Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
n00bduhbait0r

Dillon 96?

Recommended Posts

Can someone please explain the warrants of the Dillon 96 card? with as little jargon as possible

 

also what exactly is the "zero point of the holocaust"

 

In capitalism, a human being is assigned a value for living (their contribution to society). In a world where people are assigned values by their masters/bosses, they can be thought of disposable. The slippery slope --> some people are disposed ---> holocaust (caused by no value to life)

 

ZP of the Holocaust: where a being is assigned zero as their value to life. Dillon asserts this was a key precondition for the Holocaust to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the ZP to the HC my man. We are all assigned value which means we can be bought and sold for $ meaning that some people are worth guap, while others are not. Those who are not can be killed in a holocidial manner. So the assigning of value via capitalism is the zero point of that process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In capitalism, a human being is assigned a value for living (their contribution to society). In a world where people are assigned values by their masters/bosses, they can be thought of disposable. The slippery slope --> some people are disposed ---> holocaust (caused by no value to life)

 

I've never understood this, and here's as good a place to ask as any.

 

Who on earth says that "capitalism" assigns value to people? Who is "capitalism" in this scenario? Is it the composite of people who perpetuate it? In that sense, then, are the sweatshop workers in India part of the "capitalism" that supposedly dehumanizes them?

 

ZP of the Holocaust: where a being is assigned zero as their value to life. Dillon asserts this was a key precondition for the Holocaust to happen

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not capitalism as a whole that assigns value to life, but rather the way we as people in the system think. Basically, I live in a capitalist society, and because of the way it functions, I am measured in terms of my worth by everyone around me (the commodification argument comes from this). In this sense, the way we live BECAUSE of capitalism is what gives us a certain value to our lives, depending on our contribution to society. The system itself isn't bad, but rather the way we view others and are affected by the system that is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The system itself isn't bad, but rather the way we view others and are affected by the system that is bad.

 

Wow...not sure if that makes sense. Capitalism necessitates those interactions between people; ergo it is the system itself which is bad. Your logic justifies the goals of Nazism but condemns those who act on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow...not sure if that makes sense. Capitalism necessitates those interactions between people; ergo it is the system itself which is bad. Your logic justifies the goals of Nazism but condemns those who act on it.

 

Right, the way we are AFFECTED by the system. Capitalism as a system isn't what drives us to commodify, but rather how WE as people within the system use capitalism.

For example, Capitalism creates a robust middle class that limits the powers of cooperations, which SHOULD, in turn, check back the entire argument about oppression and commidification of individuals, however, in reality, this isn't the case.

Capitalism could be peaceful, yet we choose to make it violent because of the way we have become entrenched within the system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, the way we are AFFECTED by the system. Capitalism as a system isn't what drives us to commodify, but rather how WE as people within the system use capitalism.

For example, Capitalism creates a robust middle class that limits the powers of cooperations, which SHOULD, in turn, check back the entire argument about oppression and commidification of individuals, however, in reality, this isn't the case.

Capitalism could be peaceful, yet we choose to make it violent because of the way we have become entrenched within the system.

 

dude.. what?

 

cap. is the system that justifies and rewards us for our "bad" actions.. it's workings of cap. that necessitates those actions in the name of capital.

 

just because cap. creates a shit load of middle class only in developed countries doesn't mean it should check back "the entire argument of oppression and commidification"..

 

read your cap. file bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Policy Tiger's argument was that capitalism was not built to cause oppression and inequality, ie the intentions were good but people used capitalism as a means to cause these things.

 

I'm not sure if I'd agree, to discern whether there is something in capitalism that causes these things or if it is the people within the system causing these things, you would need new societies to use as petri dishes and see if exposure to capitalism always replicates inequality and such. Obv this won't happen

 

Oh and another thing, why is this relevant in a cap debate? Either way you're left with the systemic impacts within a capitalist society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Policy Tiger's argument was that capitalism was not built to cause oppression and inequality, ie the intentions were good but people used capitalism as a means to cause these things.

