Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Need Nietzsche answers

Recommended Posts

wat is best way to answer a team that basically says cruelty must be expressed so action that kills people is good? is it logical then to like read turned scenarios that say the other team save lives? and what is the role of the ballot in this situation generally/a good framework to pick against that...if any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wat is best way to answer a team that basically says cruelty must be expressed so action that kills people is good? is it logical then to like read turned scenarios that say the other team save lives? and what is the role of the ballot in this situation generally/a good framework to pick against that...if any?

 

 

If they bring a knife to the fight, you bring a gun. Counter the thoughts of one troubled, tortured, brilliant-but-damned, quasi-nihilistic philosopher, with another, and use a "terse" card as your warrant.

 

My Suggested "Tag":

 

"(1) In 2008 America - where "change" is the watchword of the day - who gives a hoot in hell what Nietszche thought... about anything? (2) Didn't the guy kill himself? Isn't that definitive, conclusive act - suicide - a pretty clear indication of how Nietszche himself evaluated his own philosophy?"

 

"We (your team) would respond to all Nietszche-based arguments* as essentially worthless - or, as in the words of this expert:"

 

Insert Evidence ("Warrant"):

 

"So?"

 

Cheney, Richard M.:

Vice President of the United States (and, in secret collusion with a select group of lobbyists, the principal creator of Bush Administration energy policy)

2008

 

*In my debate days, this was called "grouping."

In litigation (even today) it is called "anticipatory rebuttal."

My grandfather (the smartest person I ever knew - bar none) called it "Michael's daily dose of bullshit."

Edited by topspeaker70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they bring a knife to the fight, you bring a gun. Counter the thoughts of one troubled, tortured, brilliant-but-damned, quasi-nihilistic philosopher, with another, and use a "terse" card as your warrant.

 

My Suggested "Tag":

 

"(1) In 2008 America - where "change" is the watchword of the day - who gives a hoot in hell what Nietszche thought... about anything? (2) Didn't the guy kill himself? Isn't that definitive, conclusive act - suicide - a pretty clear indication of how Nietszche himself evaluated his own philosophy?"

 

"We (your team) would respond to all Nietszche-based arguments*, as essentially worthless - or, as in the words of this expert:"

 

Insert Evidence ("Warrant"):

 

"So?"

 

Cheney, Richard M.:

Vice President of the United States (and, in secret collusion with a select group of lobbyists, the principal creator of Bush Administration energy policy)

2008

 

*In my debate days, this was called "grouping."

In litigation (even today) it is called "anticipatory rebuttal."

My grandfather (the smartest person I ever knew - bar none) called it "Michael's daily dose of bullshit."

People hardly quote Nietszche dirrectly anymore, but quote scholars who apply his work to contemporary issues, like der darian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People hardly quote Nietszche dirrectly anymore, but quote scholars who apply his work to contemporary issues, like der darian.

 

 

Speaking of "scholars" who "apply [Nietszche's] work," I guess its wiser to rely on "der darian" than Der Fuhrer. ;)

 

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein* Debatischer Dogma! ;);)

 

*und Ayn Rand, too! ;););)

Edited by topspeaker70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wat is best way to answer a team that basically says cruelty must be expressed so action that kills people is good? is it logical then to like read turned scenarios that say the other team save lives? and what is the role of the ballot in this situation generally/a good framework to pick against that...if any?

 

lol, Nietzsche's argument isn't that killing is good, so your perf con scneario wouldn't work. Assuming we're taking about compassion links, the argument is that you resign yourself and demote your life to a status of the compassionate who is constantly sacrificing his own enjoyment for the enjoyment of others.

 

In other words, you shouldn't really care about what is happening to dying people, and instead realize that 1. these other people shouldn't matter to you, and 2. that suffering is inevitable anyways. This allows for you to overcome the constant obligation to others and empower your own existence.

 

There are a few key arguments I would make.

 

There's an author, Lawrence Hatab, who wrote an article in 2002 titled "Prospects For A Democratic Agon: Why We Can Still be Nietzscheans" which details how the democratic and political process can coexist with the empowerment that Nietzsche advocates (your perm).

