Nomads Affirmative - Georgetown 2014

Deleuzian Nomads (No
Pirates)
Notes
DO NOT RUN THIS UNLESS YOU CAN, ON YOUR OWN,
ARTICULATE ALL THE DELEUZE BUZZWORDS. A LOT OF JUDGES
MOAN WHEN THEY HEAR THEYRE WEIGHING DELEUZE, SO
MAKE THE EXPERIENCE AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO
DEFINE ALL THE KEY TERMS, LIKE SMOOTH, STRIATED, NOMAD,
ETC. DELEUZE APPROPRIATES ALL OF THESE TERMS AND GIVES
THEM ALL ODD DEFINITIONS THAT ARE NOT THE COMMON
ENGLISH ONES.
A good glossary is here:
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad
PLEASE LOOK IN THE OTHER PIRATES MODULES FOR EXTRA

GOODIES, INCLUDING A NEG.
This has a lot in common with the Deleuzian Pirates Module.
HOWEVER, two key differences are the lack of pirates and what
were exploring.
In this case, we are presenting the sea as a metaphor for the
mind, and since we burn all the maps of the mind, we purge
the world of flawed epistemology.
I scrapped the metaphor of pirates because they carry a ton of
baggage.
Brought to you by your good friend-o Zach Babat (questions at
zbabat@comcast.net, although I wont have all of the answers. Go forth as
nomads, find your own answers if you can, make this your own. After all,
diversity prevents extinction.)
****1AC****
This is not a war
It's a conversation about what people really need
Fear is a poison
It breeds violence and apathy and greed
So people occupy the streets
So they can occupy the hearts of the fearful
This is not a war
This is not a movement
It's a body's immune system reacting to a disease
It's been trying to cure cancer
With echinacea, vitamin c, and lots of sleep
Now the tumor got so big
That the blood cells have started to speak
This is not a protest
It's a tortoise slowly pushing through a race
I hope the tortoise keeps its patience
While the hare continues to pepper spray its face
Unconditional, positive regard
To the ones who hurt you, they're just scared
There is no enemy
There's only people that also love their families
And they're scared that they won't have enough
Long after they are deceased
But how much money do they need?
Love turns into fear, and fear turns into greed
There is no enemy
There's only dummies that also love their families
And this is not a phase,
It's just a matter of time
With diligence and peacefulness
You will reach them & you will change their minds
If you stay there long enough,
They'll start to see you
They'll start to hear you

They'll stop trying to hurt you
They'll understand you
They will believe you
They'll start to work with you
Because
This is not a war
There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We

need to pursue smooth space thinking and remove the
ontological maps from our thought processes.
Kingsworth and Hine 2009 (Paul Kingsworth add Dougald Hine wrote
The Dark Mountain Manifesto and co-founded the Dark Mountain Project.
Uncivilization)CEFS
The converse also applies. Those voices which tell other stories tend to be rooted in a sense of place. Think
of John Bergers novels and essays from the Haute Savoie, or the depths explored by Alan Garner within a
days walk of his birthplace in Cheshire. Think of Wendell Berry or WS Merwin, Mary Oliver or Cormac
McCarthy.
Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the

Uncivilised are those who know their place, in the physical sense,
and who remain wary of the siren cries of metrovincial fashion and
civilised excitement. If we name particular writers whose work embodies what we are arguing
for, the aim is not to place them more prominently on the existing map of literary reputations. Rather, as
to take their work seriously is to redraw the

maps altogether not only the map of literary reputations, but
those by which we navigate all areas of life. Even here, we go
carefully, for cartography itself is not a neutral activity. The drawing
of maps is full of colonial echoes. The civilised eye seeks to view the
world from above, as something we can stand over and survey. The
Uncivilised writer knows the world is, rather, something we are
enmeshed in a patchwork and a framework of places, experiences,
sights, smells, sounds. Maps can lead, but can also mislead. Our
maps must be the kind sketched in the dust with a stick, washed
away by the next rain. They can be read only by those who ask to
see them, and they cannot be bought.
Geoff Dyer has said of Berger,
We do not advocate the gendered language of the previous card, and apologize for said infraction. Our bad.
This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean

space with grids, measurements, sea lanes, and ownership.
Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of

Amsterdam, Patricia Pisters, Film Studies Prof at the University of Amsterdam
Introduction: The Smooth and the Striated Deleuze Studies 6.1 2012
http://dare.uva.nl/document/444829)CEFS
The Smooth and the Striated introduces

smoothness and striation as a conceptual pair to rethink space as a
complex mixture between nomadic forces and sedentary captures.
A Thousand Plateaus 1440:
Among the models Deleuze and Guattari describe for explicating where we encounter smooth and striated
the maritime model presents the special problem of the sea

The sea is a smooth space par excellence:
open water always moved by the wind, the sun and the stars,
nomadically traversable by noise, colour and celestial bearings.
Increased navigation of the open water resulted in demands for its
striation. Although Deleuze and Guattari note that this took hold progressively, the year
1440, when Portuguese discoverers introduced the rst nautical
charts, marked a turning point in the striation of the sea. Maps with
meridians, parallels, longitudes, latitudes and territories gridded
the oceans, making distances calculable and measurable. It meant
the beginning of the great explorations and of the transatlantic
slave trade and the expansion of the European State apparatus. The
smooth and the striated concern the political and politics. While the
smooth and the striated are not of the same nature and de jure oppositional, Deleuze and
Guattari indicate that de facto they only exist in complex mixed forms . Moreover, the
smooth and the striated work in different domains. If the sea is the spatial eld par
excellence that brings out smoothness and striation, art is perhaps
the domain that can give the most varied and subtle expression of
the complex dynamics between them. The present collection investigates the
spaces,
(Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479).
smooth and the striated in the broad field of artistic production. It was instigated by the Third
International Deleuze Studies Conference in Amsterdam (2010) that focused on the connections between
art, science and philosophy. Along with conference papers, the role of art was explored through the work
of participating artists and in a curated exhibition, The Smooth and the Striated. This exhibition focused
on the constant interplay between delineating and opening forces in the works of the eight participating
contemporary artists. Together, the installations, videos, drawings and photographs spurred a wealth of
new connections and ideas in relation to the concepts of smoothness and striation: the artworks touched
upon the solidification of historical memory and the transformation of ever growing archival material; the
striation of subterranean city space; the politics of vast demographic datasets; the visualisation of
scientific patents; and more.1 Similar to the exhibited artists in the context of the Deleuze Studies
Conference, the authors in this volume think with art to shed new and interdisciplinary light upon the
concepts of smoothness and striation, and, conversely, upon the way the smooth and the striated can
give important insights into artistic practices. The smooth and the striated directly address processes in
(social, political, geographical, biological) life, taken up in philosophy and art. Most of the contributions in
this volume discuss the concepts of the smooth and the striated in relation to specific artworks that, in
Claire Colebrooks words, are not representations of images of life, but, if we consider the emergence of
the genesis of art and philosophy, can be understood as something of lifes creative potential (Colebrook
2006: 30). Hence, the singular artworks or artistic practices are not to be taken as illustrations of the
concepts but as singular ways of embodying or expressing the various aspects that the smooth and the
striated envision. If we intuit the forces that produce any single work of art or any single concept, then
we might begin to approach singularity as such: the power of making a difference (Colebrook 2006: 30).
The essays in this special issue contribute to this power of difference in the complex interweaving
between the smooth and the striated in its philosophical and artistic dimensions.
The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a

fascist bureaucracy in the minds of the community that
justies violence from the macropolitcal.
Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari A Thousand

Plateaus pp. 214-215)CEFS
It is not sufficient to dene bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with

compartmentalization of contiguous offices, an office manager in
each segment, and the corresponding centralization at the end of
the hall or on top of the tower. For at the same time there is a whole bureaucratic
segmentation, a suppleness of and communication between offices, a bureaucratic perversion, a
permanent inventiveness or creativity practiced even against administrative regulations. If Kafka is the
greatest theorist of bureaucracy, it is because he shows how, at a certain level (but which one? it is not
localizable), the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing line" and are immersed in a
molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate
into microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when they are centralizable:
totalization of the rigid segments.I0 We would
even say that fascism implies a molecular regime that is distinct
both from molar segments and their centralization. Doubtless,
fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian State, but there is
no reason to dene fascism by a concept of its own devising: there
are totalitarian States, of the Stalinist or military dictatorship type,
that are not fascist. The concept of the totalitarian State applies
only at the macropohtical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a
particular mode of totalization and centralization. But fascism is
inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction,
which skip from point to point, before beginning to resonate
together in the National Socialist State. Rural fascism and city or neighborhood
another regime, coexistent with the separation and
fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right, fascism of
the couple, family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a micro-black hole that stands on its
own and communicates with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black hole.1 '
Even after the

National Socialist State had been established, microfascisms
persisted that gave it unequaled ability to act upon the "masses."
Daniel Guerin is correct to say that if Hitler took power, rather then taking over
the German State administration, it was because from the beginning
he had at his disposal microorganizations giving him "an
unequaled, irreplaceable ability to penetrate every cell of society,"
in other words, a molecular and supple segmentarity, flows capable of suffusing
every kind of cell. Conversely, if capitalism came to consider the fascist experience as
There is fascism when a war
machine is installed in each hole, in every niche.
catastrophic, if it preferred to ally itself with Stalinist totalitarianism, which from its point of view was
much more sensible and manageable, it was because the egmentarity and centralization of the latter was
fluid. What makes fascism dangerous is its molecular
or micropolitical power, for it is a mass movement: a cancerous
body rather than a totalitarian organism. American lm has often
depicted these molecular focal points; band, gang, sect, family,
town, neighborhood, vehicle fascisms spare no one. Only
microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does
desire desire its own repression, how can it desire its own
repression? The masses certainly do not passively submit to power;
nor do they "want" to be repressed, in a kind of masochistic
hysteria; nor are they tricked by an ideological lure. Desire is never
more classical and less
separable from complex
assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from
microforma-tions
expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is

never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from
a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole
already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions,
supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and

potentially gives desire a fascist determination. Leftist
organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms. It's too
easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the
fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and
cherish with molecules both personal and collective. Four errors concerning
this molecular and supple segmentarity are to be
avoided. The first is axiological and consists in
But microfascisms are

what make fascism so dangerous, and fine segmentations are as harmful as the most
believing that a little suppleness is enough to make things "better."
rigid of segments. The second is psychological, as if the molecular were in the realm of the imagination
and applied only to the individual and interindividual. But there is just as much social-Real on one line as
on the other. Third, the two forms are not simply distinguished by size, as a small form and a large
form; although it is true that the molecular works in detail and operates in small groups, this does not
mean that it is any less coextensive with the entire social field than molar organization. Finally, the
qualitative difference between the two lines does not preclude their boosting or cutting into each other;
there is always a proportional relation between the two, directly or inversely proportional.
We present the sea as a metaphor for the mind and

