Jump to content
ThinkOutsideTheBallot

Meditation K Aff

Recommended Posts

thats kinda trippy stuff when you think about it...

 

so death, under my plan text, is simply a name of something that just happens and does not merit any fear? thats the way i understand it, but clear me up if im wrong

 

Well, based on the card you posted earlier I'm assuming the philosophy you are basing your aff on is Buddhist based? If this is so it is not so much that 'death is a name of something that just happens' (not that you are mistaken in saying so), but rather that the our whole understanding of birth and death is arbitrary anyways. That is- for some reason we decided to draw the line of 'life' at conception (or where ever, depending on your stance on abortion) and 'death' at the moment that your heart stops beating, but really these are completely arbitrary distinctions that are part of the whole illusion of selfhood. So it's more than something that doesn't merit any fear (although we certainly should not fear it), but rather that our concept of death is just an arbitrary phenomenological distinction created by humans to justify securing selfhood, when in reality (or whatever you want to call it) there is just a whole web of interconnected existence in which we are all neither self nor nonself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea for aff next year, I"m trying to make sure I have the story right

It's a critical aff that deals with a personal advocacy and what your ado vacating is having people meditate more to solve war,violence and fear of death. or something like that.Could someone explain the 1Ac structure to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. K affs are so illigit. There is no way a neg can come up with answers to every stupid k idea that someone happens to come up with. There is no way this would make sense in to context of the resolution.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. K affs are so illigit. There is no way a neg can come up with answers to every stupid k idea that someone happens to come up with. There is no way this would make sense in to context of the resolution.

 

John Locke (if that is your real name), you are actually incredibly ignorant if you think K's are illegit. K's a are a critical (tee hee) way to evaluate the round beyond the stupid nuclear war impacts that you like to jerk off to.

 

Let's take my favorite: fem. Fem allows us to pull back the curtain the international mysoginistic conspiracy against womyn and the global struggle for humyn rights. We see the plan for what it really is: a plot to subvert the good work done by my homegirls who aren't buying the bullshit sausagefest that I'll bet you like to advocate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see the plan for what it really is: a plot to subvert the good work done by my homegirls who aren't buying the bullshit sausagefest that I'll bet you like to advocate.

 

Are you kidding me? Homegirls?:confused: If you are the femnazi that you try to make yourself to be, why would you call them homegirls? If that isn't a deragatory comment I don't know what is. Also, by me saying that K affs are illigit that automatically means I'm a mysoginistic pig? In fact I ran PEPFAR this year and feminism is one of my advantages! You are probably just one of those people who pretend in the debate world to be all about female rights and such, but in the real world call your friends "bitches".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding me? Homegirls?:confused: If you are the femnazi that you try to make yourself to be, why would you call them homegirls? If that isn't a deragatory comment I don't know what is. Also, by me saying that K affs are illigit that automatically means I'm a mysoginistic pig? In fact I ran PEPFAR this year and feminism is one of my advantages! You are probably just one of those people who pretend in the debate world to be all about female rights and such, but in the real world call your friends "bitches".

 

Jesus christ you're everywhere aren't you? Roadmap is homegirls, mysoginy, PEPFAR.

 

1. How is homegirls derogatory? You give no warrants. I use it as a term of endearment to people I geniunely admire and frequently quote (in real life, and how many times have you quoted Khalilizad?). Don't look at this arg.

 

2. You misunderstand my misogny comment. I'll admit, I didn't exactly know whether you were misogynistic or not when I posted that, but since then, you've proven me right. Extend all your posts ever.

 

3. A MAN running FEM advs? WTF. Do you just drop acid before each tournament or something? This should be self-explanatory, either you're lying and are just trying to distract from your sexism, or you're just flat out stupid and should be shot and forcibly removed from the gene pool.

 

"You must drain the swamp before you can begin to govern for the people."-Nancy Pelosi, speaker for the House

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus christ you're everywhere aren't you? Roadmap is homegirls, mysoginy, PEPFAR.

 

1. How is homegirls derogatory? You give no warrants. I use it as a term of endearment to people I geniunely admire and frequently quote (in real life, and how many times have you quoted Khalilizad?). Don't look at this arg.

 

2. You misunderstand my misogny comment. I'll admit, I didn't exactly know whether you were misogynistic or not when I posted that, but since then, you've proven me right. Extend all your posts ever.

 

3. A MAN running FEM advs? WTF. Do you just drop acid before each tournament or something? This should be self-explanatory, either you're lying and are just trying to distract from your sexism, or you're just flat out stupid and should be shot and forcibly removed from the gene pool.

 

"You must drain the swamp before you can begin to govern for the people."-Nancy Pelosi, speaker for the House

 

1. Homegirl is deragatory. From urbandictionary:

Homegirl: female version of "homeboy"

Homeboy:

a term used commonly in hoods and ghettos closely related to Dawg. the elongated version of homeboy.

for those who have more time for greetings, "Homeboy" can be replaced by something like "Home skillet biscuit on a sesame seed bun with creame cheese mustard jello and ketchup on a sunday morning" Homeboy is often associated with "sup" and "yo."

 

WHY ARE ADRESSING THESE GIRLS AS THOUGH THEY LIVE IN THE HOOD/GHETTO? WHY ARE YOU CONDEMNING THEM TO A LIFE OF POVERTY?

 

2) How have any of my comments misogynistic? Just because you are a Fem K hack doesn't mean I'm misogynistic.

 

3)WOW. There is a sexist comment. Why can't I run a fem advantage? I'm not lying and I'm since I run a fem adv I drop acid? give me a break

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Homegirl is deragatory. From urbandictionary:

Homegirl: female version of "homeboy"

Homeboy:

a term used commonly in hoods and ghettos closely related to Dawg. the elongated version of homeboy.

for those who have more time for greetings, "Homeboy" can be replaced by something like "Home skillet biscuit on a sesame seed bun with creame cheese mustard jello and ketchup on a sunday morning" Homeboy is often associated with "sup" and "yo."

 

WHY ARE ADRESSING THESE GIRLS AS THOUGH THEY LIVE IN THE HOOD/GHETTO? WHY ARE YOU CONDEMNING THEM TO A LIFE OF POVERTY?

 

Nice. Except for the word commonly in there. I, as you may have noticed, am not common. Thus, this has no bearing on anything. I take it to mean "Homely girls" i.e., girls who have not succumbed to the enormous social pressures to conform so that all the men can come in there pants at the sight of you.

 

So buster, the one condemning them to poverty is you, since all you can imagine is that someone who lives in a ghetto can't ever break out.

 

2) How have any of my comments misogynistic? Just because you are a Fem K hack doesn't mean I'm misogynistic.

 

Uh...yeah. You've repeatedly shown how incredibly sexist you are, not the least of which by trying to put words in my mouth like your dad puts his cock in his mouth. Go reread your posts if you need more proof, I don't have time to waste on you.