 

If you can get a hand on Nietzsche's book "Human, All Too Human" aphorism #284 explains how "The means to a real peace" is for the world's mightiest military power to disarm itself in the face of enemies. The argument as appropriated to the round is that unless you can be the pinnacle of what Nietzsche criticizes and then disarm yourself, the enactment of the alternative is useless and inauthentic.

 

There's more arguments but I'm too lazy to explain.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming we're taking about compassion links (1), the argument is that you resign yourself and demote your life to a status of the compassionate who is constantly sacrificing his own enjoyment for the enjoyment of others.

 

In other words, you shouldn't really care about what is happening to dying people, and instead realize that 1. these other people shouldn't matter to you, and 2. that suffering is inevitable anyways. (2)

 

There are a few key arguments I would make.

 

There's an author, Lawrence Hatab, who wrote an article in 2002 titled "Prospects For A Democratic Agon: Why We Can Still be Nietzscheans" which details how the democratic and political process can coexist with the empowerment that Nietzsche advocates (your perm).(3)

 

If you can get a hand on Nietzsche's book "Human, All Too Human" aphorism #284 explains how "The means to a real peace" is for the world's mightiest military power to disarm itself in the face of enemies.(4)

 

1. Not only is this a very cogent explanation of the standard debate issue, the term "compassion links" is a classic. (i.e. "Hey baby, howdja like to meet my compassion link?") :)

 

2. Either by intention or design, the way you "spin" Nietszche* here makes his teachings compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ ("The poor Ye shall have with you always," etc.) That might make Nietszche's views a tad more acceptable to certain audiences. :):)

 

3. OUTSTANDING! Actually linking philosophy to real-world policymaking... priceless. :):):)

 

4. Historical factual problem: Isn't that exactly what Great Britain did in the 1920's through the early 1930's? With America doing the same? (Hint: "spin" all you want, the answer is "Yes.") Did it promote "real peace?" Maybe no so much. :(

 

5. You're in Texas!

 

6. You're in Clear Lake - that's where my Mom** lives!!

_____________________________________________________________

* Reaching waaaaaay back: Google the 1964 "British Invasion" song, "I'm Telling You Now," and check the video. Spinning Nietszche = "Doing the Freddie?"

 

 

** Yo! Don't you go talkin' 'bout my Mama!

Edited by topspeaker70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

284

In favor of the idle. An indication that esteem for the meditative life has decreased is that scholars today compete with active men in a kind of hasty enjoyment, so that they seem to value this kind of enjoying more than the kind that actually befits them and, in fact, offers much more enjoyment. Scholars are ashamed of otium. But leisure and idleness-32 are a noble thing.

If idleness is really the beginning of all vices,33 it is at least located in the closest vicinity to all the virtues: the idle man is still a better man than the active man.

You don't think that by leisure and idling I'm talking about you, do you, you lazybones?

32. Musse and Müssiggehen

33. "Müssigang ist alter Laster Anfang" (idleness is the beginning of all vices), German saying.

 

 

That's aphorism 284 from Human, the full text of which is available at http://library.holtof.com/nietzsche/Nietzsche_human_all_too_human/index.htm

 

The Hatab article mentioned above is available for download at http://www.mediafire.com/?dxc59t1z0lz

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments from a (slightly) more experienced debater...

 

There's an author, Lawrence Hatab, who wrote an article in 2002 titled "Prospects For A Democratic Agon: Why We Can Still be Nietzscheans" which details how the democratic and political process can coexist with the empowerment that Nietzsche advocates (your perm).

 

Nietzsche teams will be prepped hardcore to answer Hatab - he's not terribly useful as a perm card. Your perm's probably intrinsic if Hatab is useful, and their alternative probably isn't "don't do political stuff", but more a "reconceive our relationship to political stuff". (Yes, this is even true of the "do nothing" alt - most of the time, if you ask the 1NC what do nothing means, they'll say something along the lines of "affirm aff's harms", so you should pin them down in cross-x as to what exactly they do.

 

Hatab can be useful if you're running a democracy advantage and they have a link to that. If they don't, it could probably function as a net benefit to the perm.