knowledge. The rst maps of things such as the ocean placed
more importance on some things than others, like making
Europe bigger than Africa. This is a reflection of our
ontological maps, our flawed way of interacting with
knowledge.
In striated space, according to Deleuzes Maritime Model,
people often decide the location, the endpoint, over the
journey. They commit to a set path, thereby striating
knowledge.
Striation is epistemological brainwashing that society commits
us to.
Just like in 1984, wherein Winston tries to reject his societys
ontological thought map and attempted to sail the high seas of
the mind and knowledge and society as a romanticized nomad.
However, he only served as a passenger on his ship. And his
captain was truly an agent of subterfuge, navigating the ship
into the rocks, casting Winston under the waves. We must be
at the helm of our own ship, navigating off nobodys map, for it
is when we navigate towards what we assume as a safe port
that we so often run aground.
WE MUST EMBRACE THE PARADOX THAT EXISTS IN ACADEMIC
SETTINGS
HALL vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10
Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and General Secretary of the South African
Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown) in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the
Head of the Department of Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was deputy
Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife, Professor Brenda Cooper, is an academic
specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29;
http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73628/There-Was-an-Ocean-final.pdf
Paul Simons lyrics capture a paradox. And because paradoxes must, by definition, embody profound
truth, this signals something interesting, worth exploring further. Change emerges from
the unchanging. The predictability and solidity of mountains and

oceans foreclose on our ability to alter our environment. But, at the
same time, they also enable us to navigate the world around us,
including our intellectual and emotional conceptualization of experience.
The ability of universities to bring about change and to produce new
knowledge rests on this paradox. Like the ocean, they are robust
and survive as organizational forms. Like mountains, they are
solidly built and steeped in traditions and processes that may
appear, and sometimes are, arcane. They remain reassuringly
familiar, founded in disciplines and systems of accreditation that
persist stubbornly. But they are also sites of new ideas and
opportunities, unstoppable in their motion, which are entwined with
their traditions.
CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; hence the symbolism

of MOUNTAINS, which shapes where the oceans can flow, and
OCEANS, which shape the mountain. This years topic about
Ocean Exploration and/or development can enable us to
NAVIGATE the world around us, build on our INTELLECUTAL and
EMOTIONAL conceptualization of experience. The university,
like the ocean, is ROBUST and SURVIVES as organizational
forms while simultaneously resembling the mountains, solidly
built and steeped in traditions and ARCANE practices.
REASSURINGLY FAMILIAR, STUBBORN PERSISTENCE,
universities are sites of new ideas and opportunities
UNSTOPPABLE in their MOTION that are entwined with their
traditions. The persistence of the institution of debate,
constantly advocating things of import, enables it to be an
outlet for change.
Nomads of the sea disrupt striation on the smoothness of the
sea of the mind, attacking the mindset the state, a metaphor
for society, advocates.
Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in

Emerging Knowledge is an independent peer-reviewed online journal (ISSN
1555-9998) born at Bowling Green State University, "Gotta Catch 'em All":
Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokmon Trainer,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#nomad . This article may
seem to be very odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article
seeks to connect multiple concepts.)
Nomad: "Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the
organizational "State." The nomadic way of life is characterized by
movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid
and static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain:

The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from
one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points,
assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle
and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points
determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they
determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is
reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and
exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the
in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an
autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the
intermezzo. (380) The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or
between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is
unfettered by systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only
to continue to move within the "intermezzo."
Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and

knowledge that follows no xed path, has no goal,
and has no forseeable end. We advocate the zigzagging exploration of our own oceans as nomads, in
an attempt to burn our flawed knowledge maps.
We, as nomads, are part of the nomadic war machine on the
ocean that preserves this space as the space of freedom.

http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html#warmachine . This article
may seem to be very odd, as the root deals heavily with Pokemon. The article
WAR MACHINE: The
"War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which

capture can be avoided and smooth space preserved. Rather than
the military (which is a State appropriation of the war machine), the
war machine is a collection of nomad-warriors engaged in resistance
to control, war being only a consequencenot the intended object. The
military on the other hand, is an organization formed by the State
formed specically to wage wars and immobilize adversaries (which are
determined by the State): The question is therefore less the
realization of war than the appropriation of the war machine . It is at the
the State apparatus appropriates the war machine,

subordinates it to its "political" aims, and gives it war as its direct
object. (D&G 420) Unlike the military, the war machine is not influenced by the
economic and political concerns of the State. The war machine is a
"grass roots" affair which bubbles up from common concerns for
freedom to move, and as a result it is part and parcel of nomadic
life.
same time that
Melancholy negates the will to act it makes us slaves of the

powerful and uses our fears to exterminate difference. We
must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject the salvation
morality.
Deleuze and Parnet 87
famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II,
European Perspectives, with Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by
Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.61-62
Edited for gendered language.
When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know
what a body is capable of ... ', he does not want to make the body a model,
and the soul simply dependent on the body. He has a subtler task. He wants
to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul
and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the
body is also an expressed of the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do
not know what a body is capable of, just as there are many things in
the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things
which go beyond your consciousness. This is the question: what is a
body capable of? what affects are you capable of? Experiment, but you
need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is
generally disagreeable, where not only people but the established
powers have a stake in transmitting sad affects to us. Sadness, sad
affects, are all those which reduce our power to act. The established
powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the
captors of souls need to persuade us that life is hard and a burden .
The powers that be need to repress us no less than to make us
anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate
little fears. The long, universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which
is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are not really very
happy. In vain someone says, What misfortune death is'; for one
would need to have lived to have something to lose. Those who are
sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the vampires, until they
have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their
beloved castration, the resentment against life, lthy contagion. It is
all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man, to flee the plague,
organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy,
to multiply the affects which express or encompass a maximum of

affirmation. To make the body a power which is not reducible to the
organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to
consciousness. Spinozas famous first principle (a single substance for all
attributes) depends on this assemblage and not vice versa. There is a
Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to
be affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify
these affects. Here philosophy becomes the art of a functioning, of an
assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the philosopher
with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight
although he does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight
from Powers, a flight from the sick and the malignant. He may be ill, he may
himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end, but
that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else.
What Lawrence says about Whitmans continuous life is well suited to
Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor inside, it is
with, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the
company of those who follow the same way, feel with them, seize
the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass, the opposite
of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.
OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE.

The University, academia, values intelligent debate. It is
individuals who must listen and learn. It is individuals and
intellectuals that cause spillover.
HALL
vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10

Martin-historical archaeologist; He was for a time President of the World Archaeological Congress and
General Secretary of the South African Archaeological Society. He moved to UCT (University of Capetown)
in 1983, where he led the Centre for African Studies and later became the Head of the Department of
Archaeology. He was the inaugural Dean of Higher Education Development between 1999 and 2002; was
deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT for six years. Professor Hall is married with three children. His wife,
Professor Brenda Cooper, is an academic specialising in post-colonial and African literature; There Was An
Ocean; Professional Inaugural Lecture at University of Salford, September 29;
This leads in turn to a final example of the ways in which formal legislation, which tends
towards tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a

recursive network of stable change. It is an example which brings us back to Cape Town, in
the circulating system of references that has constituted this presentation. As with South Africa, British
universities are subject to legislation that seeks to advance equality for

defined equality strands, broadly the equivalent of designated groups in South African
legislation. And, as with South Africa, there is a clear danger that legislation, which is a
vital site for resistance to the Apartheid past, will remain at the formal level as an
issue of compliance.
Our Listen! strategy seeks to address this by taking a development
approach to equality and diversity. The focus on listening evokes one
of the founding values of the academy; a constant openness to new

possibilities and a willingness to challenge and debate the status
quo. Listening, in turn, leads to appropriate actions that advance respect for
the values of diversity. This has been expressed by Judith Butler in her essay, Giving an Account
on Oneself, our shared, invariable, and partial blindness about ourselves. Our knowledge of
ourselves is inevitably incomplete. Opportunities come from creating spaces
for new voices to be heard. For a university, where respect for new thinking
and expression is a founding value, the virtue of listening is paramount.
By taking a developmental approach, Listen! seeks the recognition of
diversity and difference as educational assets, the protection and
advancement of minority groups, and the provision of opportunities for all
individuals to realize their full potential. Whether in Cape Town or Salford, the
university with its enshrined rituals, customs, respect for debate and status,
has the potential to drive the battle for social justice . I have suggested that these
processes of institutional transformation can be analysed as the interplay
between formal and substantive elements of making meaning, traced as
circulating systems of references. But thickening and deepening this
understanding of structures, both formal and substantive, at the end of a
long swim and a big climb, it is individuals who have to listen and learn and
change as part of their university education. This accounts for the slight, but
crucial change in the sameness of the repetition of Paul Simons ballad:
Once upon a time there was an ocean. But now its a mountain range.
Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but
everythings changed.
I figure that once upon a time I was an ocean. But now Im a mountain
range. Something unstoppable set into motion. Nothing is different, but
****1NC Policy Affs****

This is not a war
Fear is a poison
This is not a war
There is no enemy
There is no enemy

Because
This is not a war

Uncivilization)CEFS
McCarthy.






spaces,



Even after the

microforma-tions




knowledge. In striated space, according to Deleuzes Maritime
Model, people often decide the location, the endpoint, over the
journey. They commit to a set path, a path where only the
USFG can do things, thereby striating knowledge.
us to. Just like in 1984, wherein Winston tries to reject his
societys ontological thought map and attempted to sail the
high seas of the mind and of society as a romanticized nomad.
However, he only served as a passenger on his ship. And his
captain was truly an agent of subterfuge, navigating the ship
into the rocks, casting Winston under the waves. We must be
at the helm of our own ship, navigating off nobodys map, for it
is when we navigate towards what we assume as a safe port
that we so often run aground.
Melancholy and sad affects, such as that the aff has inserted
into this debate space, negates the will to act it makes us
slaves of the powerful and uses our fears to exterminate
difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject
the salvation morality.


SETTINGS

their traditions.

outlet for change.


Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and

knowledge that follows no xed path, has no goal,
and has no forseeable end. We advocate the zigzagging exploration of our own oceans as nomads, in
an attempt to burn our flawed knowledge maps.


WAR MACHINE: The

same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine,
life.

HALL




****1NC Kritikal Affs****

This is not a war
Fear is a poison
This is not a war
There is no enemy
There is no enemy

Because
This is not a war

Uncivilization)CEFS
McCarthy.






spaces,



Even after the

microforma-tions




knowledge. In striated space, according to Deleuzes Maritime
Model, people often decide the location, the endpoint, over the
journey. They commit to a set path, thereby striating
knowledge.
us to. Just like in 1984, wherein Winston tries to reject his
societys ontological thought map and attempted to sail the
high seas of the mind and knowledge and of society as a
romanticized nomad. However, he only served as a passenger
on his ship. And his captain was truly an agent of subterfuge,
navigating the ship into the rocks, casting Winston under the
waves. We must be at the helm of our own ship, navigating off
nobodys map, for it is when we navigate towards what we
assume as a safe port that we so often run aground.
Melancholy and sad affects, such as that the aff has inserted
into this debate space, negates the will to act it makes us
slaves of the powerful and uses our fears to exterminate
difference. We must focus on the affects of nomadism to reject
the salvation morality.


