Jump to content
EndlessFacepalm

Are there any good cards to respond to Viviocentrism K?

Recommended Posts

"viviocentrism"?

The Heisman evidence from his suicide note that says fear of death is based on an arbitrary belief in the superiority of life that justifies racism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heisman evidence from his suicide note that says fear of death is based on an arbitrary belief in the superiority of life that justifies racism.

The affirmative approaches the world with the tautological rationality of viviocentrism – that is life-centeredness.  Viviocentrism is a noble lie that informs all aspects of their advocacy and it is the same binary logic of natural mastery that justifies racism, sexism, anthropomorphism, etc. Opening our minds to death allows a transcendence of the tyranny of life and creates the conditions for the ultimate erosion of all borders and conceptions of the natural – put the burden on them to justify physical existence as a roll for the ballot

Mitchell Heisman (The opposite of a bullshitter, suicide practitioner, & University at Albany bