Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Best Genocide Impacts

Recommended Posts

i need an amazing genocide impact card, i have lots of "it trumps war" and "it spreads disease" but there has gotta be something larger, I will give lots of pos rep to those who post cards too so plz help out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my personal favorite

CARD IN 2K3 [Claudia, prof of philosophy (Ph.D from Harvard), Senior-Fellow at the Institute for Research in the Humanities, “Genocide and Social Death,” Hypatia, vol. 18, no. 1, Winter]

 

Genocide is not simply unjust (although it certainly is unjust); it is also evil. It characteristically includes the one-sided killing of defenseless civilians— babies, children, the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and the injured of both genders along with their usually female caretakers—simply on the basis of their national, religious, ethnic, or other political identity. It targets people on the basis of who they are rather than on the basis of what they have done, what they might do, even what they are capable of doing. (One commentator says genocide kills people on the basis of what they are, not even who they are). Genocide is a paradigm of what Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit (1996) calls "indecent" in that it not only destroys victims but first humiliates them by deliberately inflicting an "utter loss of freedom and control over one's vital interests" (115). Vital interests can be transgenerational and thus survive one's death. Before death, genocide victims are ordinarily deprived of control over vital transgenerational interests and more immediate vital interests. They may be literally stripped naked, robbed of their last possessions, lied to about the most vital matters, witness to the murder of family, friends, and neighbors, made to participate in their own murder, and if female, they are likely to be also violated sexually. Victims of genocide are commonly killed with no regard for lingering suffering or exposure. They, and their corpses, are routinely treated with utter disrespect. These historical facts, not simply mass murder, account for much of the moral opprobrium attaching to the concept of genocide. Yet such atrocities, it may be argued, are already war crimes, if conducted during wartime, and they can otherwise or also be prosecuted as crimes against humanity. Why, then, add the specific crime of genocide? What, if anything, is not already captured by laws that prohibit such things as the rape, enslavement, torture, forced deportation, and the degradation of individuals? Is any ethically distinct harm done to members of the targeted group that would not have been done had they been targeted simply as individuals rather than because of their group membership? This is the question that I find central in arguing that genocide is not simply reducible to mass death, to any of the other war crimes, or to the crimes against humanity just enumerated. I believe the answer is affirmative: the harm is ethically distinct, although on the question of whether it is worse, I wish only to question the assumption that it is not. Specific to genocide is the harm inflicted on its victims' social vitality. It is not just that one's group membership is the occasion for harms that are definable independently of one's identity as a member of the group. When a group with its own cultural identity is destroyed, its survivors lose their cultural heritage and may even lose their intergenerational connections. To use Orlando Patterson's terminology, in that event, they may become "socially dead" and their descendants "natally alienated," no longer able to pass along and build upon the traditions, cultural developments (including languages), and projects of earlier generations (1982, 5–9). The harm of social death is not necessarily less extreme than that of physical death. Social death can even aggravate physical death by making it indecent, removing all respectful and caring ritual, social connections, and social contexts that are capable of making dying bearable and even of making one's death meaningful. In my view, the special evil of genocide lies in its infliction of not just physical death (when it does that) but social death, producing a consequent meaninglessness of one's life and even of its termination.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i need an amazing genocide impact card, i have lots of "it trumps war" and "it spreads disease" but there has gotta be something larger, I will give lots of pos rep to those who post cards too so plz help out

Here is a pretty rockin one,

 

FAILURE TO INTERVENE IS COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE—THAT RISKS THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET THROUGH THE EXTINCTION OF THE SPIRIT

KETELS 96 (violet b., November 96, "havel to the castle! The power of the word" the annals of the American academy of political and social science 1996, 45-69, 50-51)sevz

 