SETTINGS

their traditions.

outlet for change.


Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind

and knowledge that follows no xed path, has
no goal, and has no forseeable end. We
advocate the zig-zagging exploration of our
own oceans as nomads, in an attempt to burn
our flawed knowledge maps. The affirmative
has not gone far enough in their action, and
they are still attempting to reach a certain set
point of knowledge.

WAR MACHINE: The

same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine,
life.

HALL




***2C-For Pirates Against

Policy***
OV
The nexus question for this debate is who best provides an
intellectual model for the exploration of the Earths oceans.
We present the nomad, a homeless wanderer who chooses in
what direction he, she, or preferred pronoun, would like to go
as a priority, not specic locations. We reposition our politics
of the mind and knowledge with the nomad to focus on a
different method of exploration, one that zig-zags across the
mind, withdrawn of melancholy and full of spontaneity so that
the nomads can disrupt flawed mindsets in debate and teach
the soul how to live with feeling instead of how to survive.
Thats Kuhn, and Deleuze and Parnet.
We Need a Bottom Up Approach

(Empirics)
Touissant LOverture ( too-sant la over-chure), leader of the Haitian revolution
was tricked and killed by napoleon when he pursued governmental solvency.
What worked was his bottom up revolution with the prolitereat, what failed
was working with the bourgeoisie who were fundamentally opposed to him.
When you make the bourgeoisie love you and think without a preconceived
hate of you then they will work with you. This is only possible through
bottom up persistence, thats our poem. The Haitian people reified slavery
because it was all that they knew. They didnt wipe their minds clean of their
flawed ontology, and so they reinforced it. Now Haiti is a terrible place to
live.
Bottom up revolutions are the only true solvency. Look also to the institution
of Pedro II as the first emperor of Brazil. His people were angry, his people
wanted change, he heard them, he listened, and he rejected his OWN FATHER
THE KING OF PORTUGAL AND CREATED AN INDIPENDANT POLITICAL STATE
abolishing slavery and leading to the betterment of society. Brazil is doing a
hell of a lot better than Haiti right now. Pedro fundamentally altered his
perception of reality.
Look also to the communist revolution in Russia. It was a top down revolution
under the guise of bottom up, and it reified serf oppression worse than the
tsars. Instead look to Lech Walesa. His movement was small, organizing
labor unions of the proletariat in 80s era Russia, still under the oppression of
the upper members of the party. He organized bottom up revolution and
ensured true solvency and change. Then he was one of the first leaders of a
free and independent Poland, and look at Poland now. Doing a lot better than
Haiti.
The fact of the matter is that the bottom up solves. Working at the microlevel extends to the macro level because the macro-level is composed of the
micro-level. It takes more time but its worth it. Do things too fast and do
them wrong, and suffer under oppression while under the impression that you
actually changed something.
Spillover/Role Of Intellectual
Cards
Extend our Hall 10 evidence tagged: OUR DEVELOPMENTAL
APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University,
academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must
listen and learn. It is individuals and intellectuals that cause
spillover.
It is the role of an intellectual like you to speak out
passionately about the right thing. Empirically, stances of
passivism lead to Nazi attitudes. The choice to not speak out
against anthropocentrism will have consequences and
influence others. KETELS Assc Prof of English @Temple University 1996
Violet-THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!" The Power of the Word;
THE ANNALS OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, November; 548 Annals 45;
Intellectuals are not customarily thought of as men and women of

action. Our circumstances are ambiguous, our credibility precarious. While our sense of
past and future is "radically linguistic,' we scarcely have a common
human language anymore, and our fashionable linguistic skepticism
elevates the denying of verities to an article of faith, out of which we
build academic careers of nay-saying.
We use the written word as the primary political medium for gaining
attention. We are "writing people," who traffic in words and thus
carry an unavoidable accountability for what we say with them.5
Havel defines intellectuals as people who devote their lives "to thinking in
general terms about the affairs of this world and the broader context
of things . . . professionally,' for their occupation.
If we aspire to be distinguished from mere scribblers, history demands that we choose between being "the apologist for rulers [and]
an advisor to the people; the tragedy of the twentieth century is
that these two functions have ceased to exist independently of one
another, and intellectuals like Sartre who thought they were fullling
one role were inevitably drawn to play both."
Alternatively, we can choose with Richard Rorty, echoing Max Weber, to stay out
of politics, "where passionate commitment and sterile excitation are out of
place," keeping "politics in the hands of charismatic leaders and
trained officials." We can choose to pursue "[our] own private perfection.'
That particular stance, however expedient, did not work well in Germany. In
Czechoslovakia, it produced wartime Nazi collaborator Gustave
Husak, the "President of Forgetting," who sought to perfect

totalitarianism by systematically purging "the Party and state, the
arts, the universities, and the media of everyone who dare [d] to
speak critically, independently, or even intelligently about what the regime define[d]
as politics.' It produced Tudjman and Milogevie in Yugoslavia.
Intellectuals can choose their roles, but cannot not choose, nor can we
evade the full weight of the consequences attendant on our choices.
"It is always the intellectuals, however
we may shrink from the chilling sound of that word . . .
moral responsibility."'
who must bear the full weight of
Links/Other Cool Stuff
Policy Affirmatives
Generic Links
The affirmative is directly striating the mind in that they are
asserting that the only way we can act is through a
transcendental idea called government. By only advocating
to solve extinction through the USFG, they are directly
contributing to the problem.
Further, we outlined in our Deleuze and Parnet evidence, the
melancholy that results from inserting sad affects into the
debate space makes it not a place to be free and teach the
soul to live, and this REDUCES OUR WILL TO ACT. Standing here
in a debate space talking about problems unleashes sad
affects into our souls, negating our will to act and making us
slaves. We need an outlet to go and be free to act. The
kriticism is a prior question.
OSEA
T
Exploration is discovery through observation and recording
NAS 00 National Academy of Science Study, Ocean Exploration,

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf
What Is Ocean Exploration?

As dened by the Presidents Panel on Ocean Exploration (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is
discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings
of ndings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and
documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and
archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in
time.
Development is focused on ocean resources, marine science

and technology, and targeted human resources
Pujari 12 Saritha Pujari, BS Poona College of Arts Science & Commerce,

The Objectives and Observation of Ocean Development around the World,
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/ocean/the-objectives-and-observation-ofocean-development-around-the-world/11207/
Objectives of Ocean Development:

Indiaa peninsula with an extensive coastline and groups of islands has
much to gain from oceanographic research. The new Ocean Regime
established by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
1982, which has been signed by 159 countries including India, assigns much
of the world ocean to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) where coastal states
have jurisdiction over exploration and exploitation of resources and for other
economic purposes.
The UNCLOS made declarations regarding (1) the sovereign rights of
extraction in the 320 km. EEZ by coastal states; (2) resources of the deep sea
to be governed by International Sea Bed Authority and extraction to be based
on the principle of equitable sharing and common heritage of mankind. (Many
developed countries disagreed about the principle of equitable sharing.)
Indias coastline is more than 7,000 km long, and its territory includes 1,250
islands, its EEZ covers an area of 2.02 million sq. km., and the continental
shelf extends up to 350 nautical miles from the coast.
Recognising the importance of oceans in the economic development and
progress of the nation, the government set up a Department of Ocean
Development (DOD) in July 1981, for planning and coordinating
oceanographic survey, research and development, management of ocean
resources, development of manpower and marine technology. The
department is entrusted with the responsibility for protection of marine
environment on the high seas. (Later it became a ministry, then in 2006 it
was restructured as MoES.)
The broad objectives of ocean development have been laid down by
Parliament in the Ocean Policy Statement of November 1982. The
domain of our concern for development of oceanic resources and its
environment extends from the coastal lands and islands lapped by brackish
water to the wide Indian Ocean.
The ocean regime is to be developed in order to: (i) explore and
assess living and non-living resources; (ii) harness and manage its
resources (materials, energy and biomass) and create additional
resources such as mariculture; (iii) cope with and protect its
environment (weather, waves and coastal front); (iv) develop human
resources (knowledge, skill and expertise), and (v) play our rightful
role in marine science and technology in the international arena.
1. Reasons to prefer
a) limits and ground --- non-exploratory/developmental areas
are huge, overstretch research burdens and require completely
different strategies --- our denition allows sufficient flexibility
but lock-in a core mechanism for preparation which is key to
clash, in-round education, and fairness. Voting issue for.
B) This plan violates effects topicality as well - they only derive
exploration/development from the effects resulting from the
plan. The organization itself is not either of those, the aff is
just hoping to derive some exploration/development from
creating this institution.
2. Topicality is a voter- if it were not the aff could run the
same case year after year or unbeatable truths like 2 plus
2 is 4
Analyzing the ocean directly leads to its striation. Our Lysen

and Pisters evidence shows that since the rst nautical maps
were made in 1440, the oceans have been becoming striated.
Ext Microfascism
This topic has tried to teach us that we can only advocate
through the government, thereby striating the mind. This is
part of the way that institutions like the state and traditional
debate order our thought process so that the only way we can
only talk, question, and think is through a controlled means.
Weve been made to think the only way we can advocate for
plans is through a transcendent ideal called government. This
internalized microfascism is just how these systems commit
violent acts.
Ext Melancholy
Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. My opponents seek
to insert sad affects, or emotions and feelings, into the debate
space with their own impacts. But just talking about their
impacts only serves to make us sad about them because of the
way that the state and other power structures communicate
this way of looking at problems so that no change actually
occurs. We should flee this plague of misery and use the
spontaneous affect of the nomads to teach our souls to live
instead of saving our souls. This is an a priori question about
how we look at problems in this space.
A2 Perm
Let us explain the alt, so distinction is clear.
By advocating a policy option, the affirmative has completely
reinforced all of our impacts. First of all, they further divide,
compartmentalize, and striate the mind. We are advocating the
opposite, the random exploration of the mind, in which we
burn all of the maps. You cant perform the two
simultaneously.
The pirates are constantly raging against the state. Hubert No
Date (Christian Hubert has an extensive Curriculum Vita, listed here
http://christianhubert.com/ch_resume2014.pdf . Some highlights include Fellow, The Institute for
Architecture and Urban Studies, 1982. M. Arch., Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, 1978. B.A.,
Columbia University, 1974, lectures given at colleges like Columbia and Yale. Deleuze writes a lot of his
concepts using architectural terms, and many architects study his work extensively whilst getting his
degree. Some of the foremost writers on Deleuze, such as Manuel De Landa, have architectural degrees.
This dudes legit. Nomadic/Sedentary http://christianhubert.com/writings/nomadic___sedentary.html No
date)
For Deleuze and Guattari, nomads are characterized

