Jump to content
Chaos

LD-Jan/Feb 2012: Domestic Violence

Recommended Posts

I'm an idiot at LD, but could you effectively run a neg case using heteronormativity and kritik the idea of both interventional violence and the domestic 'nuclear family' as being results of a heteronormative discourse? Like say the idea behind the affirmation of the resolution are the basis for domestic violence in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an idiot at LD, but could you effectively run a neg case using heteronormativity and kritik the idea of both interventional violence and the domestic 'nuclear family' as being results of a heteronormative discourse? Like say the idea behind the affirmation of the resolution are the basis for domestic violence in the first place?

You can K the distinction between the domestic and public spheres, but the word domestic itself doesn't imply heteronormativity.

 

Gays can be both victims and batterers. Also keep in mind that children are included in the resolution.

 

No, because he neg has no burden to prove the converse, the aff has the burden of proof to prove that it is permissible.

While this is normally true, if permissibility is a negative concept which means only the absence of permissibility (and it probably does mean this) the negative actually does have to prove something under this resolution.

 

I actually favor negatively worded resolutions generally because it helps to counteract the general negative bias, but as almost all of the good arguments on this topic are geared towards the affirmative I find the flipped presumption counterproductive in this instance. This resolution is odd because it's biased towards the affirmative, which almost never happens given the skewed speaker times in LD debate.

 

I do agree though, that the resolution must be discussed in general terms, and that proving one instance (im)permissible is insufficient for either team to win.

 

Also: to those who've PM'd me, I just want to enjoy Christmas break. I don't have a tournament until January 10ish, so I'm gonna slack for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't even think I'm going to write an NC, just use all 7 minutes to respond to AC args.

you still have to generate unique and overriding reasons why it's not permissible, which requires turning/outweighing AC justifications as to why it is that are not going to be easy to turn, let alone take out, under the AC framework

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you still have to generate unique and overriding reasons why it's not permissible, which requires turning/outweighing AC justifications as to why it is that are not going to be easy to turn, let alone take out, under the AC framework

tumblr_lh3mtyDvye1qe9jqx.jpg

Keeping that in mind, what's a good argument to establish that only end states are morally relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping that in mind, what's a good argument to establish that only end states are morally relevant?

There isn't one. Intentions are what matter because accidents happen.

 

But, since there's an intent to murder in the case of the rez, I don't think this will be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't one. Intentions are what matter because accidents happen.

 

But, since there's an intent to murder in the case of the rez, I don't think this will be an issue.

I was going to go:

1. Util true

2. Under util, actions are either obligatory or prohibited

3. Negate because nothing is permissible

 

Permissible here defined as "neither obligatory nor prohibited", as opposed to "not prohibited."

 

 

...this resolution has worse negative ground than the last one did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to go:

1. Util true

2. Under util, actions are either obligatory or prohibited

3. Negate because nothing is permissible

 

Permissible here defined as "neither obligatory nor prohibited", as opposed to "not prohibited."

 

 

...this resolution has worse negative ground than the last one did.

If you're comfortable basing half of your negative strategy on an arbitrary definition, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're comfortable basing half of your negative strategy on an arbitrary definition, go for it.

Not sure if you're sarcastically advising against it or just warning me of the pitfalls.

I'm not exactly a fan of it either, but I'm really at a loss for what to do otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to go:

1. Util true

2. Under util, actions are either obligatory or prohibited

3. Negate because nothing is permissible

 

Permissible here defined as "neither obligatory nor prohibited", as opposed to "not prohibited."

 

 

...this resolution has worse negative ground than the last one did.

 

My problem with this strat is that it utilizes one of the main weaknesses of util (that nothing but the best is acceptable) while claiming that we should look to utilitarianism. Additionally, I think most affs could persuasively argue that the use of deadly force is the best util-wise, given the long-term negative effects of abuse and the lack of viable alternatives to deadly force; if they can prove this, you presumably would affirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could PIC out of 'morally permissible' to 'morally right' or 'good' or 'moral', but you'd have to win that these binary distinctions are good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this strat is that it utilizes one of the main weaknesses of util (that nothing but the best is acceptable) while claiming that we should look to utilitarianism.

This is not a weakness. There's no logical reason that a moral theory must provide a category of merely permissible actions in order to be valid.

 

Additionally, I think most affs could persuasively argue that the use of deadly force is the best util-wise, given the long-term negative effects of abuse and the lack of viable alternatives to deadly force; if they can prove this, you presumably would affirm.

He was saying that he's going to use a definition of permissible which says that permissibility means not obligated and not prohibited. Therefore if he proved that no true moral theory allowed for this interpretation of permissibility he'd win.

 

Someone told me you were considering Schopenhauer on the negative, is that true?

