Death of the Author Cp

8/8/2019 Death of the Author Cp

1/19

DEATHWaRu 2009-2010 Utter dominationCummings God is dead= Author is dead

1NC shell.. 2-5

A/T Link turn.6

A/T you give our plan context.7

A/T non competitive8

A/T theory (ontology comes first)...9

Multiple perms bad.10

Functional comp good.11

A/T textual comp good.12

A/T Perm do the cp13

A/T Perm do both.14

A/T Perm do c/p then plan..15

A/T Perm do the plan then cp16

Ontology 2nc.17

2nr Overview.18

1


2/19


[read plant text unaltered from the 1AC]

We disconnect the plan from the affirmative as an author. This allows us to break down the

notions of causality, linearity, ownership, and stasis in the text and celebrate the infinite

multiplicity and play of meaning. Roland Barthes. The Death of the Author. Image-Music-Text.1977.

The removal of the Author (one could talk here with Brecht of a veritable distancing, the

Author diminishing like a figurine at the far end of the literary stage) is not merely an historical

fact or an act of writing; it utterly transforms the modern text (or which is the same thingthe text is henceforth made and read in such a way that at all its levels the author is absent).

The temporality is different. The Author, when believed in, is always conceived of as the past of

his own book: book and author stand automatically on a single line divided into a before and anafter. The Author is thought to nourish the book, which is to say that he exists before it,thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in the same relation of antecedence to his work as a father to

his child. In complete contrast, the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is

in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, is not the subject with

the book as predicate; there is no other time than that of the enunciation and every text iseternally written here and now. The fact is (or, it follows) that writing can no longer designate anoperation of recording, notation, representation, depiction (as the Classics would say); rather, it

designates exactly what linguists, referring to Oxford philosophy, call a performative a rare

verbal form (exclusively given in the first person and in the present tense) in which the

enunciation has no other content (contains no other proposition) than the act by which it isutteredsomething like the I declare of kings or the I sing of very ancient poets. Having buried

the Author, the modern scriptor can thus no longer believe, as according to the pathetic view of

his predecessors, that this hand is too slow for his thought or passion and that consequently,making a law of necessity, he must emphasize this delay and indefinitely polish his form. For

him, on the contrary, the hand, cut off from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and

not of expression), traces a field without originor which, at least, has no other origin thanlanguage itself, language which ceaselessly calls into question all origins. We know now that a

text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the

Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them

original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable

centres of culture . Similar to Bouvard and Pecuchet, those eternal copyists, at once sublime and

comic and whose profound ridiculousness indicates precisely the truth of writing, the writer can

only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings,

to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them. Did

he wish to express himself, he ought at least to know that the inner thing he thinks to

translate is itself only a ready-formed dictionary, its words only explainable through

other words, and so on indefinitely; something experienced in exemplary fashion by the youngThomas de Quincey, he who was so good at Greek that in order to translate absolutely modern

ideas and images into that dead language, he had, so Baudelaire tells us (in Paradis Artificiels),

created for himself an unfailing dictionary, vastly more extensive and complex than thoseresulting from the ordinary patience of purely literary themes. Succeeding the Author, the

scriptor no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this

immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt: life never does morethan imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely

2


3/19


deferred. Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. Togive a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to

close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself theimportant task of discovering the Author (or its hypostases: society, history, psyche, liberty)

beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is explainedvictory to the critic.

Hence there is no surprise in the fact that, historically, the reign of the Author has also been thatof the Critic, nor again in the fact that criticism (be it new) is today undermined, along with the

Author. In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered; the

structure can be followed, run (like the thread of a stocking) at every point and at every level,but there is nothing beneath: the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced; writing

ceaselessly posits meaning ceaselessly to evaporate it, carrying out a systematic exemption of

meaning. In precisely this way literature (it would bebetter from now on to say writing), by

refusing to assign a secret, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberateswhat may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to

refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostasesreason, science, law.