 

3)WOW. There is a sexist comment. Why can't I run a fem advantage? I'm not lying and I'm since I run a fem adv I drop acid? give me a break

 

It's not that you're reading a fem adv., it's that you're reading it as a mysoginist, and thus detracting from the real argument. Look at it this way. If your nazi grandpa read an advantage about Jew rights, would you think Jew rights are important, or even coherent? No, because he would fuck up the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh...yeah. You've repeatedly shown how incredibly sexist you are, not the least of which by trying to put words in my mouth like your dad puts his cock in his mouth. Go reread your posts if you need more proof, I don't have time to waste on you.

 

I hope you get your testicles gnawed off by a Malaysian whore

 

Seriously, how hard did your dad beat you when he raped you?

 

Ummm get real, in the Thread about the 3rd graders planing to attack their teachers, Msacko make a comment about fathers spanking their children afterwards you jumped his ass and say he is the reason that all bad shit happens. Then in the 'funniest judge comments' thread you say

Rape is not a joke, and it should never be taken as such.

Yet over and over again in this thread and in the others that you have taken the liberity to take a shit in you have turned rape and abuse into jokes of your own and turned all Malaysians into whores. If your going to to try and stand up for somthing at least dont be a retard about it (ie. being a hypocrite). So will you please stop this bullshit, dont contradict yourself, and change your profile name to Valerie Solanas, it will suit you much better.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3. A MAN running FEM advs? WTF. Do you just drop acid before each tournament or something? This should be self-explanatory, either you're lying and are just trying to distract from your sexism, or you're just flat out stupid and should be shot and forcibly removed from the gene pool.

 

His sexism? I only see your sexism here. You are telling a man that he has to be sexist, since apparently he is "only trying to detract from his sexism" which automatically makes all men sexist you homogenizing asshat. Seriously, all that comes out of your mouth is sexist spew hating on the male gender, I have yet to see how matriarchy is better than patriarchy, where's your warrant for that? Oh, not to mention the fact that one of your, oh so beloved, K authors Butler thinks we need to eradicate gender not males.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you perm, then you are stuck with a uniqueness question. How is setting up more meditation going to have NB if meditation is already done and our world is still flawed. The current situation is Tibet is crying out to become a card for how meditation does not guarantee peace and tranquility.

 

As for turning, a CP could use meditation against you, citing plans like meditation as just more of the same, all talk, no action, while the CP actually does something.

 

Finally, Buddhism, while having no gods, is recognized as a religion by the USG. Funding Buddhism=death of 1st amendment=death of democracy=GNW. (on a side note, avoid mentioning Buddhism, and you avoid this trap). Your statement above about religious groups being funded by the USG all the time is incorrect. They may provide grants for specific items or actions, but none of those items or actions can be part of the practice of that religion. An example is back in my days at Catholic school, the govt. sent money for our textbooks, except for our religion textbooks. I really think you are crossing that "establishing" line.

 

I think, perhaps, you are misreading the modern day judging pool. If you plan on using this in the two to three rounds you have with the sort of judges who enjoy performance rounds, it sounds like a worthwhile workup.

 

If, however, you make this your primary aff, the vast majority of judges are just too conservative to see this as topical.

 

Most judges, in my experience, want to be stunned with your intellect, your research, your arguments and your ability to think fast on your feet. Games like performance rounds and the odd sorts of K's (silent affs,etc.) for the most part make judges think that the research and preparation isn't there.

 

I love your ability to think outside the box. Keep that up. And you should probably include this in your tub. However, don't let it replace a primary aff that doesn't scream for the next 24 minutes to be about T.

 

Ok one meditation does not have to revolve around religion or buddism and second of all you say that judges want to see your ability to research and things like this but I am pretty sure an aff like this would take much more research then most affs would to win a round it would require much prep and many cards to cut.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think someone should make an outline to some advantages to this aff it sounds really interesting and I have some cards cut but not really any place to start I argue K's well but dont really put them together as well as I argue them I might have this as a unique aff next year. I was thinking with starting with a war advantage talking about how the U.S. does not think and with thinking we can realize the neg f/x of war. Also what were people thinking of a plan text? I was thinking a text could be a good idea because you could be like hey I am working under a policy framework with discoursive advantages. That was just my idea. Let me know what you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within the following speeches my partner and I engage in the practice of mindfulness meditation. During every word we read, write, and hear, we will be completely aware that it's within that moment that we read, write, and listen. We will stay connected to the very words we say as we say them

Contention 1: Where is the love?

According to recent polls only 8% of people in the US meditate.

National Institutes of Health 2004 (http://www.astrology-vedic.com/page5/page5.html)

According to a new nationwide government survey,1 36 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 years and over use some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). CAM is defined as a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. When prayer specifically for health reasons is included in the definition of CAM, the number of U.S. adults using some form of CAM in the past year rises to 62 percent.

"These new findings confirm the extent to which Americans have turned to CAM approaches with the hope that they would help treat and prevent disease and enhance quality of life," said Stephen E. Straus, M.D., Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). "The data not only assists us in understanding who is using CAM, what is being used, and why, but also in studying relationships between CAM use and other health characteristics, such as chronic health conditions, insurance coverage, and health behaviors."

The survey, administered to over 31,000 representative U.S. adults, was conducted as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Developed by NCCAM and the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the survey included questions on 27 types of CAM therapies commonly used in the United States. These included 10 types of provider-based therapies, such as acupuncture and chiropractic, and 17 other therapies that do not require a provider, such as natural products (herbs or botanical products), special diets, and megavitamin therapy.

Although there have been many surveys of CAM use to date, the various surveys included fewer choices of CAM therapies. In addition, they often surveyed smaller population samples primarily relying on telephone or mail surveys versus in-person interviews used for this survey. Thus, the results from the CAM portion of the NHIS provide the most comprehensive and reliable data to date describing CAM use by the U.S. adult population.

Overall, the survey revealed that CAM use was greater among a variety of population groups, including women; people with higher education; those who had been hospitalized within the past year; and former smokers, compared to current smokers or those who had never smoked. In addition, this was the first survey to yield substantial information on CAM use by minorities. For example, it found that African American adults were more likely than white or Asian adults to use CAM when megavitamin therapy and prayer were included in the definition of CAM.

"We're continuously expanding the health information we collect in this country, including information on the actions people take in dealing with their own health situations," said NCHS Director Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D. "Over the years we've concentrated on traditional medical treatment, but this new collection of CAM data taps into another dimension entirely. What we see is that a sizable percentage of the public puts their personal health into their own hands."

