Jump to content

AQuackDebater

Member Since 21 Nov 2016
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 06:47 PM
*****

#935281 Best of Texas

Posted by AQuackDebater on 13 February 2017 - 09:29 PM

I appreciate the support man, but I feel like I'm a bit over rated. I'm not as good as I should be in my opinion.

You're a fuckin meme and a half cupo please tell me you're gonna be judging next year.

 

Also +1 to Yao Yao and Eli Barrish too for teaching me to debate.

And I'd like to add Payton Woods as my favorite judge along with Philip


  • 1


#935272 Best of Texas

Posted by AQuackDebater on 13 February 2017 - 06:25 PM

Saw this in Kansas, figured why not.

 

 

Best team: LASA MS
Squad: LASA or SMarks
Coach: John Mast. Every year John Mast.
Aff: LASA MS
Neg: Greenhill KS
Prettiest speaker: Dude I dunno
Fastest: Mason Marriot-Voss/Ritik Goyal
Most annoying: Probably me
Best 1A: Alex Sodders
Best 2A: Dash Puentes
Best 1N: Haaris (sp?) Saddiqi
Best 2N: Ezra Serrins
Most likely to do well next year: LASA MV
Judge: Philip DiPiazza
Underrated team: Reagan SS/Highland Park CM
Best K debater: Elan Wilson or Alex Sodders
PTX debater: Ezra Serrins
T debater: I dunno
Most likely NDT champ: LASA MS
Nicest debater: Benny Cupo
Best Evidence: LASA
Best argument: Heg Good/Chinese Politics 
Worst argument: Japan DA/Consult CounterJaPlan

Best K: Anti-Blackness/SettCol
Best Policy Aff: LASA MV's Taiwan Grand Bargain aff

Best K Aff: Westwood's Daiyou Islands/Hendrickson PW's Afro-Orientalism. Honorable mention is Benny Cupo's eugenics aff. 
Best excuse for losing: "Judge work on the flow"
Best tournament for hanging out: UT or Churchill
Best human being (debater): Benny Cupo

Best human being (coach): John Mast/Noah Recker
 
ANd to any of my fellow LDers
Best LDer: Richard Cook
Fastest LDer: I mean possibly me or Savaan Nanavati
Best case: Nuclear Colonialism for OctNov
Worst case: Salmon for OctNov
Most annoying: Lol me again
Most underrated: Neslon Okunlola or Brennan Young
Best next year: Will Coltzer

  • 3


#935269 best pomo debaters on the circuit/ever

Posted by AQuackDebater on 13 February 2017 - 04:31 PM

Honestly the best Bauddy debater I know of right now is Kyler from Cabot. Also they're not really natcircut but San Marcos HO in Texas knows their Bataille like nobody's business


  • 1


#935186 Roast Me

Posted by AQuackDebater on 09 February 2017 - 11:21 AM

Tell you what, I'll upload a copy of the file with some critiques of the case in it a bit later, but a few things off the top of my head after a quick read, and I might be a bit harsh so sorry in advance.

 

*I like the case, I really do. The erasure of 731 a original idea for an aff, and I like countermemory affs. It's really cool. But there are some big flaws.

*What's the link between neolib and 731? Like yeah it was fucked up but that wasn't a super neoliberal policy as much as just super fucked up. Get a better I/L as to how the erasure of 731 directly relates to neoliberalism. Because as of right now I could probably take out this 1AC just off the bat with that arg plus like a few neolib good cards.

*Plus one to everything Kyler said, specifically the solvency stuff (you have almost none, countermem is about genealogy of power, not neolib in particular), the top bit about the warrants to neolib's erasure of chinese memories (you have none), and the explanation of Unit 731 (I wrote a paper on this a few years ago, but someone who isn't familiar with it won't know wtf you're talking about).

*You need more impacts. Like I said, the lack of I/L from 731 to Neolib and one good turn on your Fournet ev (the only impact you really have) and the round is mine. Like toss in Zizek and Daly 04 if you have to, whatever, just get more impacting on the flow.

*On solvency, look into Herod. I can post the ev if you want, he talks about how as intellectuals we are in a unique position to reject neolib. It's good stuff, could be a good solvency advocate.

 

EDIT:

*On the impact debate, something I missed the first time is that I don't see much link between the internals of your Fournet evidence and your tag for it. That's a big deal.