Even though, as Americans, we have not experienced "by fire, hunger and the sword" the terrible disasters in war overtaking other human beings on their home ground, we know the consequences of human hospitality to evil. We know about human perfidy: the chasm that separates proclaiming virtue from acting decently. Even those of us trained to linguistic skepticism and the relativity of moral judgment can grasp the verity in the stark warning, "If something exists in one place, it will exist everywhere." That the dreadful something warned against continues to exist anywhere should fill us with an inextinguishable yearning to do something. Our impotence to action against the brutality of mass slaughter shames us. We have the historical record to ransack for precedent and corollaries--letters, documents, testaments, books--written words that would even "preserve their validity in the eyes of a man threatened with instant death.'' The truths gleanable from the record of totalitarian barbarism cited in them may be common knowledge; they are by no means commonly acknowledged. They appear in print upon many a page; they have not yet--still not yet--sufficiently penetrated human consciousness. Herein lies the supreme lesson for intellectuals, those who have the projective power to grasp what is not yet evident to the general human consciousness: it is possible to bring down totalitarian regimes either by violence or by a gradual transformation of human consciousness; it is not possible to bring them down "if we ignore them, make excuses for them, yield to them or accept their way of playing the game" in order to avoid violence. The history of the gentle revolutions of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia suggests that those revolutions would not have happened at all, and certainly not bloodlessly, without the moral engagement and political activism of intellectuals in those besieged cultures. Hundreds of thousands of students, workers, and peasants joined in the final effort to defeat the totalitarian regimes that collapsed in 1989. Still, it was the intellectuals, during decades when they repeatedly risked careers, freedom, and their very lives, often in dangerous solitary challenges to power, who formed the unifying consensus, developed the liberating philosophy, wrote the rallying cries, framed the politics, mobilized the will and energies of disparate groups, and literally took to the streets to lead nonviolent protests that became revolutions. The most profound insights into this process that gradually penetrated social consciousness sufficiently to make revolution possible can be read in the role Vaclav Havel played before and during Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution. As George Steiner reflects, while "the mystery of creative and analytic genius. . . is given to the very few," others can be "woken to its presence and exposed to its demands," Havel possesses that rare creative and analytic genius. We see it in the spaciousness of his moral vision for the future, distilled from the crucible of personal suffering and observation; in his poet's ability to translate both experience and vision into language that comes as close as possible to truth and survives translation across cultures; in the compelling force of his personal heroism. Characteristically, Havel raises local experience to universal relevance. "If today's planetary civilization has any hope of survival," he begins, "that hope lies chiefly in what we understand as the human spirit." He continues: CONTINUED... If we don't wish to destroy ourselves in national, religious or political discord; if we don't wish to find our world with twice its current population, half of it dying of hunger: if we don't wish to kill ourselves with ballistic missiles armed with atomic warheads or eliminate ourselves with bacteria specially cultivated for the purpose; if we don't wish to see some people go desperately hungry while others throw tons of wheat into the ocean; if we don't wish to suffocate in the global greenhouse we are heating up for ourselves or to be burned by radiation leaking through holes we have made in the ozone; if we don't wish to exhaust the nonrenewable, mineral resources of this planet, without which we cannot survive; if, in short, we don't wish any of this to happen, then we must--as humanity, as people, as conscious beings with spirit, mind and a sense of responsibility-somehow come to our senses. Somehow we must come together in "a kind of general mobilization of human consciousness, of the human mind and spirit, human responsibility, human reason."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a pretty rockin one,

 

FAILURE TO INTERVENE IS COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE—THAT RISKS THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET THROUGH THE EXTINCTION OF THE SPIRIT

KETELS 96 (violet b., November 96, "havel to the castle! The power of the word" the annals of the American academy of political and social science 1996, 45-69, 50-51)sevz

 