 

I'm not sure if I'd agree, to discern whether there is something in capitalism that causes these things or if it is the people within the system causing these things, you would need new societies to use as petri dishes and see if exposure to capitalism always replicates inequality and such. Obv this won't happen

 

Oh and another thing, why is this relevant in a cap debate? Either way you're left with the systemic impacts within a capitalist society

 

warrant? I think cap. was created not so the farmer could feed as many hungry mouths with his crops.. but rather, so the farmer could make as much money as he can from his crops.

 

I think it's more along the lines that cap. rewards people who oppress, exploit, and exclude others. If the system gave no reward to those who exploited others in order for profit maximization, wouldn't we naturally see a decline in the things above? Also, I thought capitalism was a system that breeds competition? Which is why capitalism necessitates inequality.. right?

 

oh man, you're right. I concede

Edited by doritosguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warrant? I think cap. was created not so the farmer could feed as many hungry mouths with his crops.. but rather, so the farmer could make as much money as he can from his crops.

 

I think it's more along the lines that cap. rewards people who oppress, exploit, and exclude others. If the system gave no reward to those who exploited others in order for profit maximization, wouldn't we naturally see a decline in the things above? Also, I thought capitalism was a system that breeds competition? Which is why capitalism necessitates inequality.. right?

 

oh man, you're right. I concede

 

You think wrong. Cap IS a system of competition, but its goal wasn't exploitation and exclusion, unless you're under the impression that capitalism is the same as nazism. Capitalism rewards those who work hard for money, not for exploiting people. Sometimes, the process of working happens THROUGH exploitation (i.e. slavery), but its not capitalism itself that demands that something like slavery happen, rather, the people are the ones to blame for what they do to achieve the rewards of capitalism.

As for the middle class, what capitalism does is create a market economy (ever heard of Wall Street?) where the middle class function as the stakeholders to limit the power of multinational corporations. Sounds like a check of oppression to me. Capitalism creates this balance, but the PEOPLE themselves would rather exploit to make money rather than use themselves to work. Ideally, when companies thrive and work harder to gain profit, their workers should have better conditions, but people choose not to allow that.

So capitalism does allow the farmer to make as much money as possible from his crops, but the MEANS as to how he does that is up to the farmer himself, not to any economic system.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are missing some pretty big components of capitalism as a system (I also think someone should try to steer this thread back towards its initial purpose).

 

Competition can exist under any economic system. Profit can exist under other systems as well. The unique component of capitalism (and the part that cap bad debaters will say leads to devaluation/commodification/whatever) is the extraction of surplus labor value. Capitalism doesn't maximize social well being for the general population. Because the means of production (ie capital) are possessed by a minority who exert control over the majority of the population, the goal is not mere subsistence for the workers but is to extract greater labor than is necessary to survive in order to turn a greater profit (ie exploitation). Factory workers perform far more labor than is necessary for their well being and happiness and they reap very few of the benefits. Instead they are abstracted from their work and turned into interchangeable workers that generate profit for the owning class.

 

edit: in response to the original post, the Dillon card is written in the context of capitalism but is often used as a more generic calculability/securitization/utilitarianism critique. The argument is just that calculative decisions (whether economic in nature or not) rely on value judgments, the converse of which is devaluation which can extend to the point of counting a life or group as worth nothing, in which case killing them is a logical project. Something that's less often included in debate is that the next few paragraphs of the evidence describe the alternative/solution, which Dillon says is infinite responsibility to the other (a-la Levinas) and acceptance of the future as unknowable.

Edited by EveBYoung
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think wrong. Cap IS a system of competition, but its goal wasn't exploitation and exclusion, unless you're under the impression that capitalism is the same as nazism. Capitalism rewards those who work hard for money, not for exploiting people.