  • 1


#935101 The old WGLF rounds? Did anyone save them?

Posted by AQuackDebater on 04 February 2017 - 11:05 AM

WE HAVE A LARGE BAG OF TAPES. UNRELEASED FOOTAGE. PM US WITH AN OFFER.

 

THE  GODS HAVE RETURNED


  • 3


#935057 Who's gonna win the TOC?

Posted by AQuackDebater on 02 February 2017 - 08:35 PM

My bet is MBA KR. If not them then almost certainly Peninsula TW.

 

If they both drop, it's gonna be GBN JL or McDonough JN

 

I'm personally rooting for Broad Run PN (best team from my area, still hunting for their second bid. Great debaters and very friendly) or LASA MS (the 2N is a great guy, plus I am forever grateful that they opensource). And of course, if Cabot BS gets another bid I'll be rooting for them too!

 

 

edit: Georgetown Day BS is actually the best team from my area, but they don't go to locals and I've never faced them or met them. So I don't really have a reason to cheer them on.

+1 For Ezra and Mason from LASA, they taught me a ton of what I know, I used to debate with them. They're probably (along with Jonas and Ronak from Lindale) the best debaters in Texas right now. I also think Sodders and Saddiqi from Reagan are gonna do well at TOC, they've consistently kicked ass all year.

 

LASA MS will lose simply because they'll run their K aff against a K team that decides to run T. At least that is my plan on debating them since they refuse to run Ks against anyone they think will run T.

Ezra and Mason are straight policy kids dude. They run Taiwan and BIT, aside from that one time at UT they ran Hauntology. They just happen to be better at straight policy than more or less anyone.


  • 1


#935014 LD Debate Jan/Feb

Posted by AQuackDebater on 31 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

 

Hey everyone,

 

I was wondering if anyone had contention ideas for the negation side of the current LD topic: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I'm currently running hate speech as my main argument(s), but I was wondering if there were better ideas out there? Thank you!

PM me for stuff if you want, I'm cool to trade. But my neg strat is

-Revenge Porn, like PailAmbrose says

-Funding, under Title IX universities have to ban harassing speech, even though it's protected under the FA, and not restricting that makes them lose federal funding.

-Hate Speech is good.

-Cyberbullying, FA applies to internet hate speech too

-Kant, seditious speech is protected, there are a bunch of issues with that, like the right to sedition means the right to destroy the state which justifies the annihilation of right

-International Law, that banned hate speech, human rights violations undermine ILaw, ILaw solves multiple extinction scenarios

I have some other stuff, but that's all I know off the top of my head.

As for court cases, look into Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. It was about student journalism, I use it for a court legitimacy/precedent DA.


  • 1


#934963 Aff answers to China topic K?

Posted by AQuackDebater on 27 January 2017 - 09:38 AM

h e g  g o o d


  • 2


#934957 National Novice Tournament

Posted by AQuackDebater on 26 January 2017 - 12:41 PM

I don't remember where it is. But there's the novice round up in Dallas among a few others. These are policy though, not PF or LD

Yeah that's SMarks.

 

that's JV RR. Woodward is in Georgia.

They have novice as well, I went novice year. All of the LASA kids did.


  • 1


#934916 Framing

Posted by AQuackDebater on 23 January 2017 - 07:36 PM

:,)

You have been blessed, the commielord approves 

 

https://i.reddituplo...bdbe597f6a7cee6

 

(I cant figure out how to put this photo in the post so please help until then have the URL)

 


  • 1


#934911 Framing

Posted by AQuackDebater on 23 January 2017 - 06:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's the Bohmer card I was talking about. Props to Brodrillard.


  • 1


#934902 Framing

Posted by AQuackDebater on 23 January 2017 - 12:14 PM

To clarify what I'm asking for, I need cards that explain that the judge should vote for whoever caused the most real world change in round. For example, if instead of responding to the other teams plan I use all my prep to solve world hunger, the judge should vote for me

I mean in the end that's a pretty hard arg to win, like Ian said. I'd recommend looking into countermemory, if you wanna go into a kritiky area. Also here's the Giroux card I always use for critical pedagogy/real world change stuff

 

As RotJ: The Role of the Judge is to act as a critical educator combating oppression—while obviously signing the ballot won’t make oppression disappear, voting for strategies to combat oppression in this round makes us better activists in the future. 

