Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14


The concepts of navigation and plotting the ocean via the state are just means of the
state to striate the ocean, but this is futile as the smooth will always deterritorialize
itself but when it becomes smooth again it is used in order to further subjugate the
sedentary people(s). Whenever the state comes to appropriate the nomadic war-
machine, war becomes the only object of the war-machine to the point where peace
becomes an end to later free the potential for war. The states infiltration of the ocean
utilizes its smooth space in order to imprison and destroy anything that doesnt give
itself to the state. This inevitably creates fascism which removes all of our freedoms in
order to control us and repress our desires to give power to capitalism and the state.
Thats why we practice Nomadology in order to make everything equal and overthrow
hierarchies and the oppression inherent to them. Our aff surpasses the normative
standards of good because our action only opens up the possibility for good things in
the future, this cant be tied to one static method of resistance as that gets coopted by
the state, so we constantly flee in order to find new ways to combat the state.

1. The aff results in a positive deterritorialization bringing us to a positive
hierarchy-less BwO thats our DnG 87 ev about dislodging from the strata
2. Misinterprets solvency argument Its not like we just say go out and do stuff
its just saying that one particular method of resistance cant always work
Now were using a debate round for resistance, tomorrow it could be occupying
Wall street. Its not non-specific in the sense of do anything its just specific
actions contextualized to the battle were fighting. Violence isnt inherently bad
its bad when violence is the objective the revolutionary war was violent but
it had a purpose
3. This card flows aff The main weakness of the Black Block in DC was that clear goals were
not elaborated in a strategic way and tactical leadership was not developed to coordinate our
actions. By leadership I don't mean any sort of authority, but some coordination beside the call
of the mob
We arent calling for a mob, we just contextualize specific action to specific
4. No in-round abuse or aff condo we arent creating a new advocacy, its still
the same one a strategy of assemblage
5. To attack those that oppose the 1ac is fascist we wont do that because we
fight fascism, a line of flight is ALWAYS positive its just a revolt against
oppression. But when a line of flight becomes territorialized it turns into a line
of death then people would die because they dislike the 1ac. Our DnG 87 ev
on dislodging from the strata keep us from becoming the L.O.D.
6. We say that the state is inevitable but we HAVE to continue to fight, against it,
for a moment in time (this round) were free from state control, for me at least
this has been a fun round because it wasnt just T run as a timesuck, politics
with a bad link, Cap K and some decontextualized cards about solvency. (Not to
say those rounds arent fun ever, but to me they get old. I hope this round has
been enjoyable for everyone involved as well, if you enjoy the round, this is the
reason why you fight against the state and fascism.)
7. We advocate for multiple modes and instances of resistance this is just the
one that happens this round, also, if you do happen to enjoy resisting you can
continue to, to say that the judge(s) HAS/HAVE to be revolutionaries is fascist,
we just present an option, you can continue it out of round on your volition.
We cant guarantee you change your stance within the state because we dont
sign the ballot, remember this from the 1ac if you vote aff represents an
interest convergence powerful enough to continue the movement against the
government entities that dominate our lives.
Voting aff continues the movement AND grants us solvency.
Schizophrenia valorization bad
1. No link we arent advocating actual schizophrenia, just stating that the
concept of fluidity as inherent to schizophrenia is a beneficial model of
2. Provides a frame of reference it provides a way for people to get a general
idea of the point the authors were trying to make
3. Our discourse of the schizoid isnt ableist in any manner we understand the
suffering of the schizophrenic but they also have a freedom unknown to those
normatively declared sane
Deleuze and Guattari 72 Gilles, French philosopher. Felix, French philosopher. Anti-Oedipus. Pg. 131. PWoods.
The schizo knows how to leave: he has made departure into something as simple as being born
or dying. But at the same time his journey is strangely stationary, in place. He does not speak of another world, he is not from
another world: even when he is displacing himself in space, his is a journey in intensity, around the
desiring-machine that is erected here and remains here. For here is the desert propagated by our
world, and also the new earth, and the machine that hums, around which the schizos revolve, planets for a
new sun. These men of desireor do they not yet exist?are like Zarathustra. They know incredible
sufferings, vertigos, and sicknesses . They have their specters. They must reinvent each gesture. But such
a man produces himself as a free man, irresponsible, solitary, and joyous, finally able to say
and do something simple in his own name, without asking permission; a desire lacking nothing,
a flux that overcomes barriers and codes, a name that no longer designates any ego whatever .
He has simply ceased being afraid of becoming mad. He experiences and lives himself as the
sublime sickness that will no longer affect him. Here, what is, what would a psychiatrist be worth?
4. Cross-apply the above DnG card to the Euro flow our embrace of the schizoid
method dissolves the ego
Euro (general)
1.) The entire aff is predicated off of fighting against the imperial hegemony of
the West

