Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tsa35gata

Ethiopia Aff is it good?

Recommended Posts

it is pretty good. i saw a copy of the a 1ac and it has some pretty going harms but the solvency is not the best. there is also some good add-on ground as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran it, we lost but only because we only had the Ethiopia file... if you can come up with a lot of general aff stuff it should work out great. I'm running it again this wednesday, i'll let you know how it turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this aff is far from good

 

hey, arent u from ga?

 

just aim me :ecdebater03

 

and i will hook u up w/ what eva aff u need

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

appreciate the opinions im gonna run it saturday and yea id like that evidence superman ill im u when u get on cuz its our last tournament in our circut until region and state so ill take all u wanna give me :cool::surf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Georgetown Day run this case? And didn't they have a team go 7-0 and a team go 6-1 or 5-2 at the glenbrooks? hmmmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...Yes they did....

 

But 1. this kid isnt gds 2. doesnt have the levinas adv

 

BUt yes kid to answer ur question (with levinas) its a good aff

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it linked to Borders anymore than it does, I'd puke.

 

If u knew how to debate and beat borders u'd win more often

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup borders is pretty stupid...like ive heard ways that some college debaters run it (or used to on last years topic) and it sounded much better than the way hs debaters run it....

 

WHY DONT U PEOPLE RUN A GOOD KRITIK? RUN NORMATIVITY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Levinas rocks

Oh no. Trust me-I ran him too. His philosophy is crap, and justifies inaction. Bad, bad Levinas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y does levinas lead to inaction- if he says we must always fufill the obligation to the other. If we have a never ending obligation how is that justifying inaction?

 

And u keep saying levinas is bad - but u dont give any reasons why....

 

*SIGH*

 

People these days....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LEVINAS WAS A NAZI

 

 

If anything he was a NAZI-HATER, he was such a jew. People even argued that his philosophy was based off of judaism (yea i hit an arg one round that said-LEVINAS WAS TOO JEWISH).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y does levinas lead to inaction- if he says we must always fufill the obligation to the other. If we have a never ending obligation how is that justifying inaction?

 

And u keep saying levinas is bad - but u dont give any reasons why....

 

*SIGH*

 

People these days....

He says the obligation to the other is rooted in the medium of language, and that leads to (in the real world especially) distator porn like dehum. also, his stuff saying that calculative thought is bad, which would reject thinking on probability in its entirety. Thus, since we live in a semi-realist system, the lack of thought on consequences on our infinite responsibility to the other actions will only lead to a war and further subjugation of the other. Also, with levinas's acceptance of our responsibility, it inevitably only leads to a reentrenchement of the system. By diagnosing the problems, we have associate the people who create them with the problem, subjugating them as "the other". People these days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF THE OBLIGATION TO THE OTHER IS CALCULATIVE THOUGHT WHY WOULD U ADVOCATE THE OBLIGATION? U ALSO DON'T SAY HOW FUFILLING THE OBLIGATION WOULD LEAD TO WAR- LEVINAS ARGUES THAT WHEN WE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBJECTATE THE OTHER - AND JUSTIFY VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM THAT THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE WORLD'S VIOLENCE- THEREFORE FUFILLING THE OBLIGATION IN HIS SYSTEM OF ETHICS WOULD DENY U ANY IMPX. AND UR DPORN ARG MAKES NO SENSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as people here have said, I/my team run this case. And I'd be happy to help anyone out with it. My aol sn is lightblb88.

 

As for the criticism of Levinas:

 

"He says the obligation to the other is rooted in the medium of language, and that leads to (in the real world especially) distator porn like dehum."

First of all, Levinas critiques standard forms of language. The system of language you assume is one in which we evaluate the form of the delivery of the words rather than the intent. Levinas believes that language is a vector for expressing our obligation, and the words we use to convey that sentiment are far less important than the sentiment itself. Therefore, the type of language you assume isn't the one Levinas advocates. I can't make any more specific arguments until you explain how one gets from language to "disaster porn like dehum." Not only that, but the disaster porn is what's known as compassion fatigue - Levinas' philosophy radically redefine what compassion for the Other is, therefore solving the problems you referred to earlier.

 

"also, his stuff saying that calculative thought is bad, which would reject thinking on probability in its entirety. Thus, since we live in a semi-realist system, the lack of thought on consequences on our infinite responsibility to the other actions will only lead to a war and further subjugation of the other."