above all by the fact that their mode of existence is antithetical to
the system of the State, of cultivation, and of striation, which they
describe as sedentary. Because the nomads were so decisively
defeated, history has always dismissed them, and indeed "history is
one with the triumph of States." (p.394) Nomadism becomes, for D+G, a
revolutionnary alternative to the State, although they are always careful to
nomadic / sedentary
distinguish between their "de jure" or conceptual distinctions and all the "de facto" mixes and transitions
that actually occur. D+G describe the nomadic occupation of smooth space as "vortical", as distributed by
It was the
nomadic mode of warfare that so distinguished them. Their "pack"
-like movement, the formidable assemblage of man/horse/bow, their
warrior way of life--animated by a fundamental indiscipline-constitute what D+G call "the war machine" -- the pure form of exteriority.
Deleuze and Guattari mitigate the identication of the war machine
with making war by claiming that the nomadic way of the war
machine is primarily a determination to occupy smooth space . But
when the city stands in the way of nomadic free movement, war is
the result.Thus every operation against the state is associated with
the nomad: "insubordination, rioting, guerilla warfare, or revolution
as act -- it can be said that a war machine has revived, that a new
nomadic potential has appeared." (p.386) "a non-subjectified machine
assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones." (p353) For
Deleuze and Guattari, the nomad is the "outsider." Nomadic thought
turbulence, " as a "distribution of heterogeneity in free space --" a " local absolute."
is "outside" thought (an expression they borrow from Blanchot) Nomadic

science is "minor science" which is itinerant, ambulant, and follows flows in
vectorial fields accross which singularities are scattered like so many
"accidents." (p372) Matter, in nomad science, is never prepared and
therefore homogenized matter, (see smooth/striated) but is essentially
laden with singularities,which constitute a form of content. (see
form/matter) In describing nomad art, Deleuze and Guattari describe
"a nomadic absolute, as a local integration moving from part to part
in an innite succession of linkages and changes in direction. It is an
absolute that is one with becoming itself, with process." (Mille
Plateaus, p 494)
You cant advocate both state action and action through those
who constantly rage against the state. (Improv as needed)
Impact Comparison
First of all, we solve for all flawed mindsets and knowledge.
The further division the aff is proposing only worsens their
problems.
In addition, by supporting the idea that we can only advocate
USFG action, the aff perpetuates the will of the state, suffusing
it into every cell of society. This acts as a turn on the
affirmative, in that they are perpetuating fascism.
Further, by inserting sad affects into the debate space, we lose
the will to act, another turn. We should explore the mind as
the nomad, and only that will teach our souls to live, allowing
us to take action. Another turn.
Framework
AT Not an Ocean
Ocean: A vast expanse of something, such as the mind or
knowledge Merriam Webster 14
("Ocean." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 6 July
2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean>. Its
Merriam Webster. Really?)
Full Denition of OCEAN 1 a : the whole body of salt water that
covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth b : any of the
large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great
ocean is divided 2 : a very large or unlimited space or quantity
Shell (long)
A. Counterinterpretation: We should have a discussion of
the topic not a topical discussion. The resolution cannot
be abandoned but should serve as an invitation to
dialogue that can preserve a balance between the clash
of civilizations now occurring within debate.
Galloway Asst Prof and Director of Debate @ Samford 2k7

Ryan-former GMU debater; Dinner and Conversation at the Argumentative
Table: Reconceptualizing Debate as an Argumentative Dialogue;
CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE; Vol. 28; p. 1-3.
By definition, debate coaches are contentious and the history of modern
debate has been marked by an inter-play of collegiality and competition
(Bruschke, 2004, p. 82). However, modern debate has amped up natural
levels of antagonism so that it now exists in a clash between one group
that employs an argumentative style heavily centered on evidence and
speed against another that seeks to criticize the form and style of these
debates. Debates between the two factions are frequently conceived as a
clash of civilizations (Solt, 2004, p.44). Rhetoric from both sides often
reaches a fever pitch. Tim ODonnell of Mary Washington Universitys
judging philosophy says that, right nowthere is a war going onand the
very future of policy debate as an educationally and competitively
coherent activity hangs in the balance (2008). The other side of the coin
is equally forthright. Asha Cerian offered in her judge philosophy to vote
on Ks [kritiks] and alternative forms of debate. And thats it (2007).
Similarly, Andy Ellis has posted a series of you-tube videos to e-debate
calling for a more radical approach. In one video entitled Unifying the
opposition, Ellis describes debate as a war and calls for insurgents
seeking to overthrow existing debate practices (Ellis, 2008b).
While
these views are extreme, long-time observers have noted changes in the
tone and tenor of debate discussions. Jeff Parcher observed that the
fragmentation of the 2004 National Debate Tournament seemed viscerally
different than previous disputes (2004, p. 89). These disagreements
seem highly personalized and wrought with frustrations, anxiety,
resistance, and backlash (Zompetti, 2004, p. 27). One coach noted that
the difference between the current era of factionalization and
controversies of the past is that, no one left counter-warrant debates in
tears. Much of the controversy involves the resolution itself, and whether
teams should have to defend the resolution, or whether they can mount a
broader criticism of the activity (Snider, 2003). Steve Woods notes that,
Academic debate is now entering a third state, a critical turn in the
activity. The identifying element of this change is that abandonment of the
role playing that the construct of fiat enabled (Woods, 2003, p. 87). This
journal previously (2004) addressed issues regarding the growing divide in
policy debate. However, the role of the debate resolution in the clash of
civilizations was largely ignored. Here, I defend the notion that activist
approaches of critical debaters can best flourish if grounded in topical
advocacy defined in terms of the resolution. This approach encourages the
pedagogical benefits of debates about discourse and representations while
preserving the educational advantages of switch-side debate . Debaters
increased reliance on speech act and performativity theory in debates
generates a need to step back and re-conceptualize the false dilemma of
the policy only or kritik only perspective. Policy debates theoretical
foundations should find root in an overarching theory of debate that
incorporates both policy and critical exchanges. Here, I will seek to
conceptualize debate as a dialogue, following the theoretical foundations
of Mikhail Bakhtin (1990) and Star Muir (1993) that connects the benefits
of dialogical modes of argument to competitive debate. Ideally, the
resolution should function to negotiate traditional and activist approaches .
Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of
ideas would preserve the affirmative teams obligation to uphold the
debate resolution. At the same time, this approach licenses debaters to
argue both discursive and performative advantages. While this view is
broader than many policy teams would like, and certainly more limited
than many critical teams would prefer, this approach captures the
advantages of both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis
point of argumentation for a full clash of ideas around these values. Here, I
begin with an introduction to the dialogic model, which I will relate to the
history of switch-side debate and the current controversy. Then, I will
defend my conception of debate as a dialogical exchange. Finally, I will
answer potential criticisms to the debate as a dialogue construct.
Prefer it:
1. Our education is better: rst, framework refuses to make
specic indicts to the aff, especially the methodology. Second,
they lose education because they dont bother learning
anything from our aff.
2. Fairness and innite regression there are innite amount
of things they could deem unacceptable. Framework is an
excuse to skirt arguments that they dont want to prep for and
gain ballots based solely on manipulating the rules of debate.
This is unfair-- debate is supposed to be a about the content,
not about the rules.
3. Our two methods arent mutally exclusive. Charlies

narrative from the top of the 1AC clearly says that sometimes
he advocates for USFG action, so at the very least well win
that we only add more forms of education and theres no
educational reason that we have to advocate for the USFG
every round.
4. Our 1AC method directly turns their framework. Our Kuhn
97 talks about how as pirates we operate as the nomadic war
machine. Our existence is based upon combating and
defending against the forces of the state to preserve our
autonomy. Kuhn speicifcally outlines how the modern state
apparatus necessarily striates space, and how our method is
the only way to return to the smooth.
5. Overlimiting outweighs their standards they still get
predictable ground they can internal link turn striated space,
they can say Deleuze bad, they can say pirates bad, the list
goes on.
6. Predictable norms of debate serve to undermine cultural
and social education in return for a fair contest. This
furthers the striation of the debate space that leads to endless
violence from the macropolitical.
Warner 3 [September 2003, Ede Warner Jr. is a Professor of
Communications and debate coach at the University of Louisville, "Go
Homers, Makeovers or Takeovers? A Privilege Analysis of Debate as a
Gaming Simulation]
More often than not, talk about privilege in debate is relegated mostly to
economic and occasionally gender- or race-based discussions. Refocused
recruiting efforts and accomplishments like Urban Debate Leagues and
Womens Caucuses at tournaments are addressing more overt concerns in
an effort to create more equal playing fields, yet tremendous inequities
remain that require explanation. Over twenty years of various diversity
efforts, especially in CEDA, have failed to substantially change the racial,
gender, social and economic composition of interscholastic policy debate
at its highest levels. The reason is simple: privilege extends much further
than just acknowledging overt and obvious disparities . Privilege creeps
into more subtle, covert spaces, like the essence of why and how people
play the game, recognizing that the rules and procedures are created by
those carrying that privilege. Snider argues that the greatness of debate
as a game is in his belief that it is short on inflexible rules and long on
debatable procedures. However, if procedures are functionally not
debatable and begin to look more like participation requirements than
starting points of discussion, the quality of the game, is not as successful
and well-designed (Snider, 1987, p. 123). Privilege envelopes both
substantive and stylistic procedures, increasing the likelihood that
supposedly debatable conventions become rigid norms, preventing

achievement of a more thoughtful game and creating entrance barriers
to successful participation. Heres how. Snider (1987) says that evaluation
of a winning procedural argument occurs through the lenses of
determining which procedures best facilitate achieving the goals of the
debate activity. Snider offers three such goals: 1) education of the
participants; 2) discussion of important issues in the resolution; and 3)
creation of a fair contest. He concedes that some may be missing. Of
course, interested participants with lesser privilege might select different
goals as more important, such as having a voice to discuss the topic
through the perspective of their social concerns, even if this perspective
doesnt fit nicely with some of the other goals. More often than not, the
creation of a fair contest is given an absolute priority relative to other
goals and justifies ignoring attempts to achieve other game objectives. At
least one implicit goal deserves mention: incorporation of the cultural and
social values of the participants. It makes sense that the like-minded
values of the largest participating class will dominant procedural and rule
development of a game simulation. Cultural and social values may appear
to have little or no relationship to the first three goals of debate. But in
fact, the cultural and social values will in many ways dictate the meaning
of Sniders goals. What types of education do the participants value?
Who decides what the important issues arethe participants? The
communities most directly related to the topic? Do cultural and social
values privilege any notions of fairness? Cultural and social background
surely impacts each of these areas tremendously. If there are cultural or
social disagreements over what constitutes education, what issues are
important, or what is fair, then privilege plays a much larger role in game
development than has been acknowledged to date.
7. Microfascism Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Guattari

evidence. Their attempt to striate the previously smooth
space of this debate round by telling us that we are restricted
from reading types of arguments like the 1AC necessarily
results in the microfascist thought process that we are
critiquing. When they attempt to censor out certain affects,
this results in the sterilization of this round so that we as the
non-governmental masses desire our repression. This why
debate trains us to think certain ways about things like the
state, and the ocean, and land, and it even changes the ways
that we communicate out of round. It makes us agents of
hegemony, which is why this community of so violent.
8. Melancholy Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence.