Even though, as Americans, we have not experienced "by fire, hunger and the sword" the terrible disasters in war overtaking other human beings on their home ground, we know the consequences of human hospitality to evil. We know about human perfidy: the chasm that separates proclaiming virtue from acting decently. Even those of us trained to linguistic skepticism and the relativity of moral judgment can grasp the verity in the stark warning, "If something exists in one place, it will exist everywhere." That the dreadful something warned against continues to exist anywhere should fill us with an inextinguishable yearning to do something. Our impotence to action against the brutality of mass slaughter shames us. We have the historical record to ransack for precedent and corollaries--letters, documents, testaments, books--written words that would even "preserve their validity in the eyes of a man threatened with instant death.'' The truths gleanable from the record of totalitarian barbarism cited in them may be common knowledge; they are by no means commonly acknowledged. They appear in print upon many a page; they have not yet--still not yet--sufficiently penetrated human consciousness. Herein lies the supreme lesson for intellectuals, those who have the projective power to grasp what is not yet evident to the general human consciousness: it is possible to bring down totalitarian regimes either by violence or by a gradual transformation of human consciousness; it is not possible to bring them down "if we ignore them, make excuses for them, yield to them or accept their way of playing the game" in order to avoid violence. The history of the gentle revolutions of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia suggests that those revolutions would not have happened at all, and certainly not bloodlessly, without the moral engagement and political activism of intellectuals in those besieged cultures. Hundreds of thousands of students, workers, and peasants joined in the final effort to defeat the totalitarian regimes that collapsed in 1989. Still, it was the intellectuals, during decades when they repeatedly risked careers, freedom, and their very lives, often in dangerous solitary challenges to power, who formed the unifying consensus, developed the liberating philosophy, wrote the rallying cries, framed the politics, mobilized the will and energies of disparate groups, and literally took to the streets to lead nonviolent protests that became revolutions. The most profound insights into this process that gradually penetrated social consciousness sufficiently to make revolution possible can be read in the role Vaclav Havel played before and during Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution. As George Steiner reflects, while "the mystery of creative and analytic genius. . . is given to the very few," others can be "woken to its presence and exposed to its demands," Havel possesses that rare creative and analytic genius. We see it in the spaciousness of his moral vision for the future, distilled from the crucible of personal suffering and observation; in his poet's ability to translate both experience and vision into language that comes as close as possible to truth and survives translation across cultures; in the compelling force of his personal heroism. Characteristically, Havel raises local experience to universal relevance. "If today's planetary civilization has any hope of survival," he begins, "that hope lies chiefly in what we understand as the human spirit." He continues: CONTINUED... If we don't wish to destroy ourselves in national, religious or political discord; if we don't wish to find our world with twice its current population, half of it dying of hunger: if we don't wish to kill ourselves with ballistic missiles armed with atomic warheads or eliminate ourselves with bacteria specially cultivated for the purpose; if we don't wish to see some people go desperately hungry while others throw tons of wheat into the ocean; if we don't wish to suffocate in the global greenhouse we are heating up for ourselves or to be burned by radiation leaking through holes we have made in the ozone; if we don't wish to exhaust the nonrenewable, mineral resources of this planet, without which we cannot survive; if, in short, we don't wish any of this to happen, then we must--as humanity, as people, as conscious beings with spirit, mind and a sense of responsibility-somehow come to our senses. Somehow we must come together in "a kind of general mobilization of human consciousness, of the human mind and spirit, human responsibility, human reason."

That card is much longer and much better than what you posted. The ketels article is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i need an amazing genocide impact card, i have lots of "it trumps war" and "it spreads disease" but there has gotta be something larger, I will give lots of pos rep to those who post cards too so plz help out

 

lots of people dying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of O'Donell in the 2ac because it's a quick read. http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/23_2/07_TXT.htm

 

Genocide is the most heinous crime that can be committed against a human population.39 In the famous words of the UN General Assembly, genocide “shocks the conscience of mankind.”40 A mandate for its prevention and punishment has been enshrined in a widely-ratified multilateral treaty.41 Genocide’s status as a jus cogen, or customary norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted under any circumstances, is broadly accepted.42 Commentators have suggested that any list of absolute rights should be short and relatively abstract.43 It nearly goes without saying that the right of a people to be free from wholesale slaughter would top any such list.44 Given the near-universal consensus that the taking of innocent life is a moral wrong, genocide stands alone as a wrong [*PG407]that actually multiplies a wrong, magnifying its infamy.45 The essence of genocide’s power is that it denies the very right to exist to entire groups of people based solely upon their identity, making it at once selective in practice and universal in scope.46

Given genocide’s legal and moral opprobrium, if freedom from it cannot be enumerated as an absolute right, then absolute rights do not exist.47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

underline and tag these yourself.. if you're going for genocide different rounds will call for different impact cards, you needa know what you've got. i would have included the ketels and odonnell cards here too. you may find that a combination of a couple of the cards below and above will serve you best..hint, hint