CAM approaches were most often used to treat back pain or problems, colds, neck pain or problems, joint pain or stiffness, and anxiety or depression. However, only about 12 percent of adults sought care from a licensed CAM practitioner, suggesting that most people who use CAM do so without consulting a practitioner. According to the survey, the 10 most commonly used CAM therapies and the approximate percent of U.S. adults using each therapy were:

 

  • Prayer for own health, 43 percent
  • Prayer by others for the respondent's health, 24 percent
  • Natural products (such as herbs, other botanicals, and enzymes), 19 percent
  • Deep breathing exercises, 12 percent
  • Participation in prayer group for own health, 10 percent
  • Meditation, 8 percent
  • Chiropractic care, 8 percent
  • Yoga, 5 percent
  • Massage, 5 percent
  • Diet-based therapies (such as Atkins, Pritikin, Ornish, and Zone diets), 4 percent.

 

The Advantage- Introspection

Death happens to 100% of people but the West's portrayal and addiction to death and fear removes the joy from life. We become living dead as our fear and anxiety trades-off with joy and life.

bell hooks 2000 (professor of English at City College, respected feminist 'All About Love' p. 191-193)

Love makes us feel more alive. Living in a state of lovelessness we feel we might as well be dead; everything within us is silent and still. We are unmoved. "Soul murder" is the term psychoanalysts use to describe this state of living death. It echoes the biblical declaration that "anyone who does not know love is still in death." Cultures of domination court death. Hence the ongoing fascination with violence, the false insistence that it is natural for the strong to prey on the weak, for the more powerful to prey upon the powerless. In our culture the worship is so intense it stands in the way of love. On his deathbed Erich Fromm aksed a beloved friend why we prefer love of death to love of life, why “the human race prefers necrophilia to biophilia.” Coming from Fromm this question was merely rhetorical as he had spent his life explaining our cultural failure to fully embrace the reality that love gives life meaning.

Unlike love, death will touch us all at some point in our lives. We will witness the death of others or we will witness our own dying even if it’s just in that brief instance when life is fading away. Living with lovelessness is not a problem we openly and readily complain about. Yet the reality that we will all die generates tremendous concern, fear, and worry. It may very well be that the worship of death, indicated by the constant spectacles of dying we watch on television screens daily, is one way our culture tries to still that fear, to conquer it, to make us comfortable. Writing about the meaning of death in contemporary culture Thomas Merton explains: “psychoanalysis has taught us something about the death wish that pervades the modern world. We discover our affluent society to be profoundly addicted to the love of death... In such a society, though much may officially be said about human values, whenever there is, in fact, a choice between the living and the dead, between men and money, or men and power, or men and bombs, the choice will always be for death, for death is the end or the goal of life.” Our cultural obssesion with death consumes energy that could be given to the art of living.

The worship of death is a central component of patriarchal thinking, whether expressed by women or men. Visionary theologians see the failure of religion as one reason our culture remains death centered. in his work Original Blessing, Matthew Fox explains: “Western civilization has preferred love of death to love of life to the very extent that its religious traditions have preferred redemption to creation, sin to ecstacy, and individual introspection to cosmic awareness and appreciation.” For the most part, patriarchal perspectives have shaped religious teaching and practice. Recently, there has been a turning away from these teachings toward a creation grounded spiratuality that is life-affirming. Fox calls this “the via positiva”: “Without this solid grounding in creation’s powers we become bored, violent people. We become necrophiliacs in love with death and the powers and principalites of death.” We move away from this worship of death by challenging patriarchy, creating peace, working for justice, and embracing a love ethic.

 

The West's spectacles of death embroil us in a cycle of fear and violence. We fear the unknown 'other' and respond instinctually with extreme violence towards this fictional threat creating self fulfilling prophecies.

bell hooks 2000 (professor of English at City College, respected feminist 'All About Love' p. 193-195)

Ironically, the worship of death as a strategy for coping with our underlying fear of death’s power does not truely give us solace. It is deeply anxiety producing. The more we watch spectacles of meaningless death, of random violence and cruelty, the more afraid we become in our daily lives. We cannot embrace the stranger with love, for we fear the stranger. We believe the stranger is a messenger of death who wants our life. This irrational fear is an expression of madness if we think of madness as meaning we are out of touch with reality. Even though we are more likely to be hurt by someone we know than a stranger, our fear is directed toward the unknown and unfamiliar. That fear brings with it intense paranoia and a constant obsession with safety. The growing number of gated communities in our nation is but one example of the obsession with safety. With guards at our gate, individuals still have bars and elaborate internal security systems. Americans spend more than thirty billion dollars a year on security. When I have stayed with friends in these communities and inquired as to whether all the security is in response to an actual danger I am told “not really,” that it is the fear of a threat rather than a real threat that is a catalyst for an obsession with safety that borders on madness.

 

Meditation forces us to confront death head on, and comprehend impermanence and the true nature of our existance.

University of Virginia Library 1997

(September 2, http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/exhibits/dead/intro.html)

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes the natural fact that human beings tend to avoid admitting death as an immediate threat in their own lives. Indeed, this refusal to acknowledge the imminence of death and impermanence is regarded in Buddhism as a fundamental cause of the confusion and ignorance that prevents spiritual progress. Spiritual growth is achieved not by cowering from death, but by confronting it head on. Therefore, to facilitate confrontation with such raw reality, Buddhism offers several detailed meditative strategies. These death meditations enable Buddhist practitioners to engage seriously the truth of impermanence and, in turn, to comprehend the true nature of human existence. Mindfulness of death engenders both control and freedom; it brings about control in the sense of curbing the desire for permanence and security, and it promotes freedom by offering the meditator an enduring glimpse of the Buddha's liberating wisdom. The clear advantages of regularly contemplating impermanence and death make such meditations supreme among all the various types of Tibetan Buddhist mindfulness training. Taking the practice seriously helps to inspire further spiritual endeavor, overcome the delusions of permanence and immortality, and increase the probability of a virtuous life and death experience.

 

The psychological revolution we kick start is key Only by recognizing our responsibility to violence and the war within ourselves can we access an ethic of peace.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

How can we solve our present political chaos and the crisis in the world? Is there anything an individual can do to stop the impending war? Krishnamurti: War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it not? War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many, too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are the causes of war. An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war. She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she had another son aged sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the thing over. I suggested to her that to save her son she had to cease to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple – not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said,” That is too much. You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too powerful for me to alter.” Therefore she was responsible for the destruction of her son. Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, society changes; merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward society, while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always overcoming the outward. What causes war – religious, political or economic? Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and consideration between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed on beliefs, ideas and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The present crisis is of an exceptional nature and we as human beings must either pursue the path of constant conflict and continuous wars, which are the result of our everyday action, or else see the causes of war and turn our back upon them. Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, “For God’s sake, don’t disturb us, leave us alone”. The higher up we are, the more we want security, permanency, tranquility, the more we want to be left alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain. Everything is disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars. You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position, we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. [not on this website] But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them.

