Jump to content
NomadicAssemblage

What To Run With Shopenhauer?

Recommended Posts

So i've really gotten into the Shopenhauer K recently, but I do not know of a good negative strat to go with it. It seems as though most DAs and CPs link to the frame of thought that Schopenhauer is critiquing. Please help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schopenhauer's really restricting in my opinion, but I think you can run anything that doesn't end in extinction with it. As in, if you're gonna run a DA, let the impact be something that makes like worse like unemployment, racism, stuff like that that makes life a living hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Topicality, Schopenhauer, Case Offense.

AKA

TKO- It's over.

 

What sort of case offense would go with Schop? Not the traditional stuff. I don't think this would work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run Schop K with Impact Turns (mostly extinction good). Usually my oppents will argue "suicide bad" in the 2a meaning my partner simply reads the suicide block and claims to"advocate extinction". We haven't lost with this strat yet, so I highly reccomend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I run Schop K with Impact Turns (mostly extinction good). 

 

Why do you make extinction good argument on different flows? It's the exact same argument as the K. It seems like that would just mess up your flows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schop doesn't advocate suicide...if the 2AC spends time on that then they're just wasting time. The aff just needs to win 'death bad' or that positive util is better than negative util.

 

Don't forget that this isn't exactly a fun argument for a judge to vote for, why make it harder than it needs to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read death good a lot almost one off and read it with Anthro and Bataille arguments.

 

A decent idea if your just starting out with the K is Schop with DA's with more systemic impacts (as a previous poster suggested). Read a Disad with a warming impact with an internal to structural violence or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schop doesn't advocate suicide...if the 2AC spends time on that then they're just wasting time. The aff just needs to win 'death bad' or that positive util is better than negative util.

 

Don't forget that this isn't exactly a fun argument for a judge to vote for, why make it harder than it needs to be?

 

If this is true, then what is the alternative? It seems like if the general thesis of the argument is that life is ultimately valueless and the experience of suffering is something that makes existence unbearable, then what other route could the negative take aside from advocating death? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is true, then what is the alternative? It seems like if the general thesis of the argument is that life is ultimately valueless and the experience of suffering is something that makes existence unbearable, then what other route could the negative take aside from advocating death? 

 

I agree with your framing of the argument. Schopenhauer doesn't advocate everyone to kill themselves, he just says that society's view of suicide as horrific and a sin or whatnot is misguided.

 

I think that means that the negative can still call to reject the aff - if the extinction scenarios absent the 1AC will occur, then we can reject the plan and just wait to die?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your framing of the argument. Schopenhauer doesn't advocate everyone to kill themselves, he just says that society's view of suicide as horrific and a sin or whatnot is misguided.

 

I think that means that the negative can still call to reject the aff - if the extinction scenarios absent the 1AC will occur, then we can reject the plan and just wait to die?  

 

How is making the conscious choice to be killed not suicide, though? You may not be actively putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, but you still have to argue that death is a good thing, otherwise you probably have no impact argument or an alternative. This being true, why would the 2AC reading death bad not answer the argument/be a "waste of time"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Schopenaur sees the negation of the Will as the only way to mitigate suffering and/or embracing aesthetic sublimation (such as loosing oneself in music or a painting).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt to Schop is to vote on the precautionary principle (that people- if given the option- would prefer life to death). I've actually received multiple positive ballots on running this Kritik because judges are bored with the typical Cap K and reward those who try to venture out (again, this is just my experience). Also, just to clarify.. Schop does NOT advocate suicide. Schop actually claims suicide to be "the worse crime a human may commit". When the 2a bashes suicide the neg has an easy win because you just read the block against it ( saying Schop doesn't advocate suicide rather just advocates the precautionary principle). The impact turns really win judges over though so always try to add those in.

I prefer Schop to wipeout as well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is that Schopenaur sees the negation of the Will as the only way to mitigate suffering and/or embracing aesthetic sublimation (such as loosing oneself in music or a painting).

That is correct, he viewed art as the only escape from reality, as suicide is a crime. Wait to die old, embrace art and literature, escape reality while living out the rest of your days with minimal suffering. According to Schop, there is no way to completely zero out suffering. Suffering is permanent, happiness it temporary, the question is how much suffering a person must go through in their life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run impact turns and the K on different flows because the K is conditional. Basically if I ever kick the K I still have the impact turns in "another world" I can claim- it's just to save my own butt really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I run impact turns and the K on different flows because the K is conditional. Basically if I ever kick the K I still have the impact turns in "another world" I can claim- it's just to save my own butt really.

 

Why couldn't you do this just by kicking the alt and just extending across the link and impact arguments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to echo what Sam already pointed out:

 

It doesn't matter that Schopenhauer doesn't advocate it......YOU are advocating it.  Or this would seem to suggest that Schopenhaur wouldn't like your alt.....if it led to functional suicide.

 

And on a side note....if there are Schopenhauer based warrants for why suicide is bad....that would seem to hedge against the thesis of the argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to echo what Sam already pointed out:

 

It doesn't matter that Schopenhauer doesn't advocate it......YOU are advocating it.  Or this would seem to suggest that Schopenhaur wouldn't like your alt.....if it led to functional suicide.

 

And on a side note....if there are Schopenhauer based warrants for why suicide is bad....that would seem to hedge against the thesis of the argument.

 

This times 10. When people are like 'Deleuze/Schop/Heidegger doesn't advocate this' I say big fucking whoop. One of the main reasons we read cards in debate is because we make arguments from ideas, not arguments from other people's arguments per se. There are authors out there like Benetar that use Schopenaur to justify abortion and things like mass death. People will read a Messazaros link card for a Cap K and a Zizek or a Herod alt even though they all have contradictory stances on how to best address capitalism. Part of the creative/expressive aspect of debate is being able to formulate your own ideas based off other people's writing.

 

With that said, the classic answer to suicide in my opinion is that suicide actually creates more suffering (family and friends mourning, etc.), which is why it is distinct from mass death (in which case suffering couldn't exist). Just throwing that out there.

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...