 

 

 

BEREL 90 (chair of dept. of philosophy at southern university of new york, 1990, The Philosophical Forum, vol 16, no. 1-2, fall/winter)sevz

Before considering further the two primary factors in the concept of genocide, (the specification of the group and the intention related to its destruction,) it is important to recognize the implied relation between these factors, on the hand, and the likely agents of genocide, on the other. That genocide entails the destruction of a group does not imply that the act of genocide itself must be the act of a group; but the practical implementation of a design for genocide would almost necessarily be so complex as to assure this. Admittedly, the same technological advances that make genocide increasingly possible as a collective action also have increased the possibility that an individual acting alone could initiate the process. When the push of a single button can produce cataclysmic effects, we discover an order of destruction—"omnicide"—even larger than genocide. But the opprobrium attached to the term "genocide" seems also to have the connotation of a corporate action—as if this act or sequence of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand if not to excuse, if one person rather than a group were responsible for it. A group (we suppose) would be bound by a public moral code; decisions made would have been reached collectively and the culpability of individual intentions would be multiplied proportionately. Admittedly, corporate responsibility is sometimes invoked in order to diminish (or at least to obscure) individual responsibility; so, for example, the "quagmire" effect that was appealed to retrospectively by defenders of the U.S.'s role in Vietnam. But for genocide, the likelihood of its corporate origins seems to accentuate its moral enormity: a large number of individual, intentional acts would have to be committed and the connections among them also affirmed in order to produce the extensive act. Unlike other corporate acts that might be not only decided on but carried out by a single person or small group of persons, genocide in its scope seems necessarily to require collaboration by a relatively large number of agents acting both collectively and individually.

 

 

THE NEW REPUBLIC 2K6 (the editors, who are all imminently qualified, we'll show you the qualifications on a separate piece of paper if you want 'em, "A Plea for action in Darfur" accessed 1-1-07 online at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060515&s=editorial051506)sevz

All this is grotesque. Sure, interventions are always more complicated than planned (though they are rarely as poorly planned as Iraq, which must not serve as the only model); but not all interventions are quagmires waiting to happen. And the risks to American values if we fail to act against genocide are far greater than the risks to American interests if we act against it. Is Iraq now all that the United States needs to know? Will we allow Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay to disqualify us from our moral and historical role in the world? Is idealism in U.S. foreign policy only for fair weather? What is so unconscionable about nation-building anyway? Why will we never get the question of genocide right, when, in some ways, it is the easiest question of all? The discussion of Darfur, even by many people whose outrage is sincere, has become a festival of bad faith. Everybody wants to do everything but what must be done. It is the season of heartless bleeding hearts.

 

 

 

 

THE NEW REPUBLIC 2K6 (the editors, who are all imminently qualified, we'll show you the qualifications on a separate piece of paper if you want 'em, "A Plea for action in Darfur" accessed 1-1-07 online at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060515&s=editorial051506)sevz

The notion of force as a first resort defies the foundations of diplomacy and also of common sense: A willingness to use hard power abroad must not become a willingness to use it wildly. But if you are not willing to use force against genocide immediately, then you do not understand what genocide is. Genocide is not a crisis that escalates into evil. It is evil from its inception. It may change in degree if it is allowed to proceed, but it does not change in kind. It begins with the worst. Nor is its gravity to be measured quantitatively: The intention to destroy an entire group is present in the destruction of even a small number of people from that group. It makes no sense, therefore, to speak of ending genocide later. If you end it later, you will not have ended it. If Hitler had been stopped after the murder of three million Jews, would he be said to have failed? Four hundred thousand Darfuris have already been murdered by the Janjaweed, the Arab Einsatzgruppen. If we were to prevent the murder of the 400,001st, will we be said to have succeeded? This elementary characteristic of genocide--the requirement that the only acceptable response is an immediate and uncompromising response or else we, too, will be complicit in the crime--should have been obvious after the inhumane ditherings, the wrenchingly slow awakenings to conscience, of the '90s; but the discussion of the Darfur genocide in recent years shows that this is not at all obvious.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...