Oklahoma Debate [Tournament] Hello everybody. Im Chris Leonardi, and this is the lecture on Advanced Criticism Argumentation.

[File] 1

While this lecture might seem somewhat elementary to begin with, Id like to take a large part of this lecture and dedicate it to resolving what I believe to be some of the largest conceptual roadblocks that high school debaters often face when approaching the K as a categor of argument! I"ve divided this portion of the lecture into a few sections that are personal peeves of mine regarding how high school kids debate the K# but don"t get me wrong$ these are not %ust anno ing habits! These are learning patterns regarding st les of argumentation and literature bases that become intellectual muscle memor $ and often stunt the mental growth of debaters! &voiding these kinds of categorical fau' pas is something I consider to be crucial to the growth of a critical debater$ and so I"d like to walk ou through the process of not onl understanding$ but asking (uestions about and learning the K from the ground up! The irst o these sections is what I like to call# The Traged of the )abel I think that maybe the most common kinds o !uestions I get asked about the " go something like this# $How do I answer the %iet&sche "*+ &nd ,-hat"s the alt to .eidegger*+ 'r $Whats the (eleu&e and )uattari "*+ This is ,erha,s the biggest allacy in all o critical debate. In the words o -i&&ini, its a classic blunder# now, while not !uite on the scale o involving onesel in the middle o a land war in Asia, to assume that an entire category o critical arguments based on the .o ten ,roli ic/ writings o a ,hiloso,her or set o theorists can be summed in a single label called $the %iet&sche "+ or $the 0eminism Criti!ue+ is a huge sel 1dece,tion that the community has made ,ossible through the ,roduction o ile labels. I"m often left stumped and scratching m head$ wondering how to even begin answering such a complicated (uestion! ,-hat"s the /iet0sche K sa *+ -ell$ which /iet0sche K* /iet0sche makes a lot of arguments about Truth$ but also has a robust dialogue with 1chopenhauer regarding the human response to suffering and the value of 2ompassion versus 3it ! This categor of philosoph largel initiated the %ump in continental philosoph from modern to post4modern philosoph ! &nd in the same vein$ /iet0sche inspired an entire generation of authors who wrote on a vast other number of sub%ects that could be potentiall relevant$ from famine to war and securit to race to the role of the sub%ect in politics! Its e2actly this method o thinking that clouds our ability to actually think about the content o the criticism itsel . I think i there was one thing Id want someone in a " lecture to walk away with, it would be this# that 3-345 criticism is undamentally uni!ue. The way the cards are
Meaningful song lyric

Oklahoma Debate [Tournament]

[File] 5

organi&ed and read, the taglines that are constructed s,ecially or a given a irmative, the case arguments that interact with that criticism 6 all o these are actors that make a " im,ossible to label. %o one ,roves this ,oint better than my debate ,artner or the ,revious college to,ic, 47 )iglio. When 47 and I would debate teams on the negative they would o ten label our " $The 8,anos "+, but doing so was ,erha,s the worst constraint they could ,ut on themselves strategically# in their heads, they had already bracketed o our entire argument to a single literature base. 9ut in reality, 47s to,ic " was a mi2 o : or ; di erent literature bases that ranged rom (eleu&e to 8,anos to 0oucault to (errida to 9audrillard. 'ne round in ,articular comes to mind as an e2am,le o this kind o mental bracketing# In the ,relims o the )eorgia 8tate tournament we were matched negative against )eorgia LL, a team that had broken at the %(T the year ,revious. Their a irmative was a de ense o <8 hegemony and civil society ,lanning in 3gy,t. 9ut when I got u, or the =%C and began reading our criticism, the other team heard the irst card was rom 8,anos and immediately sto,,ed ,aying attention to the =%C. They had already determined what " we were reading and began constructing >AC answers. However, the " un olded later in the =%C into a (eleu&ian criticism o ,olitical sub?ectivity and the e'ternali0ation of agenc ! -hen the 5&2 failed to catch this distinction$ the round became much easier for us because we could discount sets of 5&2 evidence in broad strokes instead of having to meticulousl pick apart their strategic armor ! Instead o creating these kinds o categories that describe $,er ormance teams+ or $race teams+ or whole literature bases in a ew words, debaters should encourage themselves to ,ursue a more ,articular knowledge about the argument. Its im,ortant to remember that the criticism really never e2ists outside o the round 6 and I mean this not in a ,olitical way, as in the " is only meant to win ballots, but in a more abstract way 6 that the " is not a thing in itself! It is merel a set of critical arguments that$ when constructed in a smart and well4thought4out order$ produces a strategic value for the negative and forms a coherent argument or set of arguments! Instead of the Deleu0e and 6uattari K$ wh not %ust give a brief description of the wa that the K is deplo ed against the aff it was designed for* &sk ourself what arguments the K defends! -hat claims does it make about the world* &bout the affirmative* -hat makes those claims true* If ou begin to think of the K as a thesis that"s supported b evidence instead of a name$ it will become much easier to both construct and respond to! Instead of finding cards that answer ,The Fem K+$ it becomes easier to %ust think about logical positions that are responsive to the claims the K is making!