 

Circumstances do not cause violence, violent acts are always a choice we make. Looking a violence in a frame that doesn't acknowledge personal choice hijacks responsibility and allows the harm to happen. We must look at the local sphere of action to keep from believing ourselves worthless and make real change.

Kappeler 95 (Susanne, German author of numerous books, The Will to Violence, Pg. 10-11)

Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinkingthat therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers, For we tend to think that we cannot 'do' anything, say, about a war,because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all,any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like 'I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension': our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding,preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't'- our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others.' We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according: to the structuresand the values of war and violence.

Thus we stand resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternate energy incentives in the United States.

But we affirm not as a governmental solution to a fear based politics of oil and global warming, but rather a personal look at how we can find ways beyond sleep and eating to gain energy. How we can gain the positives of physical, mental, and spiritual energy. We affirm a ethic of an energy of love and peace, and are convinced that meditation and introspection allows us to do so. We believe the incentives for this our obvious, a state of peace, an ethic of understanding, and a life lived to its fullest and happiest.

Contention 2: You say you want a revolution

Put your counter plans away, governments can't solve case through other action. ONLY the plan creates the action needed to address the root causes of war.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the physiological security we need – food, clothing and shelter – is destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through titles, names – all of which is destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, if you look at it. To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states – greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness. To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no peace.

The introspection must be genuine. And the question is not about other methods or people solving the problems we face. We must not defer responsibility to 'someone else'. This can never solve the inner war within people.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, “ I agree”, and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for the world miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual assent. They will be stopped only when you realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else. If you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will transform yourself; peace will come only when you yourself are peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your neighbor.

Meditation is not only an alterative way to gain energy, it increases productivity and profits in the workplace.

The Washington Post October 1, 1996

http://www.tm.org/news/washpost1.html

R.W. "Buck" Montgomery found that meditation improved the health of his company. He instituted meditation in his chemical manufacturing company in Detroit in 1983. Within three years, he said, 52of the company's 70 workers -- from upper management to the production line-- were meditating for 20 minutes before they came to work and 20 minutesin the afternoon, on company time.

Over three years, Montgomery said, absenteeism fell by 85 percent, productivity rose 120 percent, quality control rose 240 percent, injuries declined 70 percent, sick days fell by 76 percent and profits soared 520 percent.

Montgomery, who is now working with the TranscendentalMeditation Program, an Iowa-based group dedicated to promoting meditation,attributes the improvements solely to the meditation exercises. He said they relieved stress and made the company's employees more relaxed. "As a result, people enjoyed their work, they were more creative and more productive,"he said.

Puritan-Bennett Corp., which produces respiratorycare and other medical equipment in Kansas City, Kansas, started with apilot program in 1993 that compared 38 people who meditated with 38 whodid not.

At the end of three months, Workgroup, an independentfirm at the University of Kansas, reported that those who meditated said they had more energy, were able to handle stress better, had fewer physical complaints and had lower cholesterol levels, said Mary Martha Stevens, managerof the company's health and wellness program.

Contention 4: Death is an idea.

We must remove ideas about birth and death. There is no beginning and no end. Life exists after 'death' simply in a different form. There is not an extinction of life, we simply become the plants, become trees, become the breeze.

Hanh 2002 (Thich Nhat, no death, no fear pg. 65)

When we lose someone we love we should remember that that person has not become nothing. “Something” cannot become “nothing” and “nothing” cannot become “something”. Science can help us understand this, because matter cannot be destroyed- it can become energy. And energy can become matter, but it cannot be destroyed. In the same way our beloved was not destroyed; she has just taken on another form. The form may be a cloud, a child, or the breeze. We can see our loved one in everything. And smiling, we can say, “Dear one, I know you are very close to me. I know that your nature is the nature of no birth and no death. I know that I have not lost you, you are always with me.

 

 

We will devote the rest of our speech time to silent meditation.

 

 

Thoughts: it's rough, but what do people think? I can't find a good solvency advocate, so against my former sentiments this aff is going to have to go more kritkal. I've written up some impact turns to topicality and framework standards and it's definitely about more of a personal advocacy rather than USFG action.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mediation is a nice FYI but it has nothing to do with your plan text, and a very contrived link to resolution. You can't just say "we think USFG should do X. However, we don't endorse USFG action, instead we as individuals should mediate." That's the dumbest shit I've read. There's no point to the plan.

 

Yes you can say "oh we'll just K topicality"... well sure, if the neg loses to that, then they deserve to lose. But then there's no point to even putting together a 1AC, just waste everyone's time for eight minutes with "silent mediation".

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The discussion around 'spiritual energy' as 'alternative energy' in the thread on poetry gave me the idea that a meditation affirmative could make sense next year.

During the renewable energy topic, there were teams that ran a transcendental meditation/reiki affirmative, which was similar to your idea (I think a camp actually put out this aff). You might want to look into those forms of meditation for additional evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mediation is a nice FYI but it has nothing to do with your plan text, and a very contrived link to resolution. You can't just say "we think USFG should do X. However, we don't endorse USFG action, instead we as individuals should mediate." That's the dumbest shit I've read. There's no point to the plan. "

 

It's a question of how the resolution is interpreted. If I said I was talking about alternate energy I'll conceed it's usually associated with solar power, ethanol, etc.; but that doesn't mean it's the only way to read those words and conversely how to read the topic. While somewhat retarded the 'resolved:' debate and question of personal politics versus USFG role playing has been a pretty standard part of debate. It's not like no one has ever read a affirmative that doesn't advocate USFG action, don't act like I'm the first one.

 

And come on, my idea can hardly be the dumbest shit you've ever read, or you haven't been around the internet enough.

 

Yes you can say "oh we'll just K topicality"... well sure, if the neg loses to that, then they deserve to lose. But then there's no point to even putting together a 1AC, just waste everyone's time for eight minutes with "silent mediation".

 

Yeah, I posted that quick before I went out to dinner, so let me clarify: I don't mean Kritik T like idiots do, where they read Bleiker or Butler cards that don't apply to their affirmative and that they link back to, or T=genocide or dumb shit like that. I'm talking clash heavy, line by line debates on why things like 'ground', 'predictability' and 'limits' aren't automatically 'awesome'. It's less of a K of T which immediately brings to mind images of a kid choking on his spit trying to explain why T is biopower and more like a framework debate. You can't tell me that negs never lose a framework debate. If I can prove my interpretation of T in debate is better than yours I win, if I can't I won't. You can't get up and talk about dinosaurs under my interpretation, don't straw man me.

 

Second this is one option, it's not the way I want to necessarily run this. I can make standard T blocks once I see negative T shells, but it's difficult to write A2: T when you have nothing to "answer" back yet. The 'alternate energy' literature exists for meditation.

