Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'heidegger'.

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 18 results

  1. I'm looking for neg cards to start the season and I came across the file for Heidegger. The cards all have anthro impacts and info, but I'm still not understanding what it is exactly and what the aff would be about. Help please!!
  2. Could someone explain to me Heidegger's overall thesis? I've heard ArGogate has a pretty good explanation somewhere but the search bar is broken and I couldn't look it up. What articles/books do you start with if you want to get into this form of lit?
  3. Payton


    Does anyone have the following non-camp file(s) - queer and/or quare theory - Heidegger - Afropessimism - Derrida - Psychoanalysis If you have these file(s) PM me, i'll trade pretty heavily
  4. Everyone is talking about running DnG (nomadic args), anthro, and Heideggarian tech bad ev Ks next year. Is the generic answer file to using tools to advance the capabilities to the human race just going to be Baudy prioritizing self to self reels over self to nature? Can people just throw out some new ideas for answers to these individually? *Disclaimer: I know these Ks aren't carbon-copies of each other
  5. So basically, I'm looking for cards that link Bipower and Capitalism to a Heidegger Kritik. I know how they link but I'm lacking the cards and all my searches are leading to papers that I have to buy to see. Cites would be great, cards would be even better. Thanks.
  6. danhep

    LD advice

    Ok so I'm an LDer and fell in love with the K at camp. However, I'm essentially a lone wolf and don't have much resources, so I'm deciding to invest my time in working on one solid K file. Which do you think is the most strategic to read - in terms of how many people prep it, how easy it is for opponents to understand, how many generic links there are, and how I can preclude the AC. Right now, I'm think of starting an OOO file, but feel free to change my mind.
  7. What's a good introduction to Heidegger? I would prefer an actual book but w/e works.
  8. Binghamton Speech and Debate Team just put up a bunch of Spanos lectures from his course this semester. You can view them in the video section of their website athttp://speechdebate.binghamton.edu/Videos/Lectures/Academic/
  9. How has Virilio been run in debate in the past? I don't know much about his theory except for its relation to technology and power. Is it anything similar to the heidegger technology k? If so, is he still writing? I've been looking for a file on this, if anyone has one and is willing to share they can post it or PM me, I'll trade.
  10. What would someone run against a heidegger aff? Just some general ideas so I can prep for my next tournament. Thanks.
  11. fdsdfwe

    A2 Heidegger K

    Can someone explain how to properly beat heidegger? Looking for more of an explaination than just cards.
  12. Carlin : Nietzsche :: Louis C.K. : Heidegger (https://youtu.be/5HbYScltf1c) - from Dionysian joy in destruction to heroically confronting existential angst. This is the best (unwitting) summary of Heideggerean ethics I've read: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html. And here's Carlin at his most Nietzschean: https://youtu.be/vAp5UNYApHA - his version of 'eternal recurrence'.
  13. Hello! I'd like an explanation of these two concepts and how they relate to Heidegger's concept of dasein, please. I'm reading him rn, and it is a really difficult concept for me to grasp, seeing as for some reason, whenever I look up "temporality vs temporality", literally no website offers a good, concise, definition. (I'm looking for a paraphrase, too. Please don't just respond with Heidegger's definiton of both). Thanks. Edited for language.
  14. Does anybody have some good ideas for Heidegger affs next year? Like possible plan texts?
  15. Hello again debate community! Is anyone willing to explain Heidegger's thought to me in relation to kritik the major aff cases this season? Also, which impact and alternative do you recommend in the context of the Heiddy K? Thank you!
  16. [Excuse my spelling in advance, I'm really tired] Ok, so I'm a rising sophomore LDer and fell in love with the K. I've seen a lot of Psychoanalys/Lacan Ks on open ev and was trying to read through them. To be honest, I have no damn clue what they're saying. Can someone give me the gist on how Psychanalysis works (what they criticize, link, impact, alt, maybe if you're cool a file). Thanks in advance.
  17. 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...