 

I'm really at a loss for what to do otherwise

This is basically how I feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could PIC out of 'morally permissible' to 'morally right' or 'good' or 'moral', but you'd have to win that these binary distinctions are good

This actually doesn't sound that bad, but I don't know what you mean about winning binary distinctions are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you would have to win that the distinction of either 'moral' or 'immoral' is the best mechanism for moral evaluation, as opposed to 'permissible' vs. 'impermissible', wherein self-defense may be morally ok, but not actively good, while in the former, self-defense is either moral because you value yourself or immoral because others' lives are important. You could argue that statements of permissibility are derived from the distinction between moral vs. immoral, and you could bring up cognitivism, which says there are no moral facts, and moral statements are actually an expression of our moral preferences, but you'd need to win them both because if you lose the first part then cognitivism doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that clarification.

 

 

Now I'm gonna go finish my "morally obligatory because necessary to destroy patriarchy" neg, lololol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a weakness. There's no logical reason that a moral theory must provide a category of merely permissible actions in order to be valid.

 

I'd say there is, at least if that theory requires a calculus and attempts to direct action in the real world. Otherwise, you're utterly paralyzed until you determine what the perfectly utilitarian action is. In many cases, this is impossible, especially since you can't know the results of an action until after the fact. This paralysis would actually likely reduce utility in the long run.

 

He was saying that he's going to use a definition of permissible which says that permissibility means not obligated and not prohibited. Therefore if he proved that no true moral theory allowed for this interpretation of permissibility he'd win.

 

He would, but how would he actually go about proving that? There are plenty of reasons why we should look to happiness as the greatest good, but that isn't sufficient. A neg running this argument has to prove that permissibly is a flawed doctrine, which is a tough sell. If they don't, there's no reason why we can't accept the part about promoting happiness but reject the part where we can't do anything but the best possible action.

 

Someone told me you were considering Schopenhauer on the negative, is that true?

 

I wasn't planning to.

 

My responses in red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On your 1 - that's less about what's actually moral and more about how we should make decisions. The problems with paralysis arise with all theories as a result of epistemic uncertainty, but we can still accept our inability to achieve or understand morality while taking it as a goal to strive for.

 

On your 2 - I disagree that it's a tough sell to a judge who's willing to question preconceptions, like they should be. While permissibility does exist in the context of morally irrelevant things (like favorite colors) to prove that it doesn't exist in situations such as the resolution is easy. He simply needs to argue that life is more good than suffering is bad or that the converse is true, and arguments for either of those points should be easy to come by.

 

Regardless, I was mainly trying to address your initial misreading of his advocacy.

 

On your 3 - that's what I expected. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that clarification.

 

 

Now I'm gonna go finish my "morally obligatory because necessary to destroy patriarchy" neg, lololol.

durp.

this is aff ground, feminism flows aff for the most part, and morally obligatory includes morally permissible (for the most part, it's kind of intuitive and the nuance is kind of retarded anyways, if I judged a round with this advocacy I would WTF through the entire NC)

 

also, BITCHES DON'T KNO 'BOUT MY CAPITALISM AFF

wanna trade? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

durp.

this is aff ground, feminism flows aff for the most part, and morally obligatory includes morally permissible (for the most part, it's kind of intuitive and the nuance is kind of retarded anyways, if I judged a round with this advocacy I would WTF through the entire NC)

 

also, BITCHES DON'T KNO 'BOUT MY CAPITALISM AFF

wanna trade? :P

 

Disagree. If they can prove there's a difference, it works. Assuming you use a definition of permissible that's just allowed, and obligatory as you have to do something, you can. It would just become the majority of the negative burden to prove mutual exclusivity of the two. It's risky.

 

Also, how exactly would capitalism work on the aff? I'm curious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. If they can prove there's a difference, it works. Assuming you use a definition of permissible that's just allowed, and obligatory as you have to do something, you can. It would just become the majority of the negative burden to prove mutual exclusivity of the two. It's risky.

 

Also, how exactly would capitalism work on the aff? I'm curious.

capcapcapcapcap

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. If they can prove there's a difference, it works. Assuming you use a definition of permissible that's just allowed, and obligatory as you have to do something, you can. It would just become the majority of the negative burden to prove mutual exclusivity of the two. It's risky.

 

Also, how exactly would capitalism work on the aff? I'm curious.

That may or may not have been a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how exactly would capitalism work on the aff? I'm curious.

v=m

A. cap bad

>linking into cap= delink from M

B. Cap= patriarchy

C. vote aff to reject male domination derived from the capitalist mode

 

If you have any ev that would bolster 'B' I would be more than willing to trade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. If they can prove there's a difference, it works. Assuming you use a definition of permissible that's just allowed, and obligatory as you have to do something, you can. It would just become the majority of the negative burden to prove mutual exclusivity of the two. It's risky.

you would solve all the aff with this strategy, but you would also need to prove the distinction is a good one. Furthermore, you would be saying that people have a moral obligation to kill their spouses, when battered women often can't weigh moral obligations such as the law at the time of action so your obligation would probably fail, also saying people must kill their spouses for verbal abuse (which counts as dom. vi.) is totally not proportional

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...