2.) Our last piece of Deleuze and Guattari 87 ev is great about this we are a
becoming-minoritarian or a mass of the disenfranchised combatting those in
power or to put it in terms of the alt the death of the American Man we
are already doing the alt

Let us suppose that the constant or standard is the average adult-white-heterosexual-
European-male Minorities are crystals of becoming whose value is to trigger
uncontrollable movements and deterritorializations of the mean or majority

3.) Deleuzeoguattarian thought solves the post-colonial onto-politics of the
Eurocentric state
Colebrook 12 Claire, Professor of English at Penn State, Face Race, Deleuze and Race, pgs. 35-38. PWoods.

While the relevance of Gilles Deleuze for a materialist feminism has been amply
demonstrated in the last two decades or so, what this key philosopher of difference and desire can do for
the theorization of race and racism has received surprisingly little attention. This is despite
the explicit formulation of a materialist theory of race as instantiated in colonization,
sensation, capitalism and culture, particularly in Deleuze's collaborative work with Flix
Guattari. Part of the explanation of why there has been a relative silence on Deleuze within
critical race and colonial studies is that the philosophical impetus for overcoming eugenics and nationalism
have for decades been anchored in the conventional readings of Kant and Hegel, which Deleuze
laboured to displace. Through the vocabularies of psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and moral philosophy,
even the more sophisticated theorizations of race today continue the neo- Kantian/neo-
Hegelian programme of retrieving a cosmopolitan universality beneath the ostensibly
inconsequential differences called race. It is symptomatic too, that Foucault's influential notion of biopolitics, so close to
Deleuze and Guattari's writings on the state, is usually taken up without its explicit
grounding in race, territory and capitalist exchange. Similarly, those (like Negri) that twist biopolitics into a mainly Marxian
category, meanwhile, lose the Deleuzoguattarian emphasis on racial and sexual entanglement. It would seem then,
that it is high time for a rigorous engagement with the many conceptual ties between Foucault's lectures on biopolitics, Deleuze and Guattari, and
Deleuze-influenced feminism, to obtain a new materialist framework for studying
racialization as well as the ontopolitics of becoming from which it emerges. While it will inevitably overlap
in a few ways, this collection will differ from work done under the "postcolonial" rubric for a number of important reasons. First, instead of the mental,
cultural, therapeutic, or scientific representations of racial difference usually analyzed in
postcolonial studies, it will seek to investigate racial difference "in itself", as it persists as a
biocultural, biopolitical force amid other forces. For Deleuze and Guattari, as for Nietzsche
before them, race is far from inconsequential, though this does not mean it is set in stone.
Second, as Fanon knew, race is a global phenomenon, with Europe's racism entirely
entwined with settler societies and the continuing poverty in the peripheries. The effects of
exploitation, slavery, displacement, war, migration, exoticism and miscegenation are too
geographically diffuse and too contemporary to fit comfortably under the name
"postcolonial". Rather, we seek to illuminate the material divergences that phenotypical
variation often involves, within any social, cultural or political locus. Third, again like Nietzsche, but also Freud,
Deleuze and Guattari reach into the deep recesses of civilization to expose an ancient and
convoluted logic of racial discrimination preceding European colonialism by several
millennia. Far from naturalizing racism, this nomadological and biophilosophical "geology of
morals" shows that racial difference is predicated on fully contingent territorializations of
power and desire, that can be disassembled and reassembled differently. That race is immanent to the
materiality of the body then, does not mean that it is static any more than that it is simple: rather what it suggests is that its transformation is an always already incipient