 

This aff isn't about eight minutes of meditation, what's the fun, strategy, or educational purpose in that? Some people wanted to see a 1AC posted, so I posted one. You could be constructive instead of repeating things that have already been said (heck that I've already said) and discussed and said better than you did. Thanks though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I like it- and I congratulate you on the effort/work put into making this affirmative happen. I haven't had as much time lately as I hoped I would, so if I ever put out a version of this aff too, it's gonna be a little bit. That said I do have some suggestions and criticisms, and a few questions.

 

First of all- are you planning on spreading this 1ac? I would hope not, just because I think it would be hard to truthfully engage in constant awareness of every word you speak if you are spitting the words out a mile a minute.

 

Second- get rid of that card from the Washington Post- all it does is prove the meditation can be coopted by capitalists to make the system run more smoothly. And it is an example of completely superficial engagement with meditation, because if those workers really meditated on their lifestyles, they'd realize they were taking part in a system that exploits and dominates many many beings and lifeforms. If you can't find a better card than that using the word energy in the context of meditation, then you aren't trying hard enough.

 

Third- there are a couple places in there that are in danger of being quite dualistic and or reinforcing the concept of selfhood. Using the words 'key' and 'only' and alike are dominant exclusive terms that have no value in this aff. Realize- you don't need to be better than every other approach to introspection/whatever, you just need to be good. Competition demands that the neg's counter advocacy be mutually exclusive to yours, not better than yours, so don't try so hard to prove that you are better than everyone else, just be ready to perm whatever the neg suggests might also be a good thing to do (like repeating mantras). I think that using the Kappelar card is a good idea, but you need to retag it. The idea isn't that 'we' are 'responsible' for every 'choice' 'we' 'make'- you are misinterpreting the card when you say 'circumstances aren't responsible' in a way that could be dangerously contradictory to the rest off your aff- strictly speaking- everything is part of interconnected circumstances (at least according to the philosophies that recommend meditation). It's not that 'we are responsible' it's that we are part of the interconnected whole, and so, yes we have to take responsibility, but in the context that everything effects everything, and that pretending only the president makes the decisions that matter obscures the influence everyone has in creating our realities.

 

Four- I think you need to do a bit more work interpretting the resolution/explaining your interpretation of the resolution.

 

Last- this is mostly just a stylistic thing, but the way your aff is presented is in a much more calculative manner, than in a meditative one. I would recommend fewer emphasis on evidence and more emphasis and your own personal rhetoric. I'd get rid of the whole 'contentions' and 'advantages' thing if I were you, but like I said, that's just my style, so roll how you like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im actually a buddhist and would really love to have someone run this on me and crush them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a question of how the resolution is interpreted. If I said I was talking about alternate energy I'll conceed it's usually associated with solar power, ethanol, etc.; but that doesn't mean it's the only way to read those words and conversely how to read the topic. While somewhat retarded the 'resolved:' debate and question of personal politics versus USFG role playing has been a pretty standard part of debate.

you missed my point -plan defends usfg, then you claim you're local and don't defend usfg.

 

as based on your solvency literature, i'd guess your plan has usfg give money to companies to offer more mediation.

 

if that's not what you intend to defend, don't say it in the first place

It's not like no one has ever read a affirmative that doesn't advocate USFG action, don't act like I'm the first one.

yeah but they didn't read plans that contradict their 1ac

And come on, my idea can hardly be the dumbest shit you've ever read, or you haven't been around the internet enough.

i didn't say ever.

 

 

[/i]Yeah, I posted that quick before I went out to dinner, so let me clarify: I don't mean Kritik T like idiots do, where they read Bleiker or Butler cards that don't apply to their affirmative and that they link back to, or T=genocide or dumb shit like that. I'm talking clash heavy, line by line debates on why things like 'ground', 'predictability' and 'limits' aren't automatically 'awesome'. It's less of a K of T which immediately brings to mind images of a kid choking on his spit trying to explain why T is biopower and more like a framework debate. You can't tell me that negs never lose a framework debate. If I can prove my interpretation of T in debate is better than yours I win, if I can't I won't. You can't get up and talk about dinosaurs under my interpretation, don't straw man me.

even worse

-analytics about why limits and neg ground are not awesome = defense

-analytics about why limits and neg ground are bad in a debate context = very stupid (at least Ks of T give real reasons why limits are bad, but the cards aren't in a debate context)

 

Second this is one option, it's not the way I want to necessarily run this. I can make standard T blocks once I see negative T shells, but it's difficult to write A2: T when you have nothing to "answer" back yet. The 'alternate energy' literature exists for meditation.

t usfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you missed my point -plan defends usfg, then you claim you're local and don't defend usfg.

 

as based on your solvency literature, i'd guess your plan has usfg give money to companies to offer more mediation.

 

if that's not what you intend to defend, don't say it in the first place

 

 

yeah but they didn't read plans that contradict their 1ac

 

i didn't say ever.

 

even worse

-analytics about why limits and neg ground are not awesome = defense

-analytics about why limits and neg ground are bad in a debate context = very stupid (at least Ks of T give real reasons why limits are bad, but the cards aren't in a debate context)

 

t usfg

All right, I mean that's all valid. I'm new to this, and I perfectly aware I'm not going to be flawless on the theoretical background of this style of debate. That said, I'm working on it and I'll agree to disagree with you on this aff. I'll get back to you/post answers when I have better responses. The plan/no plan thing is a battle I'm fighting right now. Thanks for the input.

 

In general, I like it- and I congratulate you on the effort/work put into making this affirmative happen. I haven't had as much time lately as I hoped I would, so if I ever put out a version of this aff too, it's gonna be a little bit. That said I do have some suggestions and criticisms, and a few questions.
Yeah, don't worry about it. Work at your own pace, but yeah, i'd like to see other interpretations.

 

First of all- are you planning on spreading this 1ac? I would hope not, just because I think it would be hard to truthfully engage in constant awareness of every word you speak if you are spitting the words out a mile a minute.
No, which is why I concede it won't be as long as that version up there. I just wanted to throw out a example so to speak. I've always spread, I'm a proponent of spreading, I've read your views on it and know you don't like, but yeah this subject matter and style probably does require a slower pace.

 

Second- get rid of that card from the Washington Post- all it does is prove the meditation can be coopted by capitalists to make the system run more smoothly. And it is an example of completely superficial engagement with meditation, because if those workers really meditated on their lifestyles, they'd realize they were taking part in a system that exploits and dominates many many beings and lifeforms. If you can't find a better card than that using the word energy in the context of meditation, then you aren't trying hard enough.
I think we're going to clash on this issue a couple times. This is my three years of 'policy framework' experience clashing with the nature of this affirmative. In all honesty it's just a link turn to spending/biz con disads that will inevitably get thrown out when people hit this case. Why avoid clash when you can turn the disad? Although I'm well aware of the anti-possesion parts of Buddhism I don't inherently find the religion anti-capitalist.