The second section is called# -ell where can I find cards that sa that*
Meaningful song lyric

Oklahoma Debate [Tournament]

[File] 7

As the title insinuates, one o the ma?or ,roblems ,laguing " debate, es,ecially in high school but o ten even at the collegiate level, is that its assumed that every argument made needs to have a card. The ,olicy1i ication o the " is something that or a long time has attem,ted to turn the critical thinking value o the criticism into tomorrows ,olitics debate. I cant tell you how many times Ive ?udged ca,italism debates where the negative s,ends the entire block reading nothing but card a ter card to prove that capitalism isn"t sustainable$ or that it reall does$ in fact$ destro the environment! 15 uni(ueness cards$ 7 new links$ a new impact module and e'tensions of alt solvenc ! Oh no$ the permutation8 Oh well$ those cards will be in the 1/9! 9ut somewhere in this debate the value of persuasion as a tool in the negative$ and even the affirmative$ critical arsenal is lost in the confusion! It"s forgotten that one of the biggest advantages to reading the criti(ue is getting to feel reall right about something$ or to advocate a position we might actuall believe! Or even if not$ to spend our time discussing something at an intellectual and critical thinking level that allows us to spend more time talking and less time elling about the status of the :ackson ;an k bill on the congressional docket! 'ne o the most ,ersuasive >%Cs on the " that Ive ever seen given was given by 8ean "ennedy at the Te2as tournament 6 it was against my ,artner and I, in the @uarters. And i I recall he read a grand total o > cards. He s,ent the s,eech ocusing on the content o the debate, and de ending a historical understanding o ca,italism as a destructive orce that has robbed the worker o the means o ,roduction and gone ram,ant, destroying the environment. He did what a sea o cards ,revents others rom doing# he s,un a story. 9ut more than that, he also cited numerous historical e2am,les. There wasnt a set o cards that he was working rom to do so 6 he wasnt reading more cards that ,rove that ca,italism was unsustainable, or that it outweighed our a irmative 6 he was giving e2am,les about the way that ca,italism arose out o eudalism in 3uro,e, or talking about the way that ca,italism incentivi&es the e2,loitation o third world ,o,ulations. He didnt read A more ethical (1rule cards 6 he e2,lained what ethics meant to a decision1maker, and why it was im,ortant, and then e2,lained why ca,italism systemically denied access to an ethical ramework. 9ut this isnt to say that you should never read cards either. Its rather to say that when debating the criti!ue, more than any other argument, you must be incredibly selective about when and where to de,loy evidence. There are a ew reasons behind this# The irst is what I discussed above 6 an oversaturation o evidence detracts rom the ability to be truly ,ersuasive, and limits the story1telling ca,acity o a s,eaker. The second is that claims and their warrants can make or break " debates in a single ,iece o evidence 6 i that e2tra >%C e,istemology card wasnt as $on ire+ as you said that it was, and it gets called or, it could cost you a very im,ortant section o the low that might turn the tides o the debate. This means being selective about !uality is key. The third is that K cards are often ver length $ and depending on the argument$ can be dense and theoretical! This means that investing in a single card creates a direct trade4off
Meaningful song lyric

Oklahoma Debate [Tournament]