 

This is certainly not what Dillon says, Nisarg. Capitalism IS (insofar as it can be defined) a system of commodification, because the market system assigns value to things.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments are being conflated -

 

Nisarg is saying that the implementation of capitalism sometimes causes violence. Though this is obviously true, there is also another argument which others are making, namely that capitalism as a system is bad because it necessitates commodification. Well, that may be true, but an economist would say thats necessary for incentives - the cornerstone of innovation, value, and action.

 

Saying capitalism as a whole is bad is certainly a more sweeping statement, thus more likely to be inaccurate, than saying its implementation can be rather poor at times.

 

The debate argument, though, probably gears more on the "sweeping" side; however, a strategic team would emphasize the 1AC's particular implementation more so than the entire theory because it creates more insulated offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people are missing some pretty big components of capitalism as a system (I also think someone should try to steer this thread back towards its initial purpose).

 

Competition can exist under any economic system. Profit can exist under other systems as well. The unique component of capitalism (and the part that cap bad debaters will say leads to devaluation/commodification/whatever) is the extraction of surplus labor value. Capitalism doesn't maximize social well being for the general population. Because the means of production (ie capital) are possessed by a minority who exert control over the majority of the population, the goal is not mere subsistence for the workers but is to extract greater labor than is necessary to survive in order to turn a greater profit (ie exploitation). Factory workers perform far more labor than is necessary for their well being and happiness and they reap very few of the benefits. Instead they are abstracted from their work and turned into interchangeable workers that generate profit for the owning class.

 

edit: in response to the original post, the Dillon card is written in the context of capitalism but is often used as a more generic calculability/securitization/utilitarianism critique. The argument is just that calculative decisions (whether economic in nature or not) rely on value judgments, the converse of which is devaluation which can extend to the point of counting a life or group as worth nothing, in which case killing them is a logical project. Something that's less often included in debate is that the next few paragraphs of the evidence describe the alternative/solution, which Dillon says is infinite responsibility to the other (a-la Levinas) and acceptance of the future as unknowable.

 

 

this guy knows whats up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think wrong. Cap IS a system of competition, but its goal wasn't exploitation and exclusion, unless you're under the impression that capitalism is the same as nazism. Capitalism rewards those who work hard for money, not for exploiting people. Sometimes, the process of working happens THROUGH exploitation (i.e. slavery), but its not capitalism itself that demands that something like slavery happen, rather, the people are the ones to blame for what they do to achieve the rewards of capitalism.

As for the middle class, what capitalism does is create a market economy (ever heard of Wall Street?) where the middle class function as the stakeholders to limit the power of multinational corporations. Sounds like a check of oppression to me. Capitalism creates this balance, but the PEOPLE themselves would rather exploit to make money rather than use themselves to work. Ideally, when companies thrive and work harder to gain profit, their workers should have better conditions, but people choose not to allow that.

So capitalism does allow the farmer to make as much money as possible from his crops, but the MEANS as to how he does that is up to the farmer himself, not to any economic system.

 

Nazism was a regime of genocidal fuckheads, but its original intent was simply to make the humanity stronger, not to create mass violence. As for the jews, what nazism done is send them to death camps so we can improve the world by making way for the superior race. Nazism improves the human race, because it gets rid of races that people slow down civilization. The goal of achieving a better world and making humans stronger is good, its just that the means are bad and the people are bad, but the idea of human improvement is good in general and thus Nazism is good because its for human development.

 

 

That's pretty much what your logic would mean.

 

Because capitalism hold the accumulation of capital as the highest priority, capitalism is a system that neccesitates and JUSTIFIES exploitation and extermination of anything that slows down the production process. If a factory worker can't work, he's gone and left to fend for himself. What the original goals of capitalism were are totally irrelevant, nazism had a pretty nice vision too. It's the fact that capitalism can justify atrocies where the neg wins their debates, not because they won that capitalism was intended to be bad ever since it was created. Saying "but cap wasn't suppose to turn out this way!" doesn't mean cap is good. The workings of capitalism is what determines if it's good or bad, not the goal. The fact that the process of Nazism would involve a holocaust is why we accept that nazism is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

edit: in response to the original post, the Dillon card is written in the context of capitalism but is often used as a more generic calculability/securitization/utilitarianism critique. The argument is just that calculative decisions (whether economic in nature or not) rely on value judgments, the converse of which is devaluation which can extend to the point of counting a life or group as worth nothing, in which case killing them is a logical project. Something that's less often included in debate is that the next few paragraphs of the evidence describe the alternative/solution, which Dillon says is infinite responsibility to the other (a-la Levinas) and acceptance of the future as unknowable.