 

If you can get a hand on Nietzsche's book "Human, All Too Human" aphorism #284 explains how "The means to a real peace" is for the world's mightiest military power to disarm itself in the face of enemies. The argument as appropriated to the round is that unless you can be the pinnacle of what Nietzsche criticizes and then disarm yourself, the enactment of the alternative is useless and inauthentic.

 

Not quite. A more appropriate characterization would be authentic peace vs. political peace. The aff will probably claim to solve political peace (ie, they stop wars from occuring; aka, negative peace). The neg, however, will claim to solve "real peace" -- ie, a person being at peace with the world, in spite of the constant threats the aff claims, and refusing to respond with securitization and violence. This would function as a "root cause" argument in debate terms and the neg will argue that achieving "real peace" is a prerequisite to solving the aff since empirically political peace is never lasting, and positive peace probably begets negative peace.

 

My advice: there's a couple of things you need to do in the 2AC/CX of the 1NC to win, period.

 

First, you need to address the value to life claim the 1NC will inevitably make. Nietzsche is limited as a debate argument in that because he criticizes all forms of morality, he doesn't jive so well with trying to make utilitarian impact claims.

 

Obvious args in response to this are:

-Existence prerequisite to V2L (if we die, it precludes the possibility of future happiness/utility/any other reason we might want to live)

-V2L inevitable/meaningless, etc. (the neg's argument is ultimately as arbitrary as the morality they choose to criticize -- "I securitize the world constantly, but I still have a happy life")

-You solve V2L (any sort of "structural" impact works here -- racism, disease, famine, poverty. Living with those things sucks, they don't solve them -- net benefit to the aff. True, your V2L doesn't really function in the same way theirs does, but with good cross-x/rebuttal spin you can force them to be the same)

 

The second argument you need to answer is any root cause/inevitability claims they make. They'll say securitization leads to violence and this is why violence is inevitable within the framework of the aff. You need to say-

-No, our form of securitization is good. Out-specific them on your internal link evidence as everything they have will be generic as shit (turns out Nietzsche never wrote about US-China relations), so their evidence probably won't apply to the aff unless they've really done their homework.

-Violence/suffering in the instance of the aff isn't inevitable -- again, a question of specificity of 1AC evidence. Try to think of historical examples where your aff has worked to accomplish the ends it has claimed. Evidence on this question is always a plus.

-Perm solves any residual links: if you win that you solve the 1AC impacts and V2L isn't important then it's unlikely that the marginal risk of a link to the 1AC outweighs the solvency of the 1AC + rejecting securitization/compassion in every other instance. K debate 101.

 

The third argument: alternative, alternative, alternative. I probably should have prioritized this higher, but oh well. Pin them down on what their alternative does in cross-x, and refer to it whenever they try to make their alternative super-awesome in the block/2NR ("our alternative solves the aff because we achieve real peace which is the prerequisite to political peace" -- no, the alternative is one person doing something, which probably won't spill over to Bush, et al. laying down their arms and refusing to fight). More than likely, the alternative will be either "do nothing" (who does nothing? do we do nothing only in the case of the aff? if so, how does the alt resolve residual links like securitizing ourselves in the myriad ways we do everyday -- washing our hands to prevent disease, looking both ways before we cross the street? if not, why doesn't the perm solve those residual links?) or "affirm the harms of the 1AC" (usually packaged as "dice-rolling" or something similar. Basically--let bad stuff happen to us and find happiness in our misery anyway. Lots of the same questions apply).

 

Fourth argument: framework. Not framework in the "neg gets squo or policy option" sense, but framework in the "we get to weigh our aff" and "our impacts matter". The first argument you should be making against any K anyway. The second argument will probably take the form of a util debate -- the judge should do whatever option which would best preserve utility. This is sort of enmeshed in the previous value to life framework, so have this debate in the same spot. Ultimately, you need to argue that we should be concerned about other people and take action to better their lives. You win this, that the aff solves and that the alternative doesn't and you win the debate.

 

Everything besides these arguments is probably unnecessary. You probably won't ever win that Nietzsche -> Nazism or that Nietzsche hates women and that's a reason to reject him or whatever. You might make these args just to see if the neg's on top of them, but you shouldn't plan on going for them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell J. Fasching -- The Ethical Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: Apocalypse or Utopia? 1993

 

Dude hates him some Nietzsche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering how long it would take for an OU debater to answer this.

