this follows DnGs basic arguments about capitalism, but integrates them in relation to the Three Ecologies and the aff. v. Expenditure DA - Only understanding and embracing the sheer flux and instability and release/expenditure of nature stops it from building up and exploding. Energy is meant to be spent, not accumulated. This relates intimately with the cap. args of Bataille and DnG... to be frank, this scenario is only okay, but it's an element that'll win the debate if dropped. Above all the evidence on this question is just great. It is literally one of the best pieces of evidence that articulates this argument. However, this is no where close to the crux of the argument, so it is not developed heavily in this k. f. Try or Die for the alt - The world is completely going to collapse RIGHT NOW - The aff can't solve every scenario that can happen tomorrow - The only chance to even solve the aff is the alt. 3. Alternative: While I have provided several alternates which can correlate with different affs, I'd say generally go with the micropolitical ecology one. It's awesome. Basically, it's what Guattari calls for in Three Ecologies. We need to recognize all three ecologies and work at all of them as they interconnect all at the same time in micropolitical, local stuggles. The comparative evidence for micro/local politics vs. macro sovereign state politics in terms of the three ecologies is REALLY hot. It contextualizes the criticism's alternative in relation to specific macro policies and warrants out, line by line, why the alternative is better and solves the aff. That being said, it is definitely a floating PIK. You can definitely solve the aff, solve back the bad parts of capitalism, solve back oceans etc. The only question is sequencing. They say state. We say micropolitical action - Solves the mental, the social, and the environmental ecologies. This leads to BETTER state action, because it started at the right level with the right things in focus (the three ecologies.) Also a reason the K is super strategic, it just becomes a sequencing argument that they can't perm without severing and a lot of try or dies. TOC Topshelf Read First Strategy Dictionary Environmental Policy 1NC 2NC Impacts Strange Ecology 1NC Eco-Capitalism 1NC Environmentalism à Capitalism 2NC Solvency Links Animal Metaphors Animal Rights Avoiding the Human Biodiversity Bookchin Borders Conservation Movements Cruise Ships Deep Ecology Discourse Ecological Goals Ethics Exploration LOST Mapping Oceanic Control Oceanic Development Oceans Generic Parks/ Reserves Returns to Nature Sedative Discourse Singular Goals Statistics Subjectivity Trade Impacts Annihilation Eco-Fascism Everything Rascism Turns Case Capitalism Impacts Environmental Destruction/ Nationalism No Value Oppression Commodification Hierarchy/ debt Control/ biopower War Machine Replication No value to life Death Desiring death Did it all/ AT impact turns Alternative Micropolitical Ecology AT// Aff Solves Specific Problem AT// Not Instantaneous AT// Pragmatism AT// Utopian Spillover Solves Capitalism Solves Desire Solves State State à Extinction State Guts Solvency Turns Kritikal Cases Key to Politics Macropolitics < Micropolitics Becoming-Animal Solves Best Geophilosophy Violently Deterritorialize Solves Heidegger Solves State 2NR Tricks 2NR Desire Framing 2NR No Impact to Death Framework AT// Roleplaying AT// Utopian Desire First Solvency Deficit – Desire Solvency Deficit – Sequencing Micropolitics à Better Education AT// Cede the Political AT// VtL Stuff AT// Threats Real AT// Democracy Checks AT// Extinction First AT// Cap good AT// Consequentialism Answers AT// Darwin AT// Death Drive AT// Infinite Regression AT// Perm – Both AT// Rhizomatics of Domination AT// No Specific Solvency AT// Environmentalism Bad AT// Modern Eco/Science AT// “No Specific Scenarios” AT// Technology Good AT// Vitalism Bad AT// Human/Nature Divide Good AT// Environment Doesn’t Matter AT// Alternative Ends in Genocide etc. AT// DnG = Madness AT// Scientists Prove Deleuze Wrong (Ev Indict) AT// DnG Coopted by Cap AT// Chaos Turns AT// Pol Pot AT// Fight Club Turn AT// DnG Use Binaries AT// IDF AT// Post-Modernism Bad for Indigenous Peoples AT// “Schizophrenics are suffering” AT// Schizo = Totalitarianism AT// Structuralism AT// Subjectivity Bad/Become the Object AT// Masochism AT// Barbrook AT// Psychoanalysis AT// Jameson AT// Cohen AT// Connolly AT// Conway AT// Fasching AT// Heidegger AT// Kettles AT// Kurasawa AT// Levinas AT// May AT// Schell AT// Spivak Affirmative Answers Turns Becoming-Animal Bad Eco-Equality Bad Rhizomes Bad Vitalism Bad Permutation Perm – Do Both
  5. These words pop up frequently in some stuff I'm reading (OOO and Race stuff)... what do they mean?
  6. Same times as previous, but different sides. We need as many judges as possible! Res = Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.
  7. kylerbuckner

    Potentiality and the State

    does anyone have some cards about potentiality and the state? like how squo policymaking is bad, but it has the potential to be good via things like radical democracy, etc.
  8. If anyone wants to go neg against this, please post here. Also, anyone who wants to judge please post paradigms. If we have an even number of judges, and it comes out to be a tie, the neg wins on presumption. All of these views and no takers? I'm sad. DnG nomads V9.5.docx
  9. danhep

    Wilderson Aff?

    How does Wilderson work on the aff? I'm thinking of running some sort of race k on the aff (LD - Jury nullification topic).
  10. Anyone willing to judge, please post paradigms, if we have only 2 judges and it becomes a 1-1 decision, the round is neg on presumption. Thanks, Payton P.S. if you're wondering why i'm running all of these rounds, its because i won't get to run it much in-state and so I need as much practice as possible running it. (Yes, even with camp.) DnG Nomads v6.docx
  11. My round w/ Feldsy is still ongoing, i just wanted to get a round going w/ the updated version. Judges needed, ANY comments appreciated. - Thanks Payton
  12. This is the improved version of the DnG aff I posted in the critiques section. Feldsy if you're still up to be neg, go for it. if he's not, i REALLY need someone to go neg against this. Anyone willing to judge please do so if the previous judges are unwilling to, also anyone judging could you please post paradigms. (I don't want the neg to lose because you hate framework, and I don't want to lose because i go for theory or something. P.S. i took down the edited version to keep myself from using the updated case as answers to the 1nc/block, here's the original 1ac, sorry about the confusion - Thanks, Payton
  13. SelfAwareCyborg

    Deluze and Guattari

    We've hit the nomadism/Deluze and Guattari aff quite a few times on our circuits; we've got some answers, but they're all really old and generic, and we've already used a majority of them. I'm willing to trade some old hand-made files which include some good theory/framework files, or I have a few new hand-cut DAs that we just made a few weeks ago. Message or respond with offers and we can negotiate for answers.
×