 

One could certainly go the route of 'cap bad, consumerism bad, buddhism solves the need for possessions etc.' but that gets you in a messy impact turn debate against the block which is trouble. I don't find the fact that meditation being able to make people perform there work better 'superficial', many of the monks I've read champion both doing a good job and staying mentally and physically fit. Yes the meditation allows corporations to make more money but it also allows peoples days to become about 'more than money' so to speak. Rather than their days being about 'work. work. work'. They have a twenty minute period to introspect and relax. Isn't that alone stopping a cooption of people by the workplace? I don't know, interesting point though.

 

And yes, I've read and cut much better cards talking about meditation and energy, that one just gives offense.

 

Third- there are a couple places in there that are in danger of being quite dualistic and or reinforcing the concept of selfhood. Using the words 'key' and 'only' and alike are dominant exclusive terms that have no value in this aff. Realize- you don't need to be better than every other approach to introspection/whatever, you just need to be good. Competition demands that the neg's counter advocacy be mutually exclusive to yours, not better than yours, so don't try so hard to prove that you are better than everyone else, just be ready to perm whatever the neg suggests might also be a good thing to do (like repeating mantras).
Oh geez, this is shit I haven't even been thinking about. Again my tradition concepts of how debate works and the lingo slip in here. When I think counterplan on the aff I think 'Solvency turn that m-f'er! Make a solvency deficit!' How would you answer a counterplan with this affirmative? Would you only perm but go really in depth with it? Or take shots at the net benefit or framework beneath the CP? Cause, I mean, it doesn't matter how far you get from policy making, you gotta have offense somewhere if you want to win.

 

I'll edit out the dualism stuff and be more wary of it in the future. Thanks.

 

I think that using the Kappelar card is a good idea, but you need to retag it. The idea isn't that 'we' are 'responsible' for every 'choice' 'we' 'make'- you are misinterpreting the card when you say 'circumstances aren't responsible' in a way that could be dangerously contradictory to the rest off your aff- strictly speaking- everything is part of interconnected circumstances (at least according to the philosophies that recommend meditation). It's not that 'we are responsible' it's that we are part of the interconnected whole, and so, yes we have to take responsibility, but in the context that everything effects everything, and that pretending only the president makes the decisions that matter obscures the influence everyone has in creating our realities.
Yeah, I like kaps with this aff too. But I kinda disagree, while I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do a lot of lit I've read about Buddhism and violence deals with choice and ending violence in yourself. I think the interconnectedness is part of it yes, but how I interpret Kappeller isn't 'everything affects everything' but 'our actions affect everything which affects everything' framed under the issue of violence and politics. Is a call of personal responsibility mutually exclusive with a view of interconnectivity? Even if what we do affects one another, and we realize that, what's wrong with realizing our complacency rather than withdrawing from engaged thought and action? I don't get why this is so contradictory.

Four- I think you need to do a bit more work interpretting the resolution/explaining your interpretation of the resolution.

Yeah, I agree 100%. I'm going to keep revising it. Do you have any suggestions? Would you have a plan text or not? If you're doing away with a p-text would you share some reasons it's 'legit' to do so?

 

Last- this is mostly just a stylistic thing, but the way your aff is presented is in a much more calculative manner, than in a meditative one. I would recommend fewer emphasis on evidence and more emphasis and your own personal rhetoric. I'd get rid of the whole 'contentions' and 'advantages' thing if I were you, but like I said, that's just my style, so roll how you like
Yeah I know what you mean with the evidence thing (Read: Fullerton team that runs meditation this year) but I'm a pretty big evidence person. I don't find it inherently calculative, it's not my own personal thought true but it is my personal interpretation (the tags, the later explanation in speeches) of others thoughts. I don't think a meditative stance means being 'self sufficient' so to speak.

 

But yeah, thanks for the input, I'm not quite there yet with the background in Buddhism or meditation as well as the style of an affirmative like this but this stuff helps. Anyone else can feel free to jump in on this as long as they don't start arguing about feminism like those artards from earlier, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually thought of cutting affirmative's similar to this one in the past. For last year's PHA topic, I thought of an affirmative that funded qigong, zen meditation, or really any other spiritual practice in SSA because of the incalculale medical benefits of these techniques.

The advantages stemmed mostly from Buddhist and Taoist literature that I had been reading. While I had little issue being able to answer CPs DAs T and the K, the issue came actually with the case debate.

 

Here's the problem: You say, just as any buddhist does, that you wish to avoid self-ness, dualities, and drawing distinctions between yourself and anyone else. Now, when you truly reach a spiritual level on non-duality where you have developed into a state of "cosmic oneness" (which is what a meditation affirmative would be advocating for), what purpose do you have of winning? How do you justify winning a debate round without reinforcing the very mindset you are attempting to transcend. Are you better than someone else simply because you are familiar with some ideas? The desire to win is an egoic drive which does not run parallel to your buddhist advocacy.

This is especially troublesome if you are arguing that your affirmative helps resculpt our relationship with death. When you tell the judge that you should win and the negative should lose, you sound like you are operating out of the same fear of death you critiqued. Asking to win a round is really the ego asking to be intellectually immortalized, placed above another mind, so that it can feel its importance inflated. The need for self-importance comes from an inability to deal with your mortality. You're afraid of transience, so you try to circumvent death by doing important things in life, like being better than another person. (The book The Denial of Death is very helpful in discussing the underlying motivations for winning)

A truly non-dualist, zen buddhist, meditative approach would smile at the drive to win, not engage in it. I found that there is no way I could honestly advocate for spiritual development in a forum that inherently stunted it. Unless of course I advocated for losing, which felt like a waste of time.

This aff could work VERY well intellectually, but as a performative case, it's a living contradiction.

(btw, if you are going to run this, you should cut some Ken Wilber if you haven't already)

 

I should add though that I really like the idea of the affirmative.

Edited by Jungle_Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but that is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen. This entire thread is a testament against your claim that "meditation k's are illegit". If you plan on sharing with us a warrant maybe something productive could arise from it... In anycase, I see no reason that meditation k's are on face any less legitimate than any other kritik (although probably less common), or any other argument for that matter. Maybe some forms are poorly put together or poorly argued but even those do not mean that other similar arguments are inherently illegitimate. Indeed, I would argue that the general lack of spiritual discussion in fields of policy and education are very serious and so would people like Vine Deloria and Robert Thruman, and Krishnamurthi, as well as many others. Meditation is simply one form of that spirituality (although some might say there is nothing inherently spiritual about it), and I think a very valuable one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Within the following speeches my partner and I engage in the practice of mindfulness meditation. During every word we read, write, and hear, we will be completely aware that it's within that moment that we read, write, and listen. We will stay connected to the very words we say as we say them

Contention 1: Where is the love?

According to recent polls only 8% of people in the US meditate.