 

Sooner or later - it was more than worth the wait!

 

I'd roll out the Schooner, but I don't want to get flagged.

 

P.S. Sorry about the "gig 'em" icon, but, at times, IMHO, this Board appears to be expressionally inhibited! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments from a (slightly) more experienced debater...

My advice...

First, you need to address the value to life claim the 1NC will inevitably make...

You might make these args just to see if the neg's on top of them, but you shouldn't plan on going for them.

 

This Post is coming to you live and direct from (NBZ)... the No Bullshit Zone:

 

I am restraining myself from waving a towel over my head, jumping up and down, and screaming: "YEAH, BABY!!! GO! GO! GO!"

 

(1) If I heard the foregoing post enunciated in a debate round (HS or college), and/or on a "talk show," and/or in a moot court contest, and/or in a classroom as part of a course, it would mean one thing to me: a brilliantly-composed, highly-literate, erudite, easily-understandable, extraordinarily-persuasive polemic. (Other than that, I didn't like it much.)

 

(2) I regret to say that this post is not similar to what I have read - at least most of the time - on this Board; it is not, alas, what I have seen in the 100+ videos of policy debates (Thanks, Tuna) I have reviewed; and it is not what I observed in the 25+ live policy debate rounds I have attended in the last few months.

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, there is (at least IMHO) a distinct and palpable difference between a well-educated, thoroughly-prepared, highly-polished advocate speaking (or, as in this case, writing) in a clear and concise English, and a partially-educated, incompletely-prepared, intellectually-undisciplined, sophomoric advocate speaking or writing messages he/she did not compose, and, when pressed, cannot explain.

 

Period. And if you want to red-rep me for feeling that way, do your damndest.

 

P.S. Boy... has debate changed - GREAT debate minds coming from Oklahoma, no less... Whoda thunkit?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darrell J. Fasching -- The Ethical Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: Apocalypse or Utopia? 1993

 

Dude hates him some Nietzsche.

 

noone hates him as much as you do bankey

 

and thats why i love you

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/size]

That's aphorism 284 from Human, the full text of which is available at http://library.holtof.com/nietzsche/Nietzsche_human_all_too_human/index.htm

 

The Hatab article mentioned above is available for download at http://www.mediafire.com/?dxc59t1z0lz

 

 

Sorry, perhaps its not aphorism 284. It's the one titled "A means to a true peace"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, perhaps its not aphorism 284. It's the one titled "A means to a true peace"

 

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

- Plato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

- Plato

 

"For heaven's sake, do not throw Plato at me. I am a complete skeptic about Plato. . . . Plato is boring. In the end, my mistrust of Plato goes deep: he represents such an aberration from all the basic instincts of the Hellene, is so moralistic, so pre-existently Christian--he already takes the concept 'good' for the highest concept--that for the whole phenomenon Plato I would sooner use the harsh phrase 'higher swindle,' or, if it sounds better, 'idealism,' than any other."- Friedrich Nietzsche in The Twilight of the Idols

 

Screw Plato

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, Nietzsche's argument isn't that killing is good, so your perf con scneario wouldn't work. Assuming we're taking about compassion links, the argument is that you resign yourself and demote your life to a status of the compassionate who is constantly sacrificing his own enjoyment for the enjoyment of others.

 

Right, the K wasn't really a (purely) Nietzsche K, but it did use some Nietzschean ideas. The K said that by not expressing our cruelty, we internalize it, and this destroys us from the inside out. The only response, then, is to express our cruelty outwardly, by killing people or some such thing. The K states that this isn't immoral because, according to Nietzsche, we should embrace a master morality and not give a shit about anybody else, African or otherwise.

 

The actual plan was to send AZT to Africa which counts as PHA because it is, in fact, an ARV, but the aff has cards saying that AZT is ultimately fatal, while first creating a fate worse than death. One response, of course, could be AZT good (a common aff case), or framework bad (but probably not both). A decent CP might be to instead cease all aid to SSA, nuke SSA, or some other competitive cruel activity which would avoid the AZT good turns, and/or otherwise be net beneficial. Also, running a T "assistance means help" would force a double-bind with their framework.