4.) Fascism on both the micro and macro levels is rooted in desire One desires
others follow their set of rules The methodology of the aff solves
Crain 2013 Microfascism. JUNE 5. Cmeron, teaches as an adjunct lecturer in New York City. He earned his M.A. in Philosophy, as well as a B.A. in
Communications, from Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. .PWoods.

According to D&G, desire is fundamentally productive; it does not depend upon some prior lack, but
rather invests a social field. This means that the object of desire is not wanted on its own, as
though everything else were given. Desire involves a contexta milieudesire even structures that milieu. I do
not simply want an iPhone; I want to be seen and known as a guy with an iPhone. There is a certain fantasy
structure at play of which this object forms a part. This fantasy structure is already social in nature. Indeed, D&G conceive of the self as a multiplicity of what they call
"desiring-machines." The question is not so much what these desiring-machines are in
themselves as it is how they operate and what they produce. There is no Cartesian subject
standing apart from the world on this account. Ones sense of personal identity is itself a product of desire related to a
broader social structure. At its (perhaps implicit) limit, my desire relates to all of history and how I perceive my
place in it. What desire produces, though, is not so much objects, but rules. What I want ends up structuring
my behavior. The desire for an iPhone produces new norms of behavior: taking pictures of
dinner at a restaurant, or checking my email during it. By and large this may be unconscious, but it happens nonetheless. As human
beings, we have not just habits, but the habit of forming habits. We tend to go along in the same way. These habits
form implicit rules governing our behaviorI put the left sock on, then the right. There is no
good reason I can think of for this, but it does strike me as the correct way of proceeding. This is
perhaps not very interesting, but what of the rules I follow when it comes to dealing with others? Is there a real difference between my tiny personal
affairs and my politics?D&Gs radical answer here is: no.Not really. While it is hard to see any
political significance to my left-sock-first rule, this is only because it doesnt seem to affect
anyone else. It still says something(I dont know whatcertainly it would be too much of a leap to say it indicates that I am a Leftist) about the way my
desire is investing itself in the world. This is the idea of Micropolitics; there is ultimately
nothing that is not political, because desire is always embedded to a broader social field.
The upshot of this is that what happens politically at the macro-level has roots in our psychic
affairs and small interpersonal dealings with one another. If the macropolitical structure has
become repressive, we should look at how it is pulling from and organizing desire. One of the driving questions
of Anti-Oedipus is: what makes us desire Fascism? We should note the implication of the very question. We (read: human beings under certain
conditions) want fascism. Fascismonly happens because we want it. So the question is: why? D&Gs answer relies heavily on the
notion of Microfascism, which is related to the micropolitics mentioned above. Its related to the way desire
produces rules.For instance, when I ride the subway, I follow a rule that tells me to take my
MetroCard out before I get to the turnstile. Or, to take another example, I try to walk on the right-hand side of the stairs. But, frequently, I find myself
behind someone who doesnt take their subway card out beforehand, or who meanders around the stairs like it doesnt matter. In
response I think: they should follow the rules!this is microfascism. Its fundamentally the desire for the trains to run on time. But, notice, what
I want here is for others to follow my rule. Maybe I even have reasons for thisits a good rule, after all!but,
regardless, this amounts to imposing my desire on others. Write this large and you get Mussolini or Franco or whatever.It is important to note that the
distinction between the micro and macro levels of the political is not reducible to the ordinary distinction between public and private. D&G reject the latter insofar as it implies a domain of life (i.e., the private) that is not social. This does not mean,
however, that the levels look the same. We perhaps all have our microfascisms, but these are diverse. They enable
state fascism, but this aims for homogeneity.