National Institutes of Health 2004 (http://www.astrology-vedic.com/page5/page5.html)

According to a new nationwide government survey,1 36 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 years and over use some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). CAM is defined as a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. When prayer specifically for health reasons is included in the definition of CAM, the number of U.S. adults using some form of CAM in the past year rises to 62 percent.

"These new findings confirm the extent to which Americans have turned to CAM approaches with the hope that they would help treat and prevent disease and enhance quality of life," said Stephen E. Straus, M.D., Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). "The data not only assists us in understanding who is using CAM, what is being used, and why, but also in studying relationships between CAM use and other health characteristics, such as chronic health conditions, insurance coverage, and health behaviors."

The survey, administered to over 31,000 representative U.S. adults, was conducted as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Developed by NCCAM and the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the survey included questions on 27 types of CAM therapies commonly used in the United States. These included 10 types of provider-based therapies, such as acupuncture and chiropractic, and 17 other therapies that do not require a provider, such as natural products (herbs or botanical products), special diets, and megavitamin therapy.

Although there have been many surveys of CAM use to date, the various surveys included fewer choices of CAM therapies. In addition, they often surveyed smaller population samples primarily relying on telephone or mail surveys versus in-person interviews used for this survey. Thus, the results from the CAM portion of the NHIS provide the most comprehensive and reliable data to date describing CAM use by the U.S. adult population.

Overall, the survey revealed that CAM use was greater among a variety of population groups, including women; people with higher education; those who had been hospitalized within the past year; and former smokers, compared to current smokers or those who had never smoked. In addition, this was the first survey to yield substantial information on CAM use by minorities. For example, it found that African American adults were more likely than white or Asian adults to use CAM when megavitamin therapy and prayer were included in the definition of CAM.

"We're continuously expanding the health information we collect in this country, including information on the actions people take in dealing with their own health situations," said NCHS Director Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D. "Over the years we've concentrated on traditional medical treatment, but this new collection of CAM data taps into another dimension entirely. What we see is that a sizable percentage of the public puts their personal health into their own hands."

CAM approaches were most often used to treat back pain or problems, colds, neck pain or problems, joint pain or stiffness, and anxiety or depression. However, only about 12 percent of adults sought care from a licensed CAM practitioner, suggesting that most people who use CAM do so without consulting a practitioner. According to the survey, the 10 most commonly used CAM therapies and the approximate percent of U.S. adults using each therapy were:

 

  • Prayer for own health, 43 percent
  • Prayer by others for the respondent's health, 24 percent
  • Natural products (such as herbs, other botanicals, and enzymes), 19 percent
  • Deep breathing exercises, 12 percent
  • Participation in prayer group for own health, 10 percent
  • Meditation, 8 percent
  • Chiropractic care, 8 percent
  • Yoga, 5 percent
  • Massage, 5 percent
  • Diet-based therapies (such as Atkins, Pritikin, Ornish, and Zone diets), 4 percent.

 

The Advantage- Introspection

Death happens to 100% of people but the West's portrayal and addiction to death and fear removes the joy from life. We become living dead as our fear and anxiety trades-off with joy and life.

bell hooks 2000 (professor of English at City College, respected feminist 'All About Love' p. 191-193)

Love makes us feel more alive. Living in a state of lovelessness we feel we might as well be dead; everything within us is silent and still. We are unmoved. "Soul murder" is the term psychoanalysts use to describe this state of living death. It echoes the biblical declaration that "anyone who does not know love is still in death." Cultures of domination court death. Hence the ongoing fascination with violence, the false insistence that it is natural for the strong to prey on the weak, for the more powerful to prey upon the powerless. In our culture the worship is so intense it stands in the way of love. On his deathbed Erich Fromm aksed a beloved friend why we prefer love of death to love of life, why “the human race prefers necrophilia to biophilia.” Coming from Fromm this question was merely rhetorical as he had spent his life explaining our cultural failure to fully embrace the reality that love gives life meaning.

Unlike love, death will touch us all at some point in our lives. We will witness the death of others or we will witness our own dying even if it’s just in that brief instance when life is fading away. Living with lovelessness is not a problem we openly and readily complain about. Yet the reality that we will all die generates tremendous concern, fear, and worry. It may very well be that the worship of death, indicated by the constant spectacles of dying we watch on television screens daily, is one way our culture tries to still that fear, to conquer it, to make us comfortable. Writing about the meaning of death in contemporary culture Thomas Merton explains: “psychoanalysis has taught us something about the death wish that pervades the modern world. We discover our affluent society to be profoundly addicted to the love of death... In such a society, though much may officially be said about human values, whenever there is, in fact, a choice between the living and the dead, between men and money, or men and power, or men and bombs, the choice will always be for death, for death is the end or the goal of life.” Our cultural obssesion with death consumes energy that could be given to the art of living.

The worship of death is a central component of patriarchal thinking, whether expressed by women or men. Visionary theologians see the failure of religion as one reason our culture remains death centered. in his work Original Blessing, Matthew Fox explains: “Western civilization has preferred love of death to love of life to the very extent that its religious traditions have preferred redemption to creation, sin to ecstacy, and individual introspection to cosmic awareness and appreciation.” For the most part, patriarchal perspectives have shaped religious teaching and practice. Recently, there has been a turning away from these teachings toward a creation grounded spiratuality that is life-affirming. Fox calls this “the via positiva”: “Without this solid grounding in creation’s powers we become bored, violent people. We become necrophiliacs in love with death and the powers and principalites of death.” We move away from this worship of death by challenging patriarchy, creating peace, working for justice, and embracing a love ethic.

 

The West's spectacles of death embroil us in a cycle of fear and violence. We fear the unknown 'other' and respond instinctually with extreme violence towards this fictional threat creating self fulfilling prophecies.

bell hooks 2000 (professor of English at City College, respected feminist 'All About Love' p. 193-195)

Ironically, the worship of death as a strategy for coping with our underlying fear of death’s power does not truely give us solace. It is deeply anxiety producing. The more we watch spectacles of meaningless death, of random violence and cruelty, the more afraid we become in our daily lives. We cannot embrace the stranger with love, for we fear the stranger. We believe the stranger is a messenger of death who wants our life. This irrational fear is an expression of madness if we think of madness as meaning we are out of touch with reality. Even though we are more likely to be hurt by someone we know than a stranger, our fear is directed toward the unknown and unfamiliar. That fear brings with it intense paranoia and a constant obsession with safety. The growing number of gated communities in our nation is but one example of the obsession with safety. With guards at our gate, individuals still have bars and elaborate internal security systems. Americans spend more than thirty billion dollars a year on security. When I have stayed with friends in these communities and inquired as to whether all the security is in response to an actual danger I am told “not really,” that it is the fear of a threat rather than a real threat that is a catalyst for an obsession with safety that borders on madness.