 

 

Unfortunately, they didn't run this case at nats, which was totally lame... The "Carnival of Atrocities" advantage sounded sweet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, the K wasn't really a (purely) Nietzsche K, but it did use some Nietzschean ideas. The K said that by not expressing our cruelty, we internalize it, and this destroys us from the inside out. The only response, then, is to express our cruelty outwardly, by killing people or some such thing. The K states that this isn't immoral because, according to Nietzsche, we should embrace a master morality and not give a shit about anybody else, African or otherwise.

 

I'd be interested to see some "killing is good" evidence by Nietzsche. I don't think it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with that case, is the advantage says we should just let our cruelty express itself and not supress it...it doesnt say we should actively send poison to africa...jesus.

 

im also not sure why the counterplan to do something else cruel with any net benefit wouldn't solve.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be interested to see some "killing is good" evidence by Nietzsche. I don't think it exists.

 

 

An important - indeed, foundational question, which, to these tired old eyes, at least - mandates a substantive answer.

 

It is also, IMHO, part of a much greater issue.

 

And assuming, arguendo, that it [the "killing is good" evidence*] did exist... what would it be worth? How should a critic-judge** evaluate it?

 

No offense, but if the Rise of the Internets has taught us anything, it is that anyone with an opinion can publish that opinion (i.e. blog).

 

Ergo, this issue (source credibility) is - or at least IMHO, should be - a separate thread... Yes? No?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

* Let me broaden the search. I'd like to see some credible "killing is good" evidence by anyone, starting with Frustrated Freddy. The same for "dying is good," "war is good," and/or "'the end of the world as we know it' is good," etc.

 

** Not to be confused with "kritik-judge." And please, I'm not knocking the kritik, it's just a different word from "critic," and I assume there is a valid reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An important - indeed, foundational question, which, to these tired old eyes, at least - mandates a substantive answer.

 

It is also, IMHO, part of a much greater issue.

 

And assuming, arguendo, that it [the "killing is good" evidence*] did exist... what would it be worth? How should a critic-judge** evaluate it?

 

No offense, but if the Rise of the Internets has taught us anything, it is that anyone with an opinion can publish that opinion (i.e. blog).

 

Ergo, this issue (source credibility) is - or at least IMHO, should be - a separate thread... Yes? No?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

* Let me broaden the search. I'd like to see some credible "killing is good" evidence by anyone, starting with Frustrated Freddy. The same for "dying is good," "war is good," and/or "'the end of the world as we know it' is good," etc.

 

** Not to be confused with "kritik-judge." And please, I'm not knocking the kritik, it's just a different word from "critic," and I assume there is a valid reason.

there should be no limits or burdens on the quality of the source for evidence, except that is published and that it isn't written or altered by the debaters. The question of source quality should be resolved in the round by the debaters and should be a non-issue to the judge if the debaters did not make the arguments indicting the quality of the sources.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there should be no limits or burdens on the quality of the source for evidence, except that is published and that it isn't written or altered by the debaters. The question of source quality should be resolved in the round by the debaters and should be a non-issue to the judge if the debaters did not make the arguments indicting the quality of the sources.

 

 

This is a very clear, coherent, reasonable statement. If I were to incorporate it into a Power Point Presentation and show it at DEBATE COLLEGE as representing the current "state of the art" in HS policy debate would I be Correct?

 

Incorrect?

 

Incompete?

 

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very clear, coherent, reasonable statement. If I were to incorporate it into a Power Point Presentation and show it at DEBATE COLLEGE as representing the current "state of the art" in HS policy debate would I be Correct?

 

Incorrect?

 

Incompete?

 

What?

 

Hey,

 

I know you have good intentions with all of your questions, but the goal of this thread isn't really to do what you have in mind. Cross-X does have forums/threads for what you're asking, such as "the death of policy debate" or in the Culture forum; no offense, but you get extremely repetitive as you ask on every thread you post on, inevitably, some form of how policy debate is forming in the 21st century. I don't mean to deny you your right to post, its just try to keep posts where they belong.

 

Anyways, to answer your question, yes that would be correct. The judging intervention assumption in debate that most nat'l circuit judges assume would say that they should not make any conclusions (About an authors credibility, or whatever it may be) unless the actual debate takes place within the round.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...