One of the ways that microfascism works is that it tells us that
we need to be sterile of most affects and that only way to look
at problems is through a sad affect. This affect is transmitted
to us through pessimism and resentment, and its the way that
the debate space has taught us to advocate. Always be
serious, extinction outweighs, these are the affects that
established powers use to make us sad about the problems in
the world so that we follow them blindly. In the end, we
become so sad about these problems that we can never hope
to solve them, which renders their external offense null. The
affect of the 1AC is a key disad to their interp because we are
the only ones who have of solving anything. Ever.
9. Their representative censorship is wholly intolerant and
necessitates globalized forms of repression. Instead, the way
we frame our work through obscure theories are the only
practical outlet, its a box of tools with which we can question
and break down oppressive structures.
Foucault & Deleuze 72 (Michel, Philosopher at the College de France,

Gilles, Philosopher at Vincennes, Intellectuals and Power: A conversation
between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, March 4, 1972. Posted on
libcom.org by Joseph Kay on Sep 6 2006.
https://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michelfoucault-and-gilles-deleuze)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
FOUCAULT: It seems to me that the political involvement of the intellectual was traditionally the product of
two different aspects of his activity: his position as an intellectual in bourgeois society, in the system of
capitalist production and within the ideology it produces or imposes (his exploitation, poverty, rejection,
persecution, the accusations of subversive activity, immorality, etc); and his proper discourse to the extent
that it revealed a particular truth, that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected.
These two forms of politicisation did not exclude each other, but, being of a different order, neither did
they coincide. Some were classed as "outcasts" and others as "socialists." During moments of violent
reaction on the part of the authorities, these two positions were readily fused: after 1848, after the
The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the

precise moment when the facts became incontrovertible, when it
was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes . The
intellectual spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the
name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth: [he/she] was
conscience, consciousness, and eloquence. In the most recent upheaval (3) the
Commune, after 1940.
intellectual discovered that the masses no longer need him to gain knowledge: they know perfectly well,
without illusion; they know far better than he and they are certainly capable of expressing themselves.
But there exists a system of power which blocks, prohibits, and

invalidates this discourse and this knowledge, a power not only
found in the manifest authority of censorship, but one that
profoundly and subtly penetrates an entire societal network.
Intellectuals are themselves agents of this system of power-the idea
of their responsibility for "consciousness" and discourse forms part

of the system. The intellectual's role is no longer to place [itself]
"somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled
truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of
power that transform him into its object and instrument in the
sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse.
"(4) In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to
apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising.
This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and
undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious . It is not to
"awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness
is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie),
but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and
not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is the regional system of this struggle. DELEUZE:
Precisely. A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with the signifier.
It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician
himself (who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is
inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It
is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my
book as a pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to
find your own instrument, which is necessarily an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is
an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself.
It is in the nature of power to

totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that
theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular
point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally
This is why the notion of reform is so stupid a nd

hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be
representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and
they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power
which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they
arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This
latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that
questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of
power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: the
different area.
smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the
protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to
There is no denying that our social system

is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in
all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In
my opinion, you were the rst-in your books and in the practical
sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the indignity
of speaking for others. Pre ridiculed representation and said it was
nished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this
"theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the theoretical fact that only
those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own
behalf.
explode the entire educational system.
Standards
AT Cede the Political

1. The political is already ceded
2. The negative doesnt access the political eitherthey are
roleplaying at, but dont actually use the political systems
3. The political in the status quo oppresses us as women, and
lots of other people
4. Focusing only on political actions allows us to ignore our own
responsibilities to social movements
Kappeler, 95 (Susanne, professor of humanities and social sciences at Al Akhawayan
University and lecturer at the University of east Anglia, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the
notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the
conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is
precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash
a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective
action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective
àssumption' of responsibility. Yet our
habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of

power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence,
our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the well-known illusion of our
apparent `powerlessness and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called political
disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in
their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and BosniaHercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we
are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that
therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it
seems to absolve us from having to try

to see any relation between our own actions and those events , or to recognize the connections
between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls
òrganized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally,
nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned
alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we tend to think that we cannot `do'
anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major
decisions are made. Which
is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics

tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I
were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we
seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and
since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were
indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is
perceived as `virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own
action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding
expression in ever more prevalent formulations like Ì want to stop this war', Ì want military intervention', Ì want to
stop this backlash', or Ì want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or
participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension: our willed refusal to feel
responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the
ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And
we àre' the war in our ùnconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a yellow form for
refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our
own and one for the òthers'. We
share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we
let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape òur feelings, our relationships, our values'
according to the structures and the values of war and violence .
Decision-Making Skills
1. We access good decision making for social movements
outside of this roundthis should be flowed as offense for the
aff
2. Specically, a) we change the decision of the ballot by
challenging the tranditional debate structures and b) we
critique that knowledge production that excludes people from
debate and academia.
AT Ground
1. You can critique our methodology, its not our problem if
after an eight minute speech, you have nothing to disagree
with.
2. Along with our method, our impacts and our framing of the
political are also neg ground
3. Education outweighs, its the reason why were paying cash
money to go to debate camp. If we dont learn from debate,
theres no reason for us to be here.
AT Limits
1. Limits are destructive, especially in the framework of
expression. Our arguments are based on our social location in
debate and the world. By putting limits on our social
locations, you effectively remove us from the debate.
2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change limits on a topic
restrict the ability to create new solutions and theories
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, and Leet,

Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute 6
(Roland, and Martin, From the Sublime to the Subliminal: Fear, Awe and
Wonder in International Politics Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
34(3), pg. 733)
A subliminal orientation is attentive to what is bubbling along under the
surface. It is mindful of how conscious attempts to understand conceal more
than they reveal, and purposeful efforts of progressive change may engender
more violence than they erase. For these reasons, Connolly emphasises that
ethical artistry has an element of navet and innocence. One is not quite
sure what one is doing. Such navet need not lead us back to the idealism of
the romantic period. One should not be nave about navet, Simon Critchley
would say. 56 Rather, the challenge of change is an experiment. It is
not locked up in a predetermined conception of where one is going.
It involves tentatively exploring the limits of ones being in the world, to see if
different interpretations are possible, how those interpretations might impact
upon the affects below the level of conscious thought, and vice versa. This
approach entails drawing upon multiple levels of thinking and being,
searching for changes in sensibilities that could give more weight to
minor feelings or to arguments that were previously ignored. 57
Wonder needs to be at the heart of such experiments, in contrast to the
resentment of an intellect angry with its own limitations. The ingredient of
wonder is necessary to disrupt and suspend the normal pressures of
returning to conscious habit and control. This exploration beyond the
conscious implies the need for an ethos of theorising and acting that is quite
different from the mode directed towards the cognitive justification of ideas
and concepts. Stephen White talks about circuits of reflection, affect and
argumentation . 58 Ideas and principles provide an orientation to practice,
the implications of that practice feed back into our affective outlook, and
processes of argumentation introduce other ideas and affects. The shift,
here, is from the vertical search for foundations in skyhooks
above or foundations below, to a horizontal movement into the
unknown.
3. Limits not key if we prove impacts and solvency for our aff,
that proves that our advocacy is important, and outweighs the
impact to limits.
4. Education is more important, its why we are here at debate
camp and here as debaters.
AT Predictability
1. Lack of predictability is inevitable- youre trying to destroy
our agency but predictability is key to competitive debate
2. They use this as a weapon against new arguments- running
this against k affs destroys the creativity in this round and it
justies always debating the same topics- imagine hearing
that damned planes aff again
3. Predictable debate is boring debate, we make it more
interesting from round to round, which means you are learning
more, and it better for competitive debate
4. This is a camp round. We disclosed. Were the antilab, you
should have been expecting this
AT Roleplaying Good / State Good

1. We access all of their portable skills, just because were not
roleplaying doesnt mean were not debating.
2. We can roleplay, but we know that what we say when we are
roleplaying wont happen after we walk out of the roundwith
our advocacy and using our social location, we can use what
we say in round outside in the rest of our lives
3. State focused debates preclude discussions of individual
action kills effectiveness and agency and justies violence
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, 2k (Roland, Popular

Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics pg. 8, Cambridge University
Press)
To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to declare
the state obsolete. States remain central actors in international politics and they have to be recognised
and theorised as such. In fact, my analysis will examine various ways in which states and the boundaries
between them have mediated the formation, functioning and impact of dissent. However, my reading of
There are
compelling reasons for such a strategy, and they go beyond a mere
recognition that a state-centric approach to international theory
engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of
the state and thus precludes an adequate understand ing of the
radical transformations that are currently unfolding in global life .
dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point.
Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theorists who convincingly portray the state not only as
an institution, but also, and primarily, as a set of 'stories' - of which the state-centric approach to
international theory is a perfect example. It is part of a legitimisation process that
highlights, promotes and naturalises certain political practices and the territorial context within which they
take place. Taken together, these stories provide the state with a sense of identity, coherence and unity.
They create boundaries between an inside and an outside, between a people and its others. Shapiro
state-stories also exclude, for they seek 'to repress or

delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space
they reflect.` And it is these processes of exclusion that impose a
certain political order and provide the state with a legitimate
rationale for violent encounters."
stresses that such
AT Switch-Side Debate
1. The negative doesnt switch sides. They dont read our
arguments. They probably dont even read switch side bad.
2. Switch-side style destroys debate- without conviction
behind statements the purpose for this quest for truth
becomes meaningless. The pathos in this round comes from
narratives in the form of aff
Greene and Hicks 5- (Ronald Walter and Darrin, Insert Quals. Lost convictions. Cultural
Studies. Volume 19, Issue 1. InformaWorld. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?
content=a738568563&fulltext=713240928)
While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches back to the challenges against the ancient
practice of dissoi logoi, we want to turn our attention to the unique cultural history of debate during the
Cold War. In the midst of Joseph McCarthys impending censure by the US Senate, the US Military
Academy, the US Naval Academy and, subsequently, all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska
refused to affirm the resolution / Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the
Peoples Republic of China. Yet, switch-side debating remained the national standard, and, by the fall of
1955, the military academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska were debating in favour of the next
resolution. Richard Murphy (1957), however, was not content to let the controversy pass without comment.
Murphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten years.
debating both sides of the question was unethical

because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a
dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate
by divorcing it from a genuine search for truth. Murphys case against the
Murphy held that
ethics of debating both sides rested on what he thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle:
A public utterance is a public commitment. In Murphys opinion, debate was

best imagined as a species of public speaking akin to public advocacy on the
affairs of the day. If debate is a form of public speaking, Murphy reasoned, and a
public utterance entails a public commitment, then speakers have an ethical
obligation to study the question, discuss it with others until they
know their position, take a stand and then / and only then /
engage in public advocacy in favour of their viewpoint. Murphy had no
doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public advocacy and was, hence, rhetorical, although this
point would be severely attacked by proponents of switch-side debating. Modern debating, Murphy
claimed, is geared to the public platform and to rhetorical, rather than dialectical principles (p. 7).
Intercollegiate debate was rhetorical, not dialectical, because its propositions were specific and timely
rather than speculative and universal. Debaters evidenced their claims by appeals to authority and opinion
rather than formal logic, and debaters appealed to an audience, even if that audience was a single person
sitting in the back of a room at a relatively isolated debate tournament. As such, debate as a species of
We would surely hold in

contempt any public actor who spoke with equal force, and without
genuine conviction, for both sides of a public policy question. Why,
asked Murphy, would we exempt students from the same ethical
obligation?
public argument should be held to the ethics of the platform.
3. No impact- the potential for all of debate cant be ruined by

just this individual round- at worst, this argument is not a
reason to vote neg
AT Topical Version of the Aff