A) Our net benefit is the loss of ontology: we access this by destroying the traditional

norms of thinking that inevitably lead to technological thought processes destroying all

value to life.

Stenstad 6(Gail, Professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at East Tennessee State University,Transformations-Thinking after Heidegger, pg 186-187)If we can succeed to a significant extent in releasement toward things, letting go of the things that constitute calculative, metaphysical thinking and letting go of the

most powerful notions that have emerged from that thinking then openness to mystery, already at work, can come even more to the fore. Releasement toward things

is multifaceted, and, as it comes into play, it already begins to converge with openness to mystery. Why do I say that? Gathering up the things to be released and the

sense of releasing engaged in each case will help answer that question. The phrase releasement toward things is ambiguous; that very ambiguity is part of its

power in helping us engage the thinking of be-ing and open up what it might mean to dwell in timing-spacing-thinking. On the one hand

, releasementmeans letting go ofwhat blocks or hinders thinking and dwelling. On the other, releasement means releasing ourselves towardthings, opening to themin a new way. What things are released in the first sense, and how are their releasements related to one another? 1. The traditional rules, norms,and expectations of what constitutes good thinking: conceptual grasping and fixing, method, theory, system. 2.The idea ofbeing as something that is reified upon being conceptually lifted out and separated from beings. 3. The things that such traditional philosophizing begins form and

works toward; arche and telos. Releasing the idea of being also releases the idea of its primary function: to serve as the ground of being and of thinking. Be-ing is ab-ground, and there is no arche, no first principle, to be found in its thinking. With no arche there is no telos, no ultimate end or aim that could somehow be attained incarrying out the thinking. 4.Therefore, the notion of an ethics is highly released along with other kinds of theorizing (metaphysics, epistemology). Dwelling cannot

be constrained within the frameworks of ethics. 5. The various interpretation of beings that are grounded on some concept of being. This involves releasing such

notions as substance (and the related philosophical notion of accidents), matter with its form, subject and object, and dualistically conceived mind and body. 6. the

idea of ourselves as beings, conceived in any of the ways listed in point five. 7.And finally, the one that Heidegger himself gives when he first speaks ofreleasement toward things in memorial Address, letting go of our entrapped fascination with the products of techno-calculative thinking, including taking language as merely information or entertainment. When

Heideggerfirst suggested that releasement toward things was a step toward being able to learn to think in a way that was not just calculative, he

described it as being able to say both yes and no to technical devices. Releasement toward thingsdoes not mean flat rejection. In the case of the things indicated in point seven they can be used ornot used. What is released is the sense that they are somehow necessary;they become optional.

This yes and no, indicating the optional character of what is released has a bearing on all theother items on my list, too, and we can examine each of them in that light.

3


4/19


B) Their understanding of knowledge is based in a Cartesian ontology which seeks to

reduce and enframe everything it encounters, constituting a veritable war on Being

Swazo 2(Norman, PhilosophyUniversity of Alaska, Fairbanks, 2002, Crisis Theory and World Order: HeideggerianReflections, p.98-100)

In short, with Descartes metaphysical position all fundamental positions of subjectivity are enabled and

initiated, having their effective manifestation in the political domain (notwithstanding the role traditionallyassigned to Machiavelli and Hobbes as founders of modern political philosophy). Already with Descartesthere is posited themetaphysical ground of a subjective egoism having the world for its proper object; and it is the

Cartesian metaphysic that enables a universalistpolitics coordinate with the self-given task of

scrutiny, conquest, mastery, and disposition of the whole of being (hence the enlightenment practical philosophy

of Kant and the philosophesand the rational project of the Enlightenment itself as a political project). The metaphysicaldispensation inaugurated by Descartes effectively transforms the conception of world order from

the medieval order of creation to that of the modern order of reason having its basis in the

subjectivity of mans essence: It is on this basis that, as Heidegger said in the Letter on Humanism, all objects maybe planned by means of worldly reason (Weltvernunft) which supplies the law for itself and thus

