Critical Issues in Debate: Izak Dunn on the Role of Philosophy in Debate

Izak Dunn is an author on this site, he has participated in the Non-Trad Showdown, and written such posts as The Esoteric and Critique. As a debater he was very successful, clearing multiple times at the NDT, enjoying deep runs at big tournaments, and earning Idaho State University’s 1st First Round bid to the NDT in 2006. This conversation covers a lot of things under the general heading of the role of philosophy in policy debate including: a round between Harvard and Oklahoma, lived experience in identity politics, Michael Dillon, mutual preference judging and the marginalized, Zizek, where to start with things like Deleuze and Guatarri, Descartes and skepticism, Izak’s first exposure to the the kritik, ontology in debate, getting lost in Heidegger, being an angsty teenager, and more! Scott and Izak also issue a formal challenge. Currently he coaches at Gonzaga University, who earned a first round this year, and is also the director of the newly emerging program at Eastern Washington. This podcast epitomizes the phrase “philosophy on the street!”

also check out puttingthekindebate.com on iTunes! You can also download this podcast here: izak on philosophy.

Here is a link to the round Scott and Izak discuss between Harvard and Oklahoma.

Here is a link to Scott’s decision in which he discusses the application of Descartes in debate.

Advertisements

One Response to “Critical Issues in Debate: Izak Dunn on the Role of Philosophy in Debate”

  1. I think the discussion of D&G is really good, but I would like to say as a response to the idea that Izak said as why they may be inapplicable (about when you confront some of their deeper aspects or whatever that they start to get rid of aspects of logic that are key to debating) that the “rhizomatic” discussion in their work, and their view of writing (philosophical and otherwise) as machinic assemblages/concept to be used, really speaks to the fact that even if some “part” of their philosophy may be fundamentally incompatible with debate, that their philosophy is put together so that you can take different aspects of it and throw them into a debate situation in order to revolutionize it/ or, even more radically, that their philosophy as being fundamentally incompatible with debate ought to be thrust into debate-machines in order to deterritorialize/revolutionize argumentative striations in order to create new possibilities and such. This is also why, I think, the evocation of D&G at the end of the podcast when talking about esotericism is really good too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: