Jump to content
arguablythebest

Fatalism K Aff?

Recommended Posts

I've been working on this aff that says we should reject advocating change because no matter what plan we propose, if it were going to happen, it would happen without us advocating for it and even if we did advocate for a plan, it wouldn't guarantee its happening. How can I better prepare for topicality and framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in an awkward position on framework because you don't seem to have an offensive reason advocating things is bad (which, admittedly, makes me wonder why neg on presumption isn't a valid answer to your aff).  That may just be my misunderstanding of the argument.  In general, your 1ac should have as many pre-empts to framework as possible (they shouldn't be called that because it's bad for ethos and unnecessarily links you to pre-empts bad, but they should still be there).  Your 2ac to framework should debate it like a DA; have uniqueness and link arguments, then impact defense or impact turns to each of their standards.  Leverage your case as much as possible.  Without a clearer idea of where you are with your aff and what your aff does, I'm not sure what other advice to give, so it would be helpful if you were to elaborate on your position a bit more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wait, if you're advocating that advocating change is bad, isn't that advocating change in the way we view advocacy? Uhhh, vote neg" 

 

Finally, a 15 second 1NC I'll vote on. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would make a heck of a lot more sense as a neg argument rather than an aff argument. Otherwise, I don't really see the point. I mean, it seems like a Camus strand of nihilism basically (you know that book where the guy is like 'Yeah, I'm just gonna die, **** it.'?) except that with the details you've given us you're not really accomplishing anything. I mean, so a debate round won't affect a change in USFG policy. And? That's kind of the premise of policy, role playing. Everyone knows it won't happen but you don't learn anything by not playing the game. It's like watching Star Wars, jumping up at the screen and shouting "NOT REAL!" We know, but it's missing the point.

 

TThat said, it's not that doing nothing or not changing anything on its own can't be a valid advocacy. That's basically the premise of Baudrillard's discussion of capitalism and how to 'beat' it. I believe Nick Land takes it one step further with his neo-Accelerationism stuff (Marx actually was an accelerationist according to Wikipedia, hence the neo prefix.) But in the context of this aff, it'd be good if you'd tell us the "point."

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm part of the team creating this aff, and just to elaborate a little bit more, the aff is not necessarily against advocating change, it's simply saying that change isn't really "change", it was going to happen anyways. we have several pre-empts against framework, and several cards proving the legitimacy of fatalism. we would also bring up the fact that fatalism has basically been around since deity based religion and by believing we are in control over what we do, we're fooling ourselves. the majority of humanity thrives on the belief that we are never in full control, so by proposing a plan, we are dehumanizing ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think (like other people above) neg on presumption is pretty valid here, saying do nothing is good is the same as defense of the squo, which is the nets thing. Also, if they read framework, the "read your argument on the neg" is a lot more convincing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fatalism has basically been around since deity based religion and by believing we are in control over what we do, we're fooling ourselves. the majority of humanity thrives on the belief that we are never in full control, so by proposing a plan, we are dehumanizing ourselves.

So religious people are required to give up their religious foundation because they want to change something about themselves/the world around them? That seems like a strange argument. Apart from religion being a dangerous base for debate arguments in the first place, it doesn't seem to be true.

 

Ask yourself a couple questions:

 

(1.) Who is religious? If your impact relies on a certain religion, it can be (a.) easily outweighed by the negative and (b.) not able to make a strong 'humanity' claim like you described earlier.

 

(2.) What religion is based on never being in 'full control' and how does the aff address those faiths that do not follow this belief? This seems to have the same implications on the aff that I described above, with a deeper regard to a bad universalization/discrimination of certain peoples/cultures.

 

(3.) Is this how religion actually functions? With regards to what religion your fatalistic view takes into account (my second question), this dehumanization impact can't be a true argument. Certain faiths (and even subgroups within larger labels) rely on the 'those who help themselves and give to others' approach to gaining both self fulfillment and a required test of true service to a higher power.

 

(4.) How do you define dehumanization and being human? Also, is religion the only route/an effective route for positive humanization? This has similar implications as to what I was getting at above, with a couple additions. For example: are atheists, agnostics, and any who don't fall under your religious umbrella already always dehumanized? If so, your impact claim seems non unique. It also leaves open huge doubt as to what we can do without religion. That can be capitalized on by the negative with any other alternative.

 

*Edited to take that damned sunglasses wearing smiley out.

 

If you need anything explained in a more in depth manner, just say so. I'm quickly typing this with some down time at work so it may come off way more jumbled than I'd like.

Edited by Lantern360
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so if the whole aff is based around "stuff is going to happen anyways", does that non-unique the aff because fatalism would happen anyways?

 

Edit: the person below me made me want to ask this - why should the judge vote for you in this instance of fatalism when he's going to vote for another fatalism aff in another round? I'm confused as to why there is a reason to vote aff if everything is already going to happen.

Edited by aram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I and a lot of other people are confused about is why your argument says the judge should vote aff.  So fatalism is true and your aff is all true, change is looked upon badly etc.  Why do those things lead me to vote aff?

On a side note what made you want to run this argument on this resolution in particular?

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...