 

Do you have the full copy of the Dillon article you can share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the fact that capitalism can justify atrocies where the neg wins their debates, not because they won that capitalism was intended to be bad ever since it was created.

 

What does it mean when atrocities are "justified"? That just seems like a ridiculous argument. Sure, capitalism might be bad, but why wouldn't the harms of the plan, which are tangible impacts, be weighed over "justifies genocide" arguments when you don't have an REAL impact to capitalism. Who cares what the plan justifies if it does something good?

A better argument is "cap is the root of X/makes X inevitable" rather than "cap justifies Y" because in the world of impact comparison, it all comes down to what actually happens.

 

While the commodification argument about the inherent nature of capitalism is true, the value to life arguments come from people's contributions to the system rather than from capitalism itself. If you don't deliver, you don't deserve to live. Capitalism doesn't necessitate it, rather others who use competition push out the ones who are assigned "zero value to life".

 

Sometimes you have to look at things outside of the context of debate rounds to understand what you're really saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does it mean when atrocities are "justified"? That just seems like a ridiculous argument. Sure, capitalism might be bad, but why wouldn't the harms of the plan, which are tangible impacts, be weighed over "justifies genocide" arguments when you don't have an REAL impact to capitalism. Who cares what the plan justifies if it does something good?

A better argument is "cap is the root of X/makes X inevitable" rather than "cap justifies Y" because in the world of impact comparison, it all comes down to what actually happens.

 

 

 

You say the plan would justify bad shit because the reason to reject the aff isn't because the plan increases or causes capitalism (cap = non-unique and overwhelms alt) and increasing cap --> bad stuff, but because (assuming you win the link) endorsing the plan action would also justify and endorse the impacts of capitalism, which turns case and makes your case impacts inevitable under a capitalist system + other external impacts. What capitalism allows for and what endorsing a capitalist act would mean IS an impact. If your plan is an attempt to help the poor and the neg wins what your plan is capitalist and would only justify oppresing them even further it means that your methodology is wrong and should be rejected in the place of an alternative. The impact to having a bad methodology (or mindset, epistemology, w/e the neg decides to k) is a failed plan that's really fucked up and justifies the harms in the stqo that it attempts to solve for, ie attempting to solve for poverty only reinforces capitalist ideology and guarentees that thet people they help will still be enslaved to the rich, turning case, vote neg on presumption/alt.

 

 

While the commodification argument about the inherent nature of capitalism is true, the value to life arguments come from people's contributions to the system rather than from capitalism itself. If you don't deliver, you don't deserve to live. Capitalism doesn't necessitate it, rather others who use competition push out the ones who are assigned "zero value to life".

 

 

The value to life argument argues that its the entire system itself that FORCES workers to have be treated as objects and profit values. It's not just because people abuse them, under capitalist ideology a factory owner needs to cut down expenses as much as possible and make as much profit as possible, not only is worker oppression justified but it's neecesary under capitalism, because the factory owner needs to pay workers minimum wage and dispose of the disfuntional ones so he can earn as much profit as possible...

 

"If you don't deliver, you don't deserve to live" = way the system forces people to think which means the entire system is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism creates a robust middle class that limits the powers of cooperations, which SHOULD, in turn, check back the entire argument about oppression and commidification of individuals, however, in reality, this isn't the case.

 

lol seriously? I think Marx had a word for this "check" you speak of.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...