also claims that its procedure is immediately intelligible (what is considered logical).We can now understandin thecontext of world order thinkingHeideggers remarks cited earlier concerning the quiescence of happening that belongs to the essential history

of the West as the history of Being epochally given in the history of metaphysics. Specifically, we can see how a basic form of its presence,

viz., Descartes fundamental metaphysical position, yet governs today. In Descartes fundamental metaphysical position, as the articulation of anepochal formation or configuration of thought, word, and deed, in the history of Being, being as representedness is that ruling understanding

of being which is given to thinking. Things in general are understood to be what they are according to their

delimitation as represented beings. This ruling understanding holds true in its employmentwithrespect to the conception of human being understood as res cogitans and to the conception of the

totality of things that make up the external world, understood in the category ofres exensae. The human being aspreeminent subject, being as representedness, truth as certitude, and man as measurethese basic metaphysical categories inform thinking and

doing in the historical period of which Descartes is the essential thinker (its herald, as it were). To use Heideggers words, we mustunderstand Descartes metaphysics as the ground of the essential formation (Wesensgestalt) taking

place

. The Cartesian metaphysical position serves to articulate a fundamental repetition ofa formative attack on the whole of being. This means that the creative force of this formative oreientation is not limitedto Descartes himself as a public personality, i.e., as one among others participating in cultural activity. Rather, the full creative force of thisrepetition is expressed in the wordand deedof poets, thinkers, statesment, artists, etc., who are more or less contemporary in the transition

from the medieval to the modern dispensation. It is through the fullness of this creative force that the repetition is at the same time a

transformation of the world. Thus, the world that comes into being, the essential formation, is manifest in the contemporaneous expression of all

such figuresprecisely in the manner in which there is involvement with beings and their designation is secured in a way consonant to theCartesian metaphysical component.

4


5/19


C) This focus on knowledge production and assessment overwhelms the search for

transformative realities through its fundamental grounding in modern sciencethis

obliterates the possibility of politicsstraight turns their argument. Meaning that their aff

literally has no solvency making all their advantages disads to the status quo which the

counter plan solves for.

Swazo 2(Norman, PhilosophyUniversity of Alaska, Fairbanks, 2002, Crisis Theory and World Order: HeideggerianReflections, p.138)

Cavaille adds, however, that Descartes himself returns to this analogy to affirm in substance

that it is impossible to derive good politics from true science and that nothing in the political

realm is more detestable than utopia. In short, that philosophy and politics, whatever analogical

relationships may be possible, are incommensible. Yet, as Cavaille remarks concerning thedialectic of political utopia in interaction with the specifically Cartesian attitudeand here

we must think systems sciencethere is in Descartes analogy an illumination of certain

fundamental aspects of the relationships that modern science since its origins has maintained

with politics. Thus: Philosophical discourse creates a space for political utopia, as a correctanalogy for science, even if this space for political utopia in the Cartesian text is immediately

filled in, rejected covered over by the utopia of science. The disavowed utopia remains one of thepotential results of Cartesian science , first of allbecause it is an integral part of the referential

apparatus through which the modern episteme acquired its definition. Utopia , in other words, is

one of the founding myths of science. Once it has been established, science rejects the imagesand dreams out of which it was born (and the Cartesian text is exemplary from this point of

view), but utopia reappears recurringly in history, as a political project justified through science.

Because political utopia is itself one of the models for nascent science, it can then take as model

victorious science.[T]he specifically Cartesian attitude, which aims at rejection utopia a prioriand with it every form of politics as a production of science, is even more paradigmatic of

modern scientificity.For the true utopia of science consists, perhaps, in its secret desire tosupplant politics, to substitute itself for it[emphasis added]Systems theory, and thus in particular the systems approach to the future of the world order,

viewed in its continuity with the specifically Cartesian attitude, becomes nothing less than a

tacit denigration of politics an attempt to dissolve it into the quantitative uniformity of itsmathematical universality. Cavaille speaks all to aptly when he says: The arrival of the utopia

of science necessarily coincides with the end of politics.