As RotB: The Role of the Ballot is to serve as a tool to combat oppression—while obviously signing the ballot won’t make oppression disappear, voting for strategies to combat oppression in this round makes us better activists in the future. 

Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, “Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University,” 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out...ral-university)

 

Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself." Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1% recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.

Best for activism— Talking about methodologies to combat oppressive structures makes us better advocates in the future—this is a key pre-requisite to education and fairness claims, even if we learn from debate, that education is useless without the ability to put it to use.
  • 1


#934892 help with foucault

Posted by AQuackDebater on 22 January 2017 - 07:10 PM

Are you by any chance as knowledgeable about Baudrillard as you are about Foucault? Because I am really stuck on some of his ideas

Hold on just a minute i gotcha...

 

 

 

HEY YO KYLER GET OVER HERE

 

kidding. But see here for Kyler's very nice explanation of Baudrillard, helped me a lot https://www.cross-x....security/page-2 it's like third or fourth post down


  • 1


#934887 help with foucault

Posted by AQuackDebater on 22 January 2017 - 10:55 AM

Here's that agamben card I mentioned before, the card text should help make it more clear the distinction between liberties vs. biopower Declarations of "inherent" rights re-inscribe the sovereignty of a citizen over others by recreating the distinction between "human" and citizen". This reinforces dominant biopolitical power relations as well as turning their rights impacts.

Agamben 95 [Giorgio, an Italian continental philosopher best known for his work investigating the concepts of the state of exception, form-of-life and homo sacer. The concept of biopolitics informs many of his writings, Homer Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, pg 76-78]