5.) Nomadism is a local movement the ballot gives the aff momentum thus
spreading the ideas to the indigenous meaning only voting aff fights
6.) Quote from cx - the lack of solvency comes from understanding that kind
of violence as coming from the sovereign. or at least that's the arg i'm
The problem for the negative is that we do understand fascism on both the
micro (you or I) and macro (state) level and we are actively combatting both
forms of fascism cross-apply our 1ac Stearns and Blake 13 ev the
schizophrenic method solves for fascism. Ergo we solve for the K.
7.) Have a high link threshold just because our authors are French white guys
who learned from other Europeans doesnt make them anymore Eurocentric
than their authors
Link level (specifics)
1. We arent imposing our knowledge on anybody If people dislike our
philosophy, they dont have to join
2. Sorry about the Mongols/Mongolians issue I was completely unaware it was a
slur, anyone who was offended I legitimately apologize
3. Doesnt reference a card in the 1ac, not that important just wanted to point
that out
4. This quote isnt orientalist in the typical sense of the word The entire piece of
the novel that makes a reference to the Eastern world is extremely
complementary. I could understand the author taking offense if Deleuze or
Guattari reflected the East/the people of the East as inferior, but if anything,
they depict the East as better than the West.
5. Author concludes DnG are critiquing Eurocentrism we encounter the problem of
Eurocentrism at the moment of its critiquethis remains, ultimately, an internal critique
6. No warrants he doesnt prove how DnG are Eurocentric in any way, he just
kinda talks about how they are rooted in the positivity of western language
when referring to the china is the weed in the human cabbage patch
7. Here is the part of the book theyre talking about in context:
The eastern model of living is rhizomatics par-excellence in juxtaposition to the
wests arborescent model of living
Deleuze and Guattari 87 Gilles, French philosopher. Felix, French philosopher. A Thousand Plateaus. Pg. 19. PWoods.
It is odd how the tree has dominated Western reality and all of Western thought, from botany to biology and
anatomy, but also gnosiology, theology, ontology, all of philosophy : the root-foundation, Grund, racine, fondement. The West has a special relation
to the forest, and deforestation; the fields carved from the forest are populated with seed
plants produced by cultivation based on species lineages of the arborescent type; animal raising, carried out
on fallow fields, selects lineages forming an entire animal arborescence. The East presents a different figure: a relation to the
steppe and the garden (or in some cases, the desert and the oasis), rather than forest and field;
cultivation of tubers by fragmentation of the individual; a casting aside or bracketing of animal raising, which is confined to closed
spaces or pushed out onto the steppes of the nomads. The West: agriculture based on a chosen lineage containing a
large number of variable individuals. The East: horticulture based on a small number of
individuals derived from a wide range of "clones." Does not the East, Oceania in particular, offer
something like a rhizomatic model opposed in every respect to the Western model of the tree?
Andre Haudricourt even sees this as the basis for the opposition between the moralities or philosophies of transcendence dear to the West and the immanent ones of the East:
the God who sows and reaps, as opposed to the God who replants and unearths (replanting of offshoots versus sowing of seeds).16 Transcendence: a
specifically European disease. Neither is music the same, the music of the earth is different, as is sexuality: seed plants, even those
with two sexes in the same plant, subjugate sexuality to the reproductive model; the rhizome,
on the other hand, is a liberation of sexuality not only from reproduction but also from
genitality. Here in the West, the tree has implanted itself in our bodies, rigidifying and stratifying
even the sexes. We have lost the rhizome, or the grass. Henry Miller: "China is the weed in the
human cabbage patch. ... The weed is the Nemesis of human endeavor.... Of all the imaginary existences we
attribute to plant, beast and star the weed leads the most satisfactory life of all. True, the weed produces no lilies, no battleships, no
Sermons on the Mount.... Eventually the weed gets the upper hand. Eventually things fall back
into a state of China. This condition is usually referred to by historians as the Dark Age. Grass is the only way out.... The weed exists only to fill the waste spaces
left by cultivated areas. It grows between, among other things. The lily is beautiful, the cabbage is provender, the poppy is maddeningbut the weed is rank growth ...: it points
amoral."17 Which China is Miller talking about? The old China, the new, an imaginary one, or yet
another located on a shifting map?