5


6/19


Link turn

ONE----- Non responsive This isnt what the net benefit is saying its not saying that because

we assign authors to texts we lose all ontological worth its that they read a plan text and attempt

to by modern day knowledge inscribe this into your brains as though it were fact by the cards

they read as though this were the end and only way this could ever happen. It is limiting anypossibilities and it is prescribing into the technological thought process that has been the cause of

all modern day catastrophes.

TWO------ By removing the plan from the context of the 1AC we literally break down the

current methods of thought to introduce the world to a new and higher thought process it is not

about simply removing the author it is about literally bringing the reader into the text toexperience a whole new method of life. They make the mistake of completely abandoning the

reader which the counter plan solves for. Roland Barthes. The Death of the Author. Image-Music-Text. 1977.

Let us come back to the Balzac sentence. No one, no person, says it: its source, its voice, is

not the true place of the writing, which is reading. Anothervery precise example willhelp to make this clear: recent research (J.-P. Vernant) has demonstrated the constitutively

ambiguous nature of Greek tragedy, its texts being woven from words with double

meanings that each character understands unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is

exactly the tragic); there is, however, someone who understands each word in its duplicity andwho, in addition, hears the very deafness of the characters speaking in front of himthis

someone being precisely the reader (or here, the listener). Thus is revealed the total existenceof writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into

mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this

multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author.

The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without

any of them being lost; a texts unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet thisdestination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology;

he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written

text is constituted. Which is why it is derisory to condemn the new writing in the name of ahumanism hypocritically turned champion of the readers rights. Classic criticism has never

paid any attention to the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We are

now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical

recriminations of good society in favour of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or

destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the

birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.

6


7/19


A/T you give our plan text context

We dont give your plan context- Giving your plan context would be like reading a card specific

to your affirmative. We are simply reading the Barthes card to explain what the counter plan

does and how it interacts in the round. The out of context plan itself is with no context we know

nothing more or nothing less about the plan when it is taken out of context and placed next to acard about removing the author.

7


8/19


A/T non competitive

1) Textual competition is bad

a) Fair division of ground: Allowing textual competition means the affirmative can advocate

doing the opposite of their original plan e.g. ban the plan would not compete textually. This

is a ridiculous standard for proving competition.b) It's key to garner offense. If we only looked at textual competition, the neg could just change

some miniscule word in the plan text that doesn't actually mean anything in regard to what the

plan actually does, like changing "of" to "for". We shouldn't have to defend every word in plantext, just the words that have any functional meaning.

c) Key to establishing best policy option: Under textual competition, they could change "should"

to "did" and it would competed) Infinitely regressive: they could change any of the text and make it so it's not physically

possible with a critical net benefit, and we couldn't check its competition because we're just

looking at textual competition, which is key to check abusive counterplans.2) We compete through functional competition

a) we are functionally competitive--our evidence says that the aff wouldnt solve with an author,the outcome of the aff and the counterplan are 100% different

b) We compete through net benefits--the impact to our argument exists only in a world of the aff,makes it functionally competitive

c) err neg on this one--we have lit to prove that we compete functionally, they are just making

assertions3) Don't vote on theory

a) as long as we reasonably compete, evaluate the policy aspect of the debate first

b) vote down the argument not the team--if they win the theory flow just don't evaluate thecounterplan

8


9/19


A2 Theory

1) Ontology comes before theoryJustification for theory rests on preserving fairness and

education but they concede the futility of this in a world where Being means nothingthats

Gelvin 89

2) Ontology turns theorytheir attempt to order negates our ability to experience Being byorganizing it within an ideal worldVote aff to reject this deeply conservative fantasy