Declarations of rights must therefore be viewed as the place in which the passage from divinely authorized royal sovereignty to national sovereignty is accomplished. This passage assures the exception of life in the new state order that will succeed the collapse of the ancient régime. The fact that in this process the “subject” is, as has been noted, transformed into a “citizen” means that birth – which is to say, bare natural life as such – here for the first time becomes (thanks to a transformation whose biopolitical consequences we are only beginning to discern today) the immediate bearer of sovereignty. The principle of nativity and the principle of sovereignty, which were separated in the ancient régime (where birth marked only the emergence of a sujet, a subject), are now irrevocably united in the body of the “sovereign subject” so that the foundation of the new nation-state may be constituted. It is not possible to understand the “national” and biopolitical development and vocation of the modern state in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries if one forgets that what lies at its basis is not man as a free and conscious political subject but, above all, man’s bare life, the simple birth that as such is, in the passage from subject to citizen, invested with the principle of sovereignty. The fiction implicit here is that birth immediately becomes nation such that there can be no interval of separation [scarto] between the two terms. Rights are attributed to man (or originate in him) solely to the extent that man is the immediately vanishing ground (who must never come to light as such) of the citizen. Only if we understand this essential historical function of the doctrine of rights can we grasp the development and Metamorphosis of declarations of rights in our century. When the hidden difference [scarto] between birth and nation entered into a lasting crisis following the devastation of Europe’s geopolitical order after the First World War, what appeared was Nazism and fascism, that is, two properly biopolitical movements that made of natural life the exemplary place of the sovereign decision. We are used to condensing the essence of National Socialist ideology into the syntagm “blood and soil” (Blut und Boden). When Alfred Rosenberg wanted to express his party’s vision of the world, it is precisely to this hendiadys that he turned. “The National Socialist vision of the world,” he writes, “springs from the conviction that soil and blood constitute what is essential about Germanness, and that it is therefore in reference to these two givens that a cultural and state politics must be directed” (Blut und Ehre, p. 242). Yet it has too often been forgotten that this formula, which is so highly determined politically, has, in truth, an innocuous juridical origin. The formula is nothing other than the concise expression of the two criteria that, already in Roman law, served to identify citizenship (that is, the primary inscription of life in the state order): ius soli (birth in a certain territory) and ius sanguinis (birth from citizen parents). In the ancien régime, these two traditional juridical criteria had no essential meaning, since they expressed only a relation of subjugation. Yet with the French Revolution they acquire a new and decisive importance. Citizenship now does not simply identify a generic subjugation to royal authority or a determinate system of laws, nor does it simply embody (as Chalier maintained when he suggested to the convention on September 23,1792, that the title of citizen be substituted for the traditional title monsieur or sieur in every public act) the new egalitarian principle; citizenship names the new status of life as origin and ground of sovereignty and, therefore, literally identifies – to cite Jean-Denis Lanjuinais’s words to the convention – les membres du souverain, “the members of the sovereign.” Hence the centrality (and the ambiguity) of the notion of “citizenship” in modern political thought, which compels Rousseau to say, “No author in France... has understood the true meaning of the term ‘citizen.’ “ Hence too, however, the rapid growth in the course of the French Revolution of regulatory provisions specifying which man was a citizen and which one not, and articulating and gradually restricting the area of the ius soli and the ius sanguinis. Until this time, the questions “What is French? What is German?” had constituted not a political problem but only one theme among others discussed in philosophical anthropologies. Caught in a constant work of redefinition, these questions now begin to become essentially political, to the point that, with National Socialism, the answer to the question “Who and what is German?” (and also, therefore, “Who and what is not German?”) coincides immediately with the highest political task. Fascism and Nazism are, above all, Biopolitics and the rights of man redefinitions of the relations between man and citizen, and become fully intelligible only when situated – no matter how paradoxical it may seem – in the biopolitical context inaugurated by national sovereignty and declarations of rights. Only this tie between the rights of man and the new biopolitical determination of sovereignty makes it possible to understand the striking fact, which has often been noted by historians of the French Revolution, that at the very moment in which native rights were declared to be inalienable and indefeasible, the rights of man in general were divided into active rights and passive rights. In his Préliminaires de la constitution, Sieyès already clearly stated: Natural and civil rights are those rights for whose preservation society is formed, and political rights are those rights by which society is formed. For the sake of clarity, it would be best to call the first ones passive rights, and the second ones active rights.... All inhabitants of a country must enjoy the rights of passive citizens ... all are not active citizens. Women, at least in the present state, children, foreigners, and also those who would not at all contribute to the public establishment must have no active influence on public matters. (Écrits politiques, pp. 189-206) And after defining the membres du souverain, the passage of Lan-juinais cited above continues with these words: “Thus children, the insane, minors, women, those condemned to a punishment either restricting personal freedom or bringing disgrace [punition affiletive ou inflammante] ... will not be citizens” (quoted in Sewell, “Le citoyen,” p. 105). Instead, of viewing these distinctions as a simple restriction of the democratic and egalitarian principle, in flagrant contradiction to the spirit and letter of the declarations, we ought first to grasp their coherent biopolitical meaning. One of the essential characteristics of modern biopolitics (which will continue to increase in our century) is its constant need to redefine the threshold in life that distinguishes and separates what is inside from what is outside. Once it crosses over the walls of the oikos and penetrates more and more deeply into the city, the foundation of sovereignty – non political life – is immediately transformed into a line that must be constantly redrawn. Once zoē is politicized by declarations of rights, the distinctions and thresholds that make it possible to isolate a sacred life must be newly defined. And when natural life is wholly included in the polis – and this much has, by now, already happened – these thresholds pass, as we will see, beyond the dark boundaries separating life from death in order to identify a new living dead man, a new sacred man.


  • 1


#934885 help with foucault

Posted by AQuackDebater on 22 January 2017 - 09:51 AM

The only thing stopping me from getting on board with this is that it almost sounds like tea party rhetoric, ie healthcare is bad because it puts us under the government's control and muh liberty

Kind of, but Foucault never really speaks of "liberties". As a matter of fact, Agamben says claims of liberty reinscribe biopower, it recreates the intrinsic sovereign decision. It's less "tHe gOverNmeNt Ain'T goNnA tAkE mY gUnS aNd HeaLtHcAre" and more "oh shit the government has complete power over whether I live or die fuck me dude". You read?

Also, how is biopower chopping off everyone's legs? Obviously you don't mean that literally, but what's the ongoing harm which biopower then presents a solution to (selling crutches)?

The harm of the crutches is that a) biopower is the reason you need crutches in the first place, and b ) the state now controls whether or not you get to walk. Biopower makes the problem then presents itself as the solution.

And couldn't you say that the increased deathtoll is because of advancing technology and the inevitability of war, not because of any unique power relationship between states and people?

I mean a central thesis of Foucault's argument is that war is at it's core a biopolitical affair. 


  • 1