[File] <

with huge chunks of anal tic arguments and opportunities for evidence comparison and e'planation$ which can be (uite costl ! This is why I o ten ind that its ar more ,roductive to read the " as a =1o ,osition on the negative that has a high level o synergy with o ensive .and even de ensive/ case ,ositions. 2reating a large spot in the block to sit down and weave a coherent stor about the relationship between the K and the case debate and the aff itself is ver important to strong debates on the negative with a critical position$ and so the 14off lends itself the most to the ma'imum amount of in4depth e'planation and the highest threshold for time allocation possible! The third and final section of peeves is called# .ow I learned to stop worr ing and get off of m blocks! I dont think I can stress enough the im,ortance o having knowledge about your arguments. 4eading, discussing, and ,racticing the de,loyment o your arguments and literature is a necessary ,re1re!uisite or the use o critical arguments in debate. =ut the true bane of critical thinking and critical debate in general is a widespread overdependenc on blocks and pre4 written anal sis to e'plain and appl the K to debates! This overuse o blocks results in nothing but the re,etition o a ew sets o core conce,ts, but never an a,,lication that goes beyond skin dee,. The ,articulars o the criticisms nuance, the little interactions with the case debate, the historical e2am,les and the real world mani estations o the alternative are all glossed over with nothing but the theoretical discussion o evidence and critical theory. 9ut this only does a disservice to the category o critical theory itsel # theory was built as a ulcrum through which we can e2,lain ,olitical and cultural realities, not as a new dictionary to make ourselves eel smarter. This not only takes away the ,ersuasive value o the ", but also makes ?udges dread hearing it as a ,osition 6 no one wants to hear ,eo,le throw around the words $technology+ or $(asein+ or $micro ascism+ or $rhi&ome+ without knowing what the actual a,,lication o those words are to everyday li e. I once %udged a debate at the Te'as high school tournament that proves this point incredibl well! The affirmative was a team of sophomores from 3ine 2rest$ and the negative was a team from a local te'as school! The affirmative defended a traditional polic affirmative with a few diverse advantages that seemed somewhat standard$ but also seemed innovative for a polic affirmative on the space topic! =ut the 1/2 began reading a Deleu0e and 6uattari position that sounded eeril familiar > after about 7? seconds I reali0ed that the had been reading the e'act same shell produced in our camp director$ 1teven @urra "s$ own personal DA6 file! .aving seen and debated this file on more than a few occasions$ I knew e'actl what to e'pect from the rest of the debate! The 5/2 and the 5/9"s e'planation of the criticism never e'tended be ond the pre4written overviews that were in the file! /ever once was there a discussion of what the impact of microfascism meant in the conte't of space polic or international relations > never was there an elaboration on what the alternative or problemati0ing the 1&2 meant or did! The debate e'isted$ but onl in a two4dimensional rendering! The lack of depth had robbed what is normall one of the most interesting sections of critical theor in debate of its depth > and
Meaningful song lyric

Oklahoma Debate [Tournament]