Armstrong 2000(Isobel, The Radical Aesthetic, 2000, p. 9-10)Communality looks attractive. Unfortunately, though, there can be by definition only one common culture and sharedtradition, and on Scrutions terms this can never be remade. Indeed, there are entry requirements for it. His communality isa consoling and deeply authoritarian conservative fantasy. Scrutions world is rule-bound in a way that

refuses to see that tradition, form and ceremonyto use the Shakespearian terms reinterpreted for modernity in the

ceremony of Yeatss A Prayer for my Daughterare rarely negotiable. If it is alive, the form and content of aculture iscontinuously negotiated. Scruton assumes a static world of form and convention. But who legislates for

these forms and conventions? How are they authorized? How can they ever be challenged? Barbara HernsteinSmiths critique, in Contingencies of Value, of axiological propositionsthose assumptions confirmed by a deeply felt intuition of their rightness

is precisely thatthese ignore the contingency and variability of accounts of rightness, ignore the fact of theircontinuous negotiation in a culture. Evaluation is always compromised because value is always in

motionit is constantly variable and eternally indeterminate (p 9). It is impossible to rest the fullweight of a culture on fixed forms and conventions, much less to see these as a communal mode of ethical

training in which the ethical is elided with an abstract aestheticism. Recent examples of cultural negotiationthe deathof Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, the Drumcree marchers in 1998, the Clinton scandals of 1999, the death of John Kennedy in the same year

suggest that the reality is more complex. There are some hopeful ways of thinking about a common culture, but Scrutons commonculture is a mode of exclusion rather than inclusion. It legislates for an aesthetic aristocracy.

Disenfranchisingfrom the beginning the millionsfor whom the photography of a daily paper and the colors of cinema and TVconstitute aesthetic pleasure,it rests on ungenerous formalism.

3) Before you listen to any of the affirmatives arguments they must answer how ontology comes before

theory. If they fail to do this you have to pull the trigger as soon as the speech where they failed to answer

this is over.

9


10/19


Multiple Perms Bad:

1. EDUCATION: ECOURAGES CHEAP SHOT, LINE-BY-LINE DEBATING RATHER

THAN WARRANTS. PREOCCUPATION WITH DROPS PRECLUDES CRITICAL

THINKING ABOUT WARRANTS.

2. RECIPROCITY: THIS IS FUNCTIONALLY LIKE HAVING MULTIPLE ALTS

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL CONDITIONAL ARGUMENTS THAT KILL THE

K IF DROPPED ENTIRELY BUT ATTEMPT TO FORCE US INTO

CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SOLVE.

3. COUNTERINTERP: THE AFF GETS ONE PERM EXCLUSIVELY AS A TEST OF

COMPETITION.

10


11/19


FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION GOOD

1. Real world- members of congress evaluate the implications of policies in practice far more

than whether texts are compatible.

2. Only a functional evaluation allows the judge to determine competition based on the actualarguments made in the round.

3. Promotes good judging- text comparison is removed from all substance within the round,

which leads to arbitrary decisions and skews fairness.

11


12/19


AT: TEXTUAL COMPETITION GOOD

1. Kills policymaking- debating semantics turns the contest into a race to see who can write the

best plans, not the best policy options for the real world.

2. Comparing texts removes all actual substance of the debate, leading to arbitrary decisions andunfair debates

3. Only functional evaluation of how they would interact can prove real competition.

4. Leads to bad advocacies because adding reject plan to the bottom of the CP text makes a CP

competitive in their interpretation.

5. Justifies aff abuse- any do both perm would win because they dont weigh whether or notthe perm is net beneficial, killing neg CP ground and skewing fairness.

12


13/19


AT: PERM DO THE CP

The 1AC fiat indicates immediate unconditional implementation of the plan. This perm severs

out of the immediate and unconditional passage of the plan. Severence is an independent voting

issue.

1. Makes the aff a moving target- the affirmative can change any part of their plan to avoid any

negative argument. This skews fairness in that they could change their plan in the 2AR and wed

never be able to argue with them.

2. Infinitely regressive- allowing the aff to sever out of one part of their plan justifies themsevering out of all but one word of their plan text and claiming solvency from it. The neg would

never win in such a world, which kills competitive equity.

