Jump to content
cR0SsX

The Anti-Heroism Kritik (Dark Knight K)

Recommended Posts

Can anyone please explain the Anti-Heroism that gbn ks ran at the finals of the toc card for card, the concept, when one should use at, and the alt. thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually did a bunch of work on this K already. Here you go. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rwp1rnair0qsdyl/AT%20False%20Heroism%20K.docx

 

A brief explanation:

 

The first two cards can almost be viewed as a separate disad, and the only reason they're a part of the K is because they're also really nice as links. Basically all you need to know about these two is that they constitute a case turn based on the false presentation of the 1AC as a "gift" or "improvement" targeted at some external body.

 

The second two cards are really the kritik proper. Mcgowan as applied in debate essentially postulates that 

1) Aff's consequentialism is equitable to the joker's "scheming", which is the reorienting of law around self-love and obedience to the evil heart of the state/law

2) The ethics PRESENTED by the aff are necessary for society to function, but "scheming" is obviously pejorative; the solution (AKA the alternative) is to mask true goodness in a presentation of evil, because this allows for the pure hero to remain pure

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works best against affs that don't defend a policy then the alt doesn't have to become a contentious floating pik as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so...the kritik says that i agree with the ethics in the 1ac are good, but true change can't happen until the 1ac wears a mask of evil? why is that so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually did a bunch of work on this K already. Here you go. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rwp1rnair0qsdyl/AT%20False%20Heroism%20K.docx

 

A brief explanation:

 

The first two cards can almost be viewed as a separate disad, and the only reason they're a part of the K is because they're also really nice as links. Basically all you need to know about these two is that they constitute a case turn based on the false presentation of the 1AC as a "gift" or "improvement" targeted at some external body.

 

The second two cards are really the kritik proper. Mcgowan as applied in debate essentially postulates that 

1) Aff's consequentialism is equitable to the joker's "scheming", which is the reorienting of law around self-love and obedience to the evil heart of the state/law

2) The ethics PRESENTED by the aff are necessary for society to function, but "scheming" is obviously pejorative; the solution (AKA the alternative) is to mask true goodness in a presentation of evil, because this allows for the pure hero to remain pure

Could you email me that please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you email me that please?

Instead you could just open it and download or save as. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you email me that please?

let's try not to have too many minnesota teams running hop-on TOC args...

 

 

ROVIAN, on 14 May 2013 - 5:30 PM, said:

It works best against affs that don't defend a policy then the alt doesn't have to become a contentious floating pik as well.

 

this isn't true, it works specifically well against teams that defend a policy because that McGowan ev talks about consequentialism... if they don't defend one you probably won't win a very robust link.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works best against affs that don't defend a policy then the alt doesn't have to become a contentious floating pik as well.

this isn't true, it works specifically well against teams that defend a policy because that McGowan ev talks about consequentialism... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this isn't true, it works specifically well against teams that defend a policy because that McGowan ev talks about consequentialism... 

then you have a gaping solvency deficit through your K.... why does consequentilaism relate to instumental policies or not... its a system where you evalaute consequences of an action that would still aplly to both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont have a gaping solvency deficit in anything, the card says "A consequentialist ethics develops as a compromise 

with this radical evil at the heart of the law" so yes it's talking about policies and laws imposed by institutions. 
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so...the kritik says that i agree with the ethics in the 1ac are good, but true change can't happen until the 1ac wears a mask of evil? why is that so?

I'm going to answer this with an analogy. Batman sacrificed his reputation at the end of the Dark Knight. Doing so magnified his movement. In the movie it was the idea that justice is universal, and even those in the hands of power must pay. So instead of letting Harvey Dent take the fall, he took it himself. By doing so the Dark Knight was held responsible for what he had done (technically, what Harvey Dent had done). This signified the universality of justice. A system so universal that even the supposed heroes are also held responsible for what they do. He dirtied his own reputation to show that someone had to be held responsible.

 

Mcgowan puts it this way in the article:

"The Dark Knight illustrates that the true form of appearance of heroism is evil. The film concludes with Batman voluntarily taking responsibility for the murders that Dent/Two-Face committed. By doing so, Batman allows Dent to die as a hero in the public mind, but he also — and more importantly — changes the public perception of his own exceptional status. When he agrees to appear as a criminal at the end of the film, Batman avows simultaneously the need for the heroic exception and the need for this exception to appear as criminality. If the heroic exception is not to multiply itself in a way that threatens any possibility for justice, then its appearance must become indistinguishable from criminality."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to answer this with an analogy. Batman sacrificed his reputation at the end of the Dark Knight. Doing so magnified his movement. In the movie it was the idea that justice is universal, and even those in the hands of power must pay. So instead of letting Harvey Dent take the fall, he took it himself. By doing so the Dark Knight was held responsible for what he had done (technically, what Harvey Dent had done). This signified the universality of justice. A system so universal that even the supposed heroes are also held responsible for what they do. He dirtied his own reputation to show that someone had to be held responsible.