Hrm - Levinas doesn't reject calculative thought. He actually believes we have to weigh obligations (I'll refer you to the Levinas Reader here), although not in the standard way that a d/a would function in, but that's not our discussion here. His belief on probability is that consequences themselves are unknowable, because any event could take place at any time in the future. The only way we can control our future is our interactions with other people - therefore, the ethical obligation shapes the future. Your reasons why this will cause war and subjugation are answered in the above sentence. Oh, and what does "semi-realist" mean? If you refer to the IR system, then this has nothing to do with Levinas' philosophy in its abstract sense.

 

"Also, with levinas's acceptance of our responsibility, it inevitably only leads to a reentrenchement of the system. By diagnosing the problems, we have associate the people who create them with the problem, subjugating them as "the other"."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But I'll try to answer what I think you mean. The last thing Levinas' philosophy does is subjugate the Other - his entire point is that we must make the Other the focus of our lives, to the point of sacrificing ourselves if necessary. What does diagnosing the problems have to do with Levinas, who argues that the reason violence is possible is because we view ourselves in a position superior to others where killing them is justified because we haven't realized that there are similarities between the Self and the Other, therefore eliminating any of the problems with "the system" (However, we can't view the Other as entirely the same - that's another one of his big points, but that' s not this discussion). Anyway, until I know what system is being critiqued, I can't really discuss it from a Levinasian perspective. Also, you assume that "the system" is bad.

 

"People these days..."

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Levinas critiques standard forms of language. The system of language you assume is one in which we evaluate the form of the delivery of the words rather than the intent. Levinas believes that language is a vector for expressing our obligation, and the words we use to convey that sentiment are far less important than the sentiment itself. Therefore, the type of language you assume isn't the one Levinas advocates. I can't make any more specific arguments until you explain how one gets from language to "disaster porn like dehum." Not only that, but the disaster porn is what's known as compassion fatigue - Levinas' philosophy radically redefine what compassion for the Other is, therefore solving the problems you referred to earlier.

And what I am saying is that the forms of language and critiscm Levinas uses makes people numb to their responsibility. In other words, responsibility becomes de rigeur and comfortable. This is where compassion fatigue and disaster porn come in-in order to know what the Other is going through, you must see it. Therefore, you get the disaster porn. And because helping the other is de rigeur and comfortable, you get a new sort of compassion fatigue: one which doesn't stop people from helping, but which takes away from the meaning of the action which eventually will lead to a rejection of the Levinas system and a worse system than what we have now.

 

Hrm - Levinas doesn't reject calculative thought. He actually believes we have to weigh obligations (I'll refer you to the Levinas Reader here), although not in the standard way that a d/a would function in, but that's not our discussion here. His belief on probability is that consequences themselves are unknowable, because any event could take place at any time in the future. The only way we can control our future is our interactions with other people - therefore, the ethical obligation shapes the future. Your reasons why this will cause war and subjugation are answered in the above sentence. Oh, and what does "semi-realist" mean? If you refer to the IR system, then this has nothing to do with Levinas' philosophy in its abstract sense.

From my readings of Levinas, I find him saying specifically that we have to reject the idea that we avoid what is on face ethical and ignore the consequences. He says that the bigger the consequence, the more sacrifice we make for the other, and that that is a good thing. In other words, ignore a likely consequence like nuclear war, and just do it anyway. I can show you where he wrote this stuff you need to see it.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But I'll try to answer what I think you mean. The last thing Levinas' philosophy does is subjugate the Other - his entire point is that we must make the Other the focus of our lives, to the point of sacrificing ourselves if necessary. What does diagnosing the problems have to do with Levinas, who argues that the reason violence is possible is because we view ourselves in a position superior to others where killing them is justified because we haven't realized that there are similarities between the Self and the Other, therefore eliminating any of the problems with "the system" (However, we can't view the Other as entirely the same - that's another one of his big points, but that' s not this discussion). Anyway, until I know what system is being critiqued, I can't really discuss it from a Levinasian perspective. Also, you assume that "the system" is bad.

Let me explain. When I say "subjugate the Other," I mean to make the Other-less than human. Basically, Levinas's perspectives on how we need to focus our attention on the other makes the person who concentrates on the Other only realize how much of an Other that he is. They then think, as we do in our IR system, we must help them poor Africans. We are the West. We are superior. We are the ones who can help them. In other words, Infinite Responsibility to the Other is merely a justification for racism and imperialism. It was the ruling ideology in the periods of colonialism, with the "We need to convert you, savages." Missionaries would lay down their lives for the Other, and it only hurt and subjugated them. And for the system is bad, if it isn't, then we don't need Levinas-the system solves. And it is horrible system. Look to instances like Rwanda or Sudan if you need proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...