1. We arent going to support the government holding power
over us in order to break free from the government.
2. The most important part of our advocacy is in how it relates
to us, our social location, and how we view debate and the
world. Our advocacy doesnt function in isolation, it needs to
be personal.
***2C-For Pirates Against

Kritikal***
OV
The nexus question for this debate is who best provides an
intellectual model for the exploration of the Earths oceans.
We present the nomad, a homeless wanderer who chooses in
what direction he, she, or preferred pronoun, would like to go
as a priority, not specic locations. We reposition our politics
of the mind and knowledge with the nomad to focus on a
different method of exploration, one that zig-zags across the
mind, in an attempt to solve for all flawed mindsets. We not
only subsume our opponents arguments, BUT A KEY
DISTINCTION IS THAT WE SOLVE FOR FLAWED LOGIC THAT MAY
ATTEMPT TO ERODE THE STRUCTURES OUR OPPONENTS ARE
ADVOCATING. THIS MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY MAKES A PERM
IMPOSSIBLE. We do this withdrawn of melancholy and full of
spontaneity so that the nomads can disrupt flawed mindsets in
debate and teach the soul how to live with feeling instead of
how to survive. Thats Kuhn, and Deleuze and Parnet.
We Need a Bottom Up Approach

(Empirics)
Touissant LOverture ( too-sant la over-chure), leader of the Haitian revolution
was tricked and killed by napoleon when he pursued governmental solvency.
What worked was his bottom up revolution with the prolitereat, what failed
was working with the bourgeoisie who were fundamentally opposed to him.
When you make the bourgeoisie love you and think without a preconceived
hate of you then they will work with you. This is only possible through
bottom up persistence, thats our poem. The Haitian people reified slavery
because it was all that they knew. They didnt wipe their minds clean of their
flawed ontology, and so they reinforced it. Now Haiti is a terrible place to
live.
Bottom up revolutions are the only true solvency. Look also to the institution
of Pedro II as the first emperor of Brazil. His people were angry, his people
wanted change, he heard them, he listened, and he rejected his OWN FATHER
THE KING OF PORTUGAL AND CREATED AN INDIPENDANT POLITICAL STATE
abolishing slavery and leading to the betterment of society. Brazil is doing a
hell of a lot better than Haiti right now. Pedro fundamentally altered his
perception of reality.
Look also to the communist revolution in Russia. It was a top down revolution
under the guise of bottom up, and it reified serf oppression worse than the
tsars. Instead look to Lech Walesa. His movement was small, organizing
labor unions of the proletariat in 80s era Russia, still under the oppression of
the upper members of the party. He organized bottom up revolution and
ensured true solvency and change. Then he was one of the first leaders of a
free and independent Poland, and look at Poland now. Doing a lot better than
Haiti.
The fact of the matter is that the bottom up solves. Working at the microlevel extends to the macro level because the macro-level is composed of the
micro-level. It takes more time but its worth it. Do things too fast and do
them wrong, and suffer under oppression while under the impression that you
actually changed something.
Spillover/Role Of Intellectual
Cards
Extend our Hall 10 evidence tagged: OUR DEVELOPMENTAL
APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE. The University,
academia, values intelligent debate. It is individuals who must
listen and learn. It is individuals and intellectuals that cause
spillover.
It is the role of an intellectual like you to speak out
passionately about the right thing. Empirically, stances of
passivism lead to Nazi attitudes. The choice to not speak out
against anthropocentrism will have consequences and
influence others. KETELS Assc Prof of English @Temple University 1996
Violet-THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!" The Power of the Word;
THE ANNALS OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, November; 548 Annals 45;
Intellectuals are not customarily thought of as men and women of

action. Our circumstances are ambiguous, our credibility precarious. While our sense of
past and future is "radically linguistic,' we scarcely have a common
human language anymore, and our fashionable linguistic skepticism
elevates the denying of verities to an article of faith, out of which we
build academic careers of nay-saying.
We use the written word as the primary political medium for gaining
attention. We are "writing people," who traffic in words and thus
carry an unavoidable accountability for what we say with them.5
Havel defines intellectuals as people who devote their lives "to thinking in
general terms about the affairs of this world and the broader context
of things . . . professionally,' for their occupation.
If we aspire to be distinguished from mere scribblers, history demands that we choose between being "the apologist for rulers [and]
an advisor to the people; the tragedy of the twentieth century is
that these two functions have ceased to exist independently of one
another, and intellectuals like Sartre who thought they were fullling
one role were inevitably drawn to play both."
Alternatively, we can choose with Richard Rorty, echoing Max Weber, to stay out
of politics, "where passionate commitment and sterile excitation are out of
place," keeping "politics in the hands of charismatic leaders and
trained officials." We can choose to pursue "[our] own private perfection.'
That particular stance, however expedient, did not work well in Germany. In
Czechoslovakia, it produced wartime Nazi collaborator Gustave
Husak, the "President of Forgetting," who sought to perfect

totalitarianism by systematically purging "the Party and state, the
arts, the universities, and the media of everyone who dare [d] to
speak critically, independently, or even intelligently about what the regime define[d]
as politics.' It produced Tudjman and Milogevie in Yugoslavia.
Intellectuals can choose their roles, but cannot not choose, nor can we
evade the full weight of the consequences attendant on our choices.
"It is always the intellectuals, however
we may shrink from the chilling sound of that word . . .
moral responsibility."'
who must bear the full weight of
Links/Other Cool Stuff
Kritikal Affs/Ks
We are advocating the burning of all the maps that compose
the mind. By advocating going to one destination, one set
mindset, the aff directly endorses striation. We need to burn
the maps of the mind, the segmentation that society
perpetuates into our minds. We need to smooth the mind, burn
all the maps, and doing so will solve for all epistemology, all
flawed logic and knowledge.
Bottom-Up Approach Needed

Cross-apply all of our empirics. We have historically proven
that you need to work from the bottom up, and shape the
micro-political before you can shape the macro-political. Their
attempt to just go straight for the jugular on this one issue is
doomed to fail. As we proved with our Haiti analytic, stopping
after the one Kritik will fail. We need to completely purge the
world of flawed logic, and start clean from scratch in order to
solve for the kritik. We are a prior question.
Any team that reads Kingsnorth and Hine and

talks about binaries
As we laid out in our Deleuze and Guittari evidence, in order
for the Nature/Culture binary to be deconstructed, we must
rst get rid of the striation of space. A direct quote is When
the ancient Greeks speak of the open space of the nomos
nondelimited, unpartitioned; the pre-urban countryside;
mountainside, plateau, steppethey oppose it not to cultivation,
which may actually be part of it, but to the polis, the city, the
town.
While this may sound like a link of omission, its actually an

incredibly germane prior question, which is what matters. Our
kritik is a pre-requisite to their affirmative. In order to
deconstruct the binary that the affirmative is Kritiking, we rst
need to stop the striation of space.
Ext Microfascism
Our opponents have tried to go to one set endpoint, one set
mindset, thereby striating the mind. This is part of the way
that institutions like the state and traditional debate order our
thought process so that the only way we can only talk,
question, and think is through a controlled means. Weve been
made to think the only way we can advocate for plans is by
going straight for them. This internalized microfascism is just
how these systems commit violent acts.
Ext Melancholy
Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence. My opponents seek
to insert sad affects, or emotions and feelings, into the debate
space with their own impacts. But just talking about their
impacts only serves to make us sad about them because of the
way that the state and other power structures communicate
this way of looking at problems so that no change actually
occurs. We should flee this plague of misery and use the
spontaneous affect of the nomads to teach our souls to live
instead of saving our souls. This is an a priori question about
how we look at problems in this space.
A2 Perm
Let us explain our alt, so distinction is clear. A KEY
DISTINCTION IS THAT, BY ATTEMPTING TO SAIL TOWARDS ONE
SET MINDSET, THE AFF FURTHER STRIATES THE MIND, MAKING
FAILED LOGIC INEVITABLE.
WE SOLVE FOR FLAWED LOGIC THAT MAY ATTEMPT TO ERODE
THE STRUCTURES OUR OPPONENTS ARE ADVOCATING. THIS
MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY MAKES A PERM IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT
SEVERING OUT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE.
[[[[IMPACT SEVERANCE AS YOU SEE FIT]]]]
Impact Comparison
With the other team advocating going towards one mindset,
one specic epistemology, they reinforce striation of the mind.
This reinforces the microfascism, and further perpetuates
melancholy.
But thats not all. By reinforcing the striation of the mind, the
other side has made failure for their own kritik inevitable, in
that flawed logic will persist. Only by completely smoothing
knowledge and the mind can we solve for all kritiks, so not
only do we solve, but we are also a prior question.
Extend Microfascism
Extend Melancholy
Framework
AT Not an Ocean
Ocean: A vast expanse of something, such as the mind or
knowledge Merriam Webster 14
("Ocean." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 6 July
2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean>. Its
Merriam Webster. Really?)
Full Denition of OCEAN 1 a : the whole body of salt water that
covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth b : any of the
large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great
ocean is divided 2 : a very large or unlimited space or quantity
Shell (long)
A. Counterinterpretation: We should have a discussion of
the topic not a topical discussion. The resolution cannot
be abandoned but should serve as an invitation to
dialogue that can preserve a balance between the clash
of civilizations now occurring within debate.
Galloway Asst Prof and Director of Debate @ Samford 2k7