 

Mcgowan puts it this way in the article:

"The Dark Knight illustrates that the true form of appearance of heroism is evil. The film concludes with Batman voluntarily taking responsibility for the murders that Dent/Two-Face committed. By doing so, Batman allows Dent to die as a hero in the public mind, but he also — and more importantly — changes the public perception of his own exceptional status. When he agrees to appear as a criminal at the end of the film, Batman avows simultaneously the need for the heroic exception and the need for this exception to appear as criminality. If the heroic exception is not to multiply itself in a way that threatens any possibility for justice, then its appearance must become indistinguishable from criminality."

how does what batman did signify the universality of Justice? i would think that it's injustice, because batman is taking blame..im still kind of confused 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does what batman did signify the universality of Justice? i would think that it's injustice, because batman is taking blame..im still kind of confused 

By showing at even a hero is held responsible for their actions. ("When he agrees to appear as a criminal at the end of the film, Batman avows simultaneously the need for the heroic exception and the need for this exception to appear as criminality. If the heroic exception is not to multiply itself in a way that threatens any possibility for justice, then its appearance must become indistinguishable from criminality.") 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, someone needs to make an iron man k, just take all of the credit, why pretend to be a villain when you can be a bad ass

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, someone needs to make an iron man k, just take all of the credit, why pretend to be a villain when you can be a bad ass

 Counter K to the Dark Knight? To humor the idea, taking credit does give you tons of resources to further X project, that could be spun as a pretty boss solvency boost comparative to DK (since it seems like the neg is agreeing with the ethics of the aff and just not the implementation, it could largely come down to which side solves better)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 then its appearance must become indistinguishable from criminality.

 

 

Yeah....this never happens without the cops becoming criminals.  

 

Fast and Furious scandal anyone?  Rodney King anyone? Guantanamo anyone? 

 

Every evil committed by governments and police in history for all time.

 

Rule of law turns should impact turn this.  

Public perception of evil in government = disrespect for order & violence.

 

Are there any historical examples of this working outside the fantasy of the Batman movie?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bannister Yea ok there is a line about policies but only insofar its stance since an advocacy statement of a non plan text aff is also a policy for action in the real world... which still doesn't answer why this K is preferable against implementation/ non implementation plans.. you still don't explain how the plan solves something like infrastructure deficits.

 

And in general isn't this K a massive double turn since they claim ethics corrupts the goals so you vote neg to maintain the ethics but doesn't this just make the neg the team that claims credit for an ethical action and thus makes the neg the proverbial ''harvey dent''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caution: Obviously it's fantastic that hudsonattar is putting out free files. However, I think a huge part of the debate is neglected in his file. It doesn't do much to prove that having the public perceive the government as good is a good thing. I think that much of the offense that the negative team attempts to get stems from the idea that having the public trust the government is bad, however, so this omission is worrisome.

Advice: I think that the turn argument is a very tempting possibility. However, I think that those pursuing that route should avoid utilizing the negative's dramatized narrative. That sense of drama that the negative seeks to imbue in their argument is in my mind a magnifier to the turn and one of the most problematic things about their advocacy, so you'll want to make sure you avoid it in yourself. I'm sure there are cards on why using comic books and movies as a basis for political reasoning is a bad idea, and I think finding some would be a very good idea. Here's how the argument might work in an imaginary overview that I typed up in about a minute.

 

They act as though we're using evil schemes for our own sinister ends, but there's no warrant to that claim and it's literally nonfalsifiable. You should reject their dramatized narrative in favor of a less biasing and more neutral perspective. We're not comic book villains defending a tyrannical state through treacherous propaganda, we're high school kids using our advocacy skills to further a real cause that we believe really matters. In reality Gotham City doesn't exist and nobody really considers Batman to be a villain because millions know his name, watch his movies, and play with his toys. Batman is revered in American culture, and their choice to use him as their model of what's supposed to be good masked in evil is telling. Their alternative is basically a giant PR stunt, where they simply pretend to pretend to be evil. However, if there's anyone in this round who deserves your suspicion, it should be the people who want you to think of them as not just heroic but superheroic. The troubles of the real world are severe enough without distorting your view of them through the negative's lens of paranoia and self worship, their epistemology is suspect and so you must reject the criticism in its entirety. Now for the line by line...
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caution: Obviously it's fantastic that hudsonattar is putting out free files. However, I think a huge part of the debate is neglected in his file. It doesn't do much to prove that having the public perceive the government as good is a good thing. I think that much of the offense that the negative team attempts to get stems from the idea that having the public trust the government is bad, however, so this omission is worrisome.

 

 

Tea Party solves.  They hate the government and probably always will.....and certainly distrust it.

 

The idea of actually trusting government in full is indeed counter to the American ethos.  Our identity, history, and character prevents of from viewing the government or hierarchy or control as a moral paragon.

 

The government inevitably screws up--and screws the people.  That solves too.

 

Media solves.  It requires crisis and scandal in government to live and thrive.  It independently serves as a check....

 

Our party system solves.  Dems & republicans check abuses on the other side.  The marketplace of ideas & dialectic & debate solves.

 

The aff is not mutually exclusive with going over government action with tooth, nail, and every analytical apparatus known to human existence.

 

The aff is proof that -isms are deeply embedded....there are a couple of implications to that:

1) it puts the government on display for what it is.

2) proves it still has further to go.

 

I would re-iterate my larger historical point--when should we have abandoned what was right for what the public perceived the government to be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any post that begins with "Tea Party solves" is not a post worth reading.

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caution: Obviously it's fantastic that hudsonattar is putting out free files. However, I think a huge part of the debate is neglected in his file. It doesn't do much to prove that having the public perceive the government as good is a good thing. I think that much of the offense that the negative team attempts to get stems from the idea that having the public trust the government is bad, however, so this omission is worrisome.

 Well, maybe it was underrepresented in the file, but I think there were 2 pretty good cards in there that impact turn public trust of government, the first being Chou in 8 and the second being Norton in 13. Or did you mean something other than what these cards are saying?

 

On an unrelated note, I'm glad that people like the blocks, but they were never meant to be comprehensive reviews of arguments. I simply don't have the time to give all of the lit on something as broad as Kantian Ethics a fair review and produce 200 pages on it right now, so there are definitely huge omissions in some places. The hope was to provide good, well-treated evidence for people to use and to increase my own familiarity with research and various debate positions, and I think in that respect the thread has been a success so far.

 

Thanks for the comment.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 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...