The problem here is that we arent imposing any universal method of thought the
entire book is predicated on the rejection of universalism cross-apply our Deleuze
and Guattari 87 ev about becoming-minoritarian here: Majority implies a constant Let us
suppose that the constant or standard is the average adult-white-heterosexual-European-male
Majority assumes a state of power and domination Minorities are of becoming whose value is to
trigger uncontrollable movements and deterritorializations of the mean or majority.
This has several implications: 1.) We dont impose universality on anyone meaning we
dont link 2.) We are actively fighting against the majority or in this case Eurocentric
& normative epistemology
Maldonado- Toress 08

1. Anyone can be rhizomatic it is a method of thought, not reduced to ones
societally determined identity.
2. We say identity is fluid in the sense that it is ever-changing, you dont run the
same aff and neg strat every round because you adapt, your identity as a
debater changes from round to round. Even preferences on debate styles may
change, at the beginning of this year, being a novice all I could run with
moderate (even thats a stretch of the word) competence was China SOI, but
progressively I got better and more interested in new arguments, specifically
the K, now Im primarily a K debater, because my identity has changed.
3. We dont present racism as a single monolith racism is a result of fascism on
both the micro and macro level (fascism being an authoritarian desire for
control, macro-level = Hitler. Micro-level = you dont want to eat ice cream
because ice cream makes you gain weight and society says gaining weight is
bad.) This means that because arborescent (hierarchical) modes of thought
always result in fascism we have to adopt a politics of rhizomatics (no more
hierarchies, everyones equal) by doing this racism is always under attack.
4. None of this card actually says whats in the tag and its not DnG specific
Alt level
1. Again, the entire aff is predicated on the destruction of normative concepts of
being, instead we choose a method of becoming, a constantly changing
interpretation of identity

Pre-empt Mignolo
1. We are epistemic disobedience cross-apply the 1ac analytic block about de-
linking from the epistemology of the resolution we are actively distancing
ourselves from the resolutions Eurocentric calls to action meaning we solve
epistemic disobedience
Biopower mignolo
1. This card flows aff because we are concerned with global equality and a
suggestion that Western democracy and socialism arent the only models to
base ones thought on we think decolonially already
thinking decolonially is concerned with global equality and economic justice, but it also
asserts that Western democracy and socialism are not the only two models to orient our
thinking and our doing. Decolonial arguments promote the communal as another option next to
capitalism and communism

1. This card makes them bite the K just because they claim the role of the
oppressed doesnt mean that they and their authors dont speak from the same
epistemic location
. It is important here to distinguish the epistemic location from the social location. The fact
that one is socially located in the oppressed side of power relations, does not automatically
mean that he/she is epistemically thinking from a subaltern epistemic location.
2. Nowhere do we claim an objective worldview we offer you our perspective
and as such we can now debate about it the 1ac is just a point of stasis (a
place where we can both debate an issue) presented in order for us to clash and
let a judge decide who better convinced them they were right. Every ballot says
who did the better debating not who came into the round with claiming to
have objective knowledge of the universe.
3. Also our Crain 13 ev is great about this it specifically says there is no
Cartesian subject the Cartesian subject is the basis of the ego-politics (ego
cogito) of the West and because we solve for the Cartesian subject, we solve
the K