Ryan-former GMU debater; Dinner and Conversation at the Argumentative
Table: Reconceptualizing Debate as an Argumentative Dialogue;
CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE; Vol. 28; p. 1-3.
By definition, debate coaches are contentious and the history of modern
debate has been marked by an inter-play of collegiality and competition
(Bruschke, 2004, p. 82). However, modern debate has amped up natural
levels of antagonism so that it now exists in a clash between one group
that employs an argumentative style heavily centered on evidence and
speed against another that seeks to criticize the form and style of these
debates. Debates between the two factions are frequently conceived as a
clash of civilizations (Solt, 2004, p.44). Rhetoric from both sides often
reaches a fever pitch. Tim ODonnell of Mary Washington Universitys
judging philosophy says that, right nowthere is a war going onand the
very future of policy debate as an educationally and competitively
coherent activity hangs in the balance (2008). The other side of the coin
is equally forthright. Asha Cerian offered in her judge philosophy to vote
on Ks [kritiks] and alternative forms of debate. And thats it (2007).
Similarly, Andy Ellis has posted a series of you-tube videos to e-debate
calling for a more radical approach. In one video entitled Unifying the
opposition, Ellis describes debate as a war and calls for insurgents
seeking to overthrow existing debate practices (Ellis, 2008b).
While
these views are extreme, long-time observers have noted changes in the
tone and tenor of debate discussions. Jeff Parcher observed that the
fragmentation of the 2004 National Debate Tournament seemed viscerally
different than previous disputes (2004, p. 89). These disagreements
seem highly personalized and wrought with frustrations, anxiety,
resistance, and backlash (Zompetti, 2004, p. 27). One coach noted that
the difference between the current era of factionalization and
controversies of the past is that, no one left counter-warrant debates in
tears. Much of the controversy involves the resolution itself, and whether
teams should have to defend the resolution, or whether they can mount a
broader criticism of the activity (Snider, 2003). Steve Woods notes that,
Academic debate is now entering a third state, a critical turn in the
activity. The identifying element of this change is that abandonment of the
role playing that the construct of fiat enabled (Woods, 2003, p. 87). This
journal previously (2004) addressed issues regarding the growing divide in
policy debate. However, the role of the debate resolution in the clash of
civilizations was largely ignored. Here, I defend the notion that activist
approaches of critical debaters can best flourish if grounded in topical
advocacy defined in terms of the resolution. This approach encourages the
pedagogical benefits of debates about discourse and representations while
preserving the educational advantages of switch-side debate . Debaters
increased reliance on speech act and performativity theory in debates
generates a need to step back and re-conceptualize the false dilemma of
the policy only or kritik only perspective. Policy debates theoretical
foundations should find root in an overarching theory of debate that
incorporates both policy and critical exchanges. Here, I will seek to
conceptualize debate as a dialogue, following the theoretical foundations
of Mikhail Bakhtin (1990) and Star Muir (1993) that connects the benefits
of dialogical modes of argument to competitive debate. Ideally, the
resolution should function to negotiate traditional and activist approaches .
Taking the resolution as an invitation to a dialogue about a particular set of
ideas would preserve the affirmative teams obligation to uphold the
debate resolution. At the same time, this approach licenses debaters to
argue both discursive and performative advantages. While this view is
broader than many policy teams would like, and certainly more limited
than many critical teams would prefer, this approach captures the
advantages of both modes of debate while maintaining the stable axis
point of argumentation for a full clash of ideas around these values. Here, I
begin with an introduction to the dialogic model, which I will relate to the
history of switch-side debate and the current controversy. Then, I will
defend my conception of debate as a dialogical exchange. Finally, I will
answer potential criticisms to the debate as a dialogue construct.
Prefer it:
1. Our education is better: rst, framework refuses to make
specic indicts to the aff, especially the methodology. Second,
they lose education because they dont bother learning
anything from our aff.
2. Fairness and innite regression there are innite amount
of things they could deem unacceptable. Framework is an
excuse to skirt arguments that they dont want to prep for and
gain ballots based solely on manipulating the rules of debate.
This is unfair-- debate is supposed to be a about the content,
not about the rules.
3. Our two methods arent mutally exclusive. Charlies

narrative from the top of the 1AC clearly says that sometimes
he advocates for USFG action, so at the very least well win
that we only add more forms of education and theres no
educational reason that we have to advocate for the USFG
every round.
4. Our 1AC method directly turns their framework. Our Kuhn
97 talks about how as pirates we operate as the nomadic war
machine. Our existence is based upon combating and
defending against the forces of the state to preserve our
autonomy. Kuhn speicifcally outlines how the modern state
apparatus necessarily striates space, and how our method is
the only way to return to the smooth.
5. Overlimiting outweighs their standards they still get
predictable ground they can internal link turn striated space,
they can say Deleuze bad, they can say pirates bad, the list
goes on.
6. Predictable norms of debate serve to undermine cultural
and social education in return for a fair contest. This
furthers the striation of the debate space that leads to endless
violence from the macropolitical.
Warner 3 [September 2003, Ede Warner Jr. is a Professor of
Communications and debate coach at the University of Louisville, "Go
Homers, Makeovers or Takeovers? A Privilege Analysis of Debate as a
Gaming Simulation]
More often than not, talk about privilege in debate is relegated mostly to
economic and occasionally gender- or race-based discussions. Refocused
recruiting efforts and accomplishments like Urban Debate Leagues and
Womens Caucuses at tournaments are addressing more overt concerns in
an effort to create more equal playing fields, yet tremendous inequities
remain that require explanation. Over twenty years of various diversity
efforts, especially in CEDA, have failed to substantially change the racial,
gender, social and economic composition of interscholastic policy debate
at its highest levels. The reason is simple: privilege extends much further
than just acknowledging overt and obvious disparities . Privilege creeps
into more subtle, covert spaces, like the essence of why and how people
play the game, recognizing that the rules and procedures are created by
those carrying that privilege. Snider argues that the greatness of debate
as a game is in his belief that it is short on inflexible rules and long on
debatable procedures. However, if procedures are functionally not
debatable and begin to look more like participation requirements than
starting points of discussion, the quality of the game, is not as successful
and well-designed (Snider, 1987, p. 123). Privilege envelopes both
substantive and stylistic procedures, increasing the likelihood that
supposedly debatable conventions become rigid norms, preventing

achievement of a more thoughtful game and creating entrance barriers
to successful participation. Heres how. Snider (1987) says that evaluation
of a winning procedural argument occurs through the lenses of
determining which procedures best facilitate achieving the goals of the
debate activity. Snider offers three such goals: 1) education of the
participants; 2) discussion of important issues in the resolution; and 3)
creation of a fair contest. He concedes that some may be missing. Of
course, interested participants with lesser privilege might select different
goals as more important, such as having a voice to discuss the topic
through the perspective of their social concerns, even if this perspective
doesnt fit nicely with some of the other goals. More often than not, the
creation of a fair contest is given an absolute priority relative to other
goals and justifies ignoring attempts to achieve other game objectives. At
least one implicit goal deserves mention: incorporation of the cultural and
social values of the participants. It makes sense that the like-minded
values of the largest participating class will dominant procedural and rule
development of a game simulation. Cultural and social values may appear
to have little or no relationship to the first three goals of debate. But in
fact, the cultural and social values will in many ways dictate the meaning
of Sniders goals. What types of education do the participants value?
Who decides what the important issues arethe participants? The
communities most directly related to the topic? Do cultural and social
values privilege any notions of fairness? Cultural and social background
surely impacts each of these areas tremendously. If there are cultural or
social disagreements over what constitutes education, what issues are
important, or what is fair, then privilege plays a much larger role in game
development than has been acknowledged to date.
7. Microfascism Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Guattari

evidence. Their attempt to striate the previously smooth
space of this debate round by telling us that we are restricted
from reading types of arguments like the 1AC necessarily
results in the microfascist thought process that we are
critiquing. When they attempt to censor out certain affects,
this results in the sterilization of this round so that we as the
non-governmental masses desire our repression. This why
debate trains us to think certain ways about things like the
state, and the ocean, and land, and it even changes the ways
that we communicate out of round. It makes us agents of
hegemony, which is why this community of so violent.
8. Melancholy Disad: Extend our Deleuze and Parnet evidence.

One of the ways that microfascism works is that it tells us that
we need to be sterile of most affects and that only way to look
at problems is through a sad affect. This affect is transmitted
to us through pessimism and resentment, and its the way that
the debate space has taught us to advocate. Always be
serious, extinction outweighs, these are the affects that
established powers use to make us sad about the problems in
the world so that we follow them blindly. In the end, we
become so sad about these problems that we can never hope
to solve them, which renders their external offense null. The
affect of the 1AC is a key disad to their interp because we are
the only ones who have of solving anything. Ever.
9. Their representative censorship is wholly intolerant and
necessitates globalized forms of repression. Instead, the way
we frame our work through obscure theories are the only
practical outlet, its a box of tools with which we can question
and break down oppressive structures.
Foucault & Deleuze 72 (Michel, Philosopher at the College de France,

Gilles, Philosopher at Vincennes, Intellectuals and Power: A conversation
between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, March 4, 1972. Posted on
libcom.org by Joseph Kay on Sep 6 2006.
https://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michelfoucault-and-gilles-deleuze)CEFS
*edited for gendered language*
FOUCAULT: It seems to me that the political involvement of the intellectual was traditionally the product of
two different aspects of his activity: his position as an intellectual in bourgeois society, in the system of
capitalist production and within the ideology it produces or imposes (his exploitation, poverty, rejection,
persecution, the accusations of subversive activity, immorality, etc); and his proper discourse to the extent
that it revealed a particular truth, that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected.
These two forms of politicisation did not exclude each other, but, being of a different order, neither did
they coincide. Some were classed as "outcasts" and others as "socialists." During moments of violent
reaction on the part of the authorities, these two positions were readily fused: after 1848, after the
The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the

precise moment when the facts became incontrovertible, when it
was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes . The
intellectual spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the
name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth: [he/she] was
conscience, consciousness, and eloquence. In the most recent upheaval (3) the
Commune, after 1940.
intellectual discovered that the masses no longer need him to gain knowledge: they know perfectly well,
without illusion; they know far better than he and they are certainly capable of expressing themselves.
But there exists a system of power which blocks, prohibits, and

invalidates this discourse and this knowledge, a power not only
found in the manifest authority of censorship, but one that
profoundly and subtly penetrates an entire societal network.
Intellectuals are themselves agents of this system of power-the idea
of their responsibility for "consciousness" and discourse forms part

of the system. The intellectual's role is no longer to place [itself]
"somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled
truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of
power that transform him into its object and instrument in the
sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse.
"(4) In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to
apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising.
This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and
undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious . It is not to
"awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness
is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie),
but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and
not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is the regional system of this struggle. DELEUZE:
Precisely. A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with the signifier.
It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician
himself (who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is
inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It
is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my
book as a pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to
find your own instrument, which is necessarily an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is
an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself.
It is in the nature of power to

totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that
theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular
point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally
This is why the notion of reform is so stupid a nd

hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be
representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and
they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power
which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they
arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This
latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that
questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of
power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: the
different area.
smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the
protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to
There is no denying that our social system

is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in
all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In
my opinion, you were the rst-in your books and in the practical
sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the indignity
of speaking for others. Pre ridiculed representation and said it was
nished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this
"theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the theoretical fact that only
those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own
behalf.
explode the entire educational system.
Standards
AT Cede the Political