 

Meditation forces us to confront death head on, and comprehend impermanence and the true nature of our existance.

University of Virginia Library 1997

(September 2, http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/exhibits/dead/intro.html)

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes the natural fact that human beings tend to avoid admitting death as an immediate threat in their own lives. Indeed, this refusal to acknowledge the imminence of death and impermanence is regarded in Buddhism as a fundamental cause of the confusion and ignorance that prevents spiritual progress. Spiritual growth is achieved not by cowering from death, but by confronting it head on. Therefore, to facilitate confrontation with such raw reality, Buddhism offers several detailed meditative strategies. These death meditations enable Buddhist practitioners to engage seriously the truth of impermanence and, in turn, to comprehend the true nature of human existence. Mindfulness of death engenders both control and freedom; it brings about control in the sense of curbing the desire for permanence and security, and it promotes freedom by offering the meditator an enduring glimpse of the Buddha's liberating wisdom. The clear advantages of regularly contemplating impermanence and death make such meditations supreme among all the various types of Tibetan Buddhist mindfulness training. Taking the practice seriously helps to inspire further spiritual endeavor, overcome the delusions of permanence and immortality, and increase the probability of a virtuous life and death experience.

 

The psychological revolution we kick start is key Only by recognizing our responsibility to violence and the war within ourselves can we access an ethic of peace.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

How can we solve our present political chaos and the crisis in the world? Is there anything an individual can do to stop the impending war? Krishnamurti: War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it not? War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many, too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are the causes of war. An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war. She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she had another son aged sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the thing over. I suggested to her that to save her son she had to cease to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple – not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said,” That is too much. You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too powerful for me to alter.” Therefore she was responsible for the destruction of her son. Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, society changes; merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward society, while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always overcoming the outward. What causes war – religious, political or economic? Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and consideration between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed on beliefs, ideas and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The present crisis is of an exceptional nature and we as human beings must either pursue the path of constant conflict and continuous wars, which are the result of our everyday action, or else see the causes of war and turn our back upon them. Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, “For God’s sake, don’t disturb us, leave us alone”. The higher up we are, the more we want security, permanency, tranquility, the more we want to be left alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain. Everything is disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars. You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position, we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. [not on this website] But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them.

 

Circumstances do not cause violence, violent acts are always a choice we make. Looking a violence in a frame that doesn't acknowledge personal choice hijacks responsibility and allows the harm to happen. We must look at the local sphere of action to keep from believing ourselves worthless and make real change.

Kappeler 95 (Susanne, German author of numerous books, The Will to Violence, Pg. 10-11)

Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinkingthat therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers, For we tend to think that we cannot 'do' anything, say, about a war,because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all,any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like 'I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension': our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding,preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't'- our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others.' We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according: to the structuresand the values of war and violence.

Thus we stand resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternate energy incentives in the United States.

But we affirm not as a governmental solution to a fear based politics of oil and global warming, but rather a personal look at how we can find ways beyond sleep and eating to gain energy. How we can gain the positives of physical, mental, and spiritual energy. We affirm a ethic of an energy of love and peace, and are convinced that meditation and introspection allows us to do so. We believe the incentives for this our obvious, a state of peace, an ethic of understanding, and a life lived to its fullest and happiest.

Contention 2: You say you want a revolution

Put your counter plans away, governments can't solve case through other action. ONLY the plan creates the action needed to address the root causes of war.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the physiological security we need – food, clothing and shelter – is destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through titles, names – all of which is destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, if you look at it. To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states – greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness. To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no peace.

The introspection must be genuine. And the question is not about other methods or people solving the problems we face. We must not defer responsibility to 'someone else'. This can never solve the inner war within people.

Krishnamurti 1948 (Jiddu, Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti was a philosopher, spiritual leader, and teacher. He was awarded the UN Peace Medal http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/war.html)

To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, “ I agree”, and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for the world miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual assent. They will be stopped only when you realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else. If you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will transform yourself; peace will come only when you yourself are peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your neighbor.

Meditation is not only an alterative way to gain energy, it increases productivity and profits in the workplace.

The Washington Post October 1, 1996

http://www.tm.org/news/washpost1.html

R.W. "Buck" Montgomery found that meditation improved the health of his company. He instituted meditation in his chemical manufacturing company in Detroit in 1983. Within three years, he said, 52of the company's 70 workers -- from upper management to the production line-- were meditating for 20 minutes before they came to work and 20 minutesin the afternoon, on company time.

Over three years, Montgomery said, absenteeism fell by 85 percent, productivity rose 120 percent, quality control rose 240 percent, injuries declined 70 percent, sick days fell by 76 percent and profits soared 520 percent.

Montgomery, who is now working with the TranscendentalMeditation Program, an Iowa-based group dedicated to promoting meditation,attributes the improvements solely to the meditation exercises. He said they relieved stress and made the company's employees more relaxed. "As a result, people enjoyed their work, they were more creative and more productive,"he said.

Puritan-Bennett Corp., which produces respiratorycare and other medical equipment in Kansas City, Kansas, started with apilot program in 1993 that compared 38 people who meditated with 38 whodid not.

At the end of three months, Workgroup, an independentfirm at the University of Kansas, reported that those who meditated said they had more energy, were able to handle stress better, had fewer physical complaints and had lower cholesterol levels, said Mary Martha Stevens, managerof the company's health and wellness program.

Contention 4: Death is an idea.

We must remove ideas about birth and death. There is no beginning and no end. Life exists after 'death' simply in a different form. There is not an extinction of life, we simply become the plants, become trees, become the breeze.

Hanh 2002 (Thich Nhat, no death, no fear pg. 65)

When we lose someone we love we should remember that that person has not become nothing. “Something” cannot become “nothing” and “nothing” cannot become “something”. Science can help us understand this, because matter cannot be destroyed- it can become energy. And energy can become matter, but it cannot be destroyed. In the same way our beloved was not destroyed; she has just taken on another form. The form may be a cloud, a child, or the breeze. We can see our loved one in everything. And smiling, we can say, “Dear one, I know you are very close to me. I know that your nature is the nature of no birth and no death. I know that I have not lost you, you are always with me.

 

 

We will devote the rest of our speech time to silent meditation.

 

 

Thoughts: it's rough, but what do people think? I can't find a good solvency advocate, so against my former sentiments this aff is going to have to go more kritkal. I've written up some impact turns to topicality and framework standards and it's definitely about more of a personal advocacy rather than USFG action.

 

 

Read Silence by John Cage. The 1ac should be slow, spoken-word poetry, where in between every couple of words there's about 5-10 seconds of silence. state your advocacy through the poetic performance, but dedicate 2-3 minutes at the end of the 1ac to silent meditation.

 

John Cage writes a lot of good poetry in Silence, and also talks a lot about Zen and form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...