[File] B

because of the talented responses and overall better e'planation and e'ecution on the part of the 1&9 and the 5&9 I (uickl voted affirmative! The kinds o constraints and e2,ectations we hold or the e2,lanation o critical theory and its a,,lication in a strategic, normative sense should always be somewhat lo ty. 9ecause to venture away rom blocks and to be orced to actually think, on the ly, at s,eed, about the arguments we"re making causes us to grow! It"s never safet and darkness > clinging to our blocks and never venturing into the sunlight > that makes us grow as debaters and as intellectuals! It"s taking risks and tr ing to build something uni(ue and new with our bare hands$ so to speak > it"s to treat ever 5/2 or ever 5&2$ ever rebuttal$ ever argument as uni(ue! =ut not %ust uni(ue > as a work of art that belongs to us! As a sort o conclusive section, Id like to discuss the kinds o things to kee, in mind when constructing a critical argument. The irst thing to think about is to strain out the kernels o real arguments 6 too many debaters sit down to write a " and start thinking $what cards go where*+ 9ut to write a " like this is to start in the wrong ,lace 6 namely, at the beginning. When writing a criticism try starting at the very end 6 reverse engineer your argument. 8tart with a claim that you know you want to de end and try to find a wa to make it fit the topic! Do some preliminar research > test the waters and see what people are sa ing about the topic and our vein of argumentation! 'r maybe youd rather start in the middle. 7ust dive into the literature and start ,icking and choosing which arguments you like and which you dont. Try to remember 6 cutting a " is not to de end the entire body o works o a ,hiloso,her. I cant count the number o times that Ive gone or a Lacanian criticism or a %iet&sche argument and de ended, as a small theory o social relations, ?ust 0oucaults notion o the ,owerBknowledge dichotomy. If ou see one small argument that ou think could work in con%unction with a larger argument ou want to cut$ hold onto it > e'periment! If there"s one thing that it isn"t wrong to do as a K debater$ it"s to write some bad arguments! To sit down on our computer or with a couple of books and %ust foold around in our argumentative laborator > combine mi'tures$ tr fusing arguments and coming up with an argument of our own! I"ve certainl written m share of terrible arguments > in fact$ m first K that I ever cut was an argument about 3lato"s &llegor of the 2ave that made almost no sense at all! =ut it sparked m interest in the criti(ue as an argumentative categor $ and m thirst for knowledge has still never been satisfied to this da ! And thats something that I believe truly se,arates a good " debater rom the rest o the lock 6 an undying thirst or knowledge. And endless desire to learn and to grow and to develo, newer and smarter and more innovative arguments. 5ou are truly the intellectual inventors o our activity. Or perhaps mad scientists is more correct! 8omething else thats im,ortant to think about when constructing a criticism, something that goes very much as a twin to the mad scientist ,iece above, is that everything that gets cut, or ,rocessed, or integrated into the thesis o a " should always be able to ,ass a litmus test or being use ul. Ask yoursel , $What is this card or argument accom,lishing or me*+ While being innovative with arguments is a good thing, be care ul not to become too swam,ed in trying to be a strict academic. 5ou dont always have to be on the side o the truth o the literature 6 in act,
Meaningful song lyric

Oklahoma Debate [Tournament]

[File] C

stretching the intent o an author while remaining ,ersuasive and still eeling close to the original argument is the mark o some o the best " debaters. 9ut lastly, dont ?ust read literature and try to cram knowledge into your head. The biggest mistake I ever made was buying C 9audrillard books and a co,y o A Thousand Dlateaus and thinking I could get good at those kinds o criticisms. I"m going to tell ou all something that might come as somewhat of a shock to ou$ so ou might want to be sitting down for this# I"ve onl ever finished 1 book of critical theor ! Id like you to ,rocess that or a moment. It wasnt by reading hundreds o hours o theory that I understood the ". I didnt read every (E) work and all o a sudden become good at the argument. Instead, I read around in little sections and I re lected. Id ,ick one section o (E) or Architects and read it when I was having trouble. Then Id look u, other ,eo,le who talked about rhi&omatics, or deterritoriali&ation, and Id think about the real li e mani estations o those conce,ts. Without Lu,e 0iasco and the meta,hor o skateboarding I never would have understood (eleu&ian territory meta,hors! I would talk with countless friends for countless hours about the arguments I was considering! &nd at first$ the were prett bad! =ut as time went on$ I started to understand more and more of the literature! (ont ocus so much on the end goal o the learning ,rocess 6 thats how your mind gets clouded and you miss the little way,oints on the ?ourney o learning. 1top and sta in those little alcoves for a while > take the time to inspect the small things! &nd discover$ don"t %ust learn! Dnderstand$ and don"t %ust read! 9ut most im,ortantly 6 e2,erience, and dont ?ust think. 'ur thinking has a way o entra,,ing us too o ten 6 it becomes an unsur,assable barrier, a mental roadblock that kee,s us on the same linear ,ath o develo,ment and ,roblem1solving. 8ometimes, its ?ust better to take a break and go or a walk 6 e2ternali&e your inner monologue and ?ust let words low out. 4ant. 4amble. (ont make any sense at all. 9ut em,ty your brain o the ,reconceived notions that you had held onto when you entered your ,ro?ect, take a breath o resh air, and work your way back to where you were be ore. With these tools you can treat the criti!ue not ?ust a another tool in your negative arsenal, but as an e2,eriential model or thinking and creativity that will ollow you throughout your debate career.

Meaningful song lyric