1. The political is already ceded
2. The negative doesnt access the political eitherthey are
roleplaying at, but dont actually use the political systems
3. The political in the status quo oppresses us as women, and
lots of other people
4. Focusing only on political actions allows us to ignore our own
responsibilities to social movements
Kappeler, 95 (Susanne, professor of humanities and social sciences at Al Akhawayan
University and lecturer at the University of east Anglia, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the
notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the
conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is
precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash
a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective
action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective
àssumption' of responsibility. Yet our
habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of

power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence,
our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the well-known illusion of our
apparent `powerlessness and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called political
disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in
their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and BosniaHercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we
are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that
therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it
seems to absolve us from having to try

to see any relation between our own actions and those events , or to recognize the connections
between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls
òrganized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally,
nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned
alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we tend to think that we cannot `do'
anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major
decisions are made. Which
is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics

tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I
were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we
seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and
since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were
indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is
perceived as `virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own
action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding
expression in ever more prevalent formulations like Ì want to stop this war', Ì want military intervention', Ì want to
stop this backlash', or Ì want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or
participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension: our willed refusal to feel
responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the
ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And
we àre' the war in our ùnconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a yellow form for
refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our
own and one for the òthers'. We
share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we
let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape òur feelings, our relationships, our values'
according to the structures and the values of war and violence .
Decision-Making Skills
1. We access good decision making for social movements
outside of this roundthis should be flowed as offense for the
aff
2. Specically, a) we change the decision of the ballot by
challenging the tranditional debate structures and b) we
critique that knowledge production that excludes people from
debate and academia.
AT Ground
1. You can critique our methodology, its not our problem if
after an eight minute speech, you have nothing to disagree
with.
2. Along with our method, our impacts and our framing of the
political are also neg ground
3. Education outweighs, its the reason why were paying cash
money to go to debate camp. If we dont learn from debate,
theres no reason for us to be here.
AT Limits
1. Limits are destructive, especially in the framework of
expression. Our arguments are based on our social location in
debate and the world. By putting limits on our social
locations, you effectively remove us from the debate.
2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change limits on a topic
restrict the ability to create new solutions and theories
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, and Leet,

Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute 6
(Roland, and Martin, From the Sublime to the Subliminal: Fear, Awe and
Wonder in International Politics Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
34(3), pg. 733)
A subliminal orientation is attentive to what is bubbling along under the
surface. It is mindful of how conscious attempts to understand conceal more
than they reveal, and purposeful efforts of progressive change may engender
more violence than they erase. For these reasons, Connolly emphasises that
ethical artistry has an element of navet and innocence. One is not quite
sure what one is doing. Such navet need not lead us back to the idealism of
the romantic period. One should not be nave about navet, Simon Critchley
would say. 56 Rather, the challenge of change is an experiment. It is
not locked up in a predetermined conception of where one is going.
It involves tentatively exploring the limits of ones being in the world, to see if
different interpretations are possible, how those interpretations might impact
upon the affects below the level of conscious thought, and vice versa. This
approach entails drawing upon multiple levels of thinking and being,
searching for changes in sensibilities that could give more weight to
minor feelings or to arguments that were previously ignored. 57
Wonder needs to be at the heart of such experiments, in contrast to the
resentment of an intellect angry with its own limitations. The ingredient of
wonder is necessary to disrupt and suspend the normal pressures of
returning to conscious habit and control. This exploration beyond the
conscious implies the need for an ethos of theorising and acting that is quite
different from the mode directed towards the cognitive justification of ideas
and concepts. Stephen White talks about circuits of reflection, affect and
argumentation . 58 Ideas and principles provide an orientation to practice,
the implications of that practice feed back into our affective outlook, and
processes of argumentation introduce other ideas and affects. The shift,
here, is from the vertical search for foundations in skyhooks
above or foundations below, to a horizontal movement into the
unknown.
3. Limits not key if we prove impacts and solvency for our aff,
that proves that our advocacy is important, and outweighs the
impact to limits.
4. Education is more important, its why we are here at debate
camp and here as debaters.
AT Predictability
1. Lack of predictability is inevitable- youre trying to destroy
our agency but predictability is key to competitive debate
2. They use this as a weapon against new arguments- running
this against k affs destroys the creativity in this round and it
justies always debating the same topics- imagine hearing
that damned planes aff again
3. Predictable debate is boring debate, we make it more
interesting from round to round, which means you are learning
more, and it better for competitive debate
4. This is a camp round. We disclosed. Were the antilab, you
should have been expecting this
AT Roleplaying Good / State Good

1. We access all of their portable skills, just because were not
roleplaying doesnt mean were not debating.
2. We can roleplay, but we know that what we say when we are
roleplaying wont happen after we walk out of the roundwith
our advocacy and using our social location, we can use what
we say in round outside in the rest of our lives
3. State focused debates preclude discussions of individual
action kills effectiveness and agency and justies violence
Bleiker, professor of International Relations, 2k (Roland, Popular

Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics pg. 8, Cambridge University
Press)
To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to declare
the state obsolete. States remain central actors in international politics and they have to be recognised
and theorised as such. In fact, my analysis will examine various ways in which states and the boundaries
between them have mediated the formation, functioning and impact of dissent. However, my reading of
There are
compelling reasons for such a strategy, and they go beyond a mere
recognition that a state-centric approach to international theory
engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of
the state and thus precludes an adequate understand ing of the
radical transformations that are currently unfolding in global life .
dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point.
Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theorists who convincingly portray the state not only as
an institution, but also, and primarily, as a set of 'stories' - of which the state-centric approach to
international theory is a perfect example. It is part of a legitimisation process that
highlights, promotes and naturalises certain political practices and the territorial context within which they
take place. Taken together, these stories provide the state with a sense of identity, coherence and unity.
They create boundaries between an inside and an outside, between a people and its others. Shapiro
state-stories also exclude, for they seek 'to repress or

delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space
they reflect.` And it is these processes of exclusion that impose a
certain political order and provide the state with a legitimate
rationale for violent encounters."
stresses that such
AT Switch-Side Debate
1. The negative doesnt switch sides. They dont read our
arguments. They probably dont even read switch side bad.
2. Switch-side style destroys debate- without conviction
behind statements the purpose for this quest for truth
becomes meaningless. The pathos in this round comes from
narratives in the form of aff
Greene and Hicks 5- (Ronald Walter and Darrin, Insert Quals. Lost convictions. Cultural
Studies. Volume 19, Issue 1. InformaWorld. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?
content=a738568563&fulltext=713240928)
While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches back to the challenges against the ancient
practice of dissoi logoi, we want to turn our attention to the unique cultural history of debate during the
Cold War. In the midst of Joseph McCarthys impending censure by the US Senate, the US Military
Academy, the US Naval Academy and, subsequently, all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska
refused to affirm the resolution / Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the
Peoples Republic of China. Yet, switch-side debating remained the national standard, and, by the fall of
1955, the military academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska were debating in favour of the next
resolution. Richard Murphy (1957), however, was not content to let the controversy pass without comment.
Murphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten years.
debating both sides of the question was unethical

because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a
dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate
by divorcing it from a genuine search for truth. Murphys case against the
Murphy held that
ethics of debating both sides rested on what he thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle:
A public utterance is a public commitment. In Murphys opinion, debate was

best imagined as a species of public speaking akin to public advocacy on the
affairs of the day. If debate is a form of public speaking, Murphy reasoned, and a
public utterance entails a public commitment, then speakers have an ethical
obligation to study the question, discuss it with others until they
know their position, take a stand and then / and only then /
engage in public advocacy in favour of their viewpoint. Murphy had no
doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public advocacy and was, hence, rhetorical, although this
point would be severely attacked by proponents of switch-side debating. Modern debating, Murphy
claimed, is geared to the public platform and to rhetorical, rather than dialectical principles (p. 7).
Intercollegiate debate was rhetorical, not dialectical, because its propositions were specific and timely
rather than speculative and universal. Debaters evidenced their claims by appeals to authority and opinion
rather than formal logic, and debaters appealed to an audience, even if that audience was a single person
sitting in the back of a room at a relatively isolated debate tournament. As such, debate as a species of
We would surely hold in

contempt any public actor who spoke with equal force, and without
genuine conviction, for both sides of a public policy question. Why,
asked Murphy, would we exempt students from the same ethical
obligation?
public argument should be held to the ethics of the platform.
3. No impact- the potential for all of debate cant be ruined by

just this individual round- at worst, this argument is not a
reason to vote neg
AT Topical Version of the Aff

1. We arent going to support the government holding power
over us in order to break free from the government.
2. The most important part of our advocacy is in how it relates
to us, our social location, and how we view debate and the
world. Our advocacy doesnt function in isolation, it needs to
be personal.

Nomads Affirmative - Georgetown 2014

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nomads Affirmative - Georgetown 2014

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Deleuzian Nomads (No

PLEASE LOOK IN THE OTHER PIRATES MODULES FOR EXTRA

If you stay there long enough,

There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We

Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the

to take their work seriously is to redraw the

This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean

Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of

The Smooth and the Striated introduces

the maritime model presents the special problem of the sea

(Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479).

The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a

Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari A Thousand

It is not sufficient to dene bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with

another regime, coexistent with the separation and

Even after the

machine is installed in each hole, in every niche.

more classical and less

separable from complex

assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from

expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is

already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions,

supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and

avoided. The first is axiological and consists in

But microfascisms are

We present the sea as a metaphor for the mind and

the unchanging. The predictability and solidity of mountains and

CHANGE emerges from the UNCHANGING; hence the symbolism

Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in

and static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain:

Thus we advocate the exploration of the mind and

Heckman 2(Davin Heckman, writer for Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in

WAR MACHINE: The

"War Machine" is a tool of the nomad through which

the State apparatus appropriates the war machine,

Melancholy negates the will to act it makes us slaves of the

to multiply the affects which express or encompass a maximum of

OUR DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH IS KEY TO SOCIAL CHANGE.

vice-chancellor @ University of Salford 2k10

towards tradition, must be rendered malleable by lived experience in a

universities are subject to legislation that seeks to advance equality for

of the founding values of the academy; a constant openness to new

****1NC Policy Affs****

They'll start to hear you

There are delineations between the types of knowledge. We

Those whose writings [15] approach the shores of the

to take their work seriously is to redraw the

This division is the striation of a previously smooth ocean

Lysen and Pisters 12 (Flora Lysen, PhD candidate at the University of

The Smooth and the Striated introduces

the maritime model presents the special problem of the sea

(Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 479).

The conceptual ordering in the striation of the ocean erects a

Deleuze & Guattari 80 (Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari A Thousand

It is not sufficient to dene bureaucracy by a rigid segmentarity with

another regime, coexistent with the separation and

Even after the

machine is installed in each hole, in every niche.

more classical and less

separable from complex

assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from

expectations, semiotic systems, etc. Desire is

already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions,

supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and

1NC Policy Affs

1NC Kritikal Affs