3. Strategy Skew- The affirmative speaks first, last, and has infinite prep time, while the negative

has mere minutes before the 1NC. With time already limited, allowing the aff to change theiradvocacy after the 1AC completely kills neg strategy and makes for a wholly unfair debate.

4. Education- When the affirmative constantly changes advocacies, it becomes impossible to

learn from a debate round because we debate over running away from arguments.

5. Not real world- legislators and lawyers arent allowed to eliminate parts of their cases or bills

because someone objects to them. This lack of real world policymaking kills education.

13


14/19


AT: PERM DO BOTH

This perm is functionally the same as perm do the CP. The 1AC fiat indicates immediate

unconditional implementation of the plan. This perm severs out of the immediate and

unconditional passage of the plan. And severance is a reason to reject this perm because:












Lastly this doesnt solve the counter plan at all because they are still putting their plan into

context when they perm do both its the same thing as saying just pass the aff. It makes no

sense to pass the exact same plan twice but just giving it context

14


15/19


AT: PERM DO THE CP THEN THE PLAN

The 1AC fiat indicates immediate unconditional implementation of the plan. This perm severs

out of the immediate and unconditional passage of the plan. And severance is a reason to reject

this perm because:












And this is also a timeframe perm because they are doing them at different times. This is a

reason to reject the perm because

1. Allowing timeframe perms to slide snowballs into wider justification of more abusive

arguments.

2. Timeframe perms are just another way of adding to and taking away from parts of the plan.

They are still severance/intrinsic, but the aff tries to hide the fact by saying do this now, and thatlater. 3. Fairness- the aff could always solve for any DA impact and do any CP in the

future. This makes it impossible for the neg to win, killing fairness.

15


16/19


AT: PERM DO THE PLAN THEN THE CP

One, this makes no sense because you cant pass the same plan twice. Also it will still be linking

to the disad because you are still giving your plan context.

Second, this is a timeframe perm, which is a reason to reject the team because

1. Allowing timeframe perms to slide snowballs into wider justification of more abusivearguments.

2. Timeframe perms are just another way of adding to and taking away from parts of the plan.

They are still severance/intrinsic, but the aff tries to hide the fact by saying do this now, and thatlater.

3. Fairness- the aff could always solve for any DA impact and do any CP in the future. This

makes it impossible for the neg to win, killing fairness.

4. Explodes aff bias- the aff speaks first, last, and has infinite prep time. They have no need foran illegitimate permutation: they should be prepared to defend their plan and its merits without

gaining extra ground for bad offensive arguments.

16


17/19


Ontology is the ground of all human understanding. The question of being is essential to real

practical and political thought, as well as authentic freedom. Meaning no matter what is said in

the round you will always evaluate the counterplan first.

Gelven89(Michael A Commentary on Heideggers

Being and Time, 1989, p. 29-32)

17


18/19


2NR Overview

1. Our argument is that modern day thought rejects all alternative methods of thinking,

which is analogous to Cartesian ontology. Which is the rejection of everything besides

science even the method which science is obtained is rejected. It is a war on humanity

and inevitably leads to technological thought processes this is bad for a few reasons.

a. It reduces everything around it to standing reserve- When thought processes are

simply reduced to a few accepted methods of thought everything on earth includingbeings are reduced to standing reserve and lose all ontological value.

b. In a world without ontology death is preferable- When beings literally have no valueon earth except to be utilized as seen fit there is not point of life. Life seizes to have

any meaning.

c. Evaluate Ontology before you look at anything else thats gelvin, Ontology is the

ground of all human understanding. The question of being is essential to real practical

and political thought, as well as authentic freedom.

18


19/19


2NC Overview

1. Our argument is that by disconnecting the affirmative from context essentially

removing the author, we un limit the full potential of the text. We break down the

doors of causality and common methods of thinking.

2. We will now continue down our path of breaking down all the common methods ofthinking further.

19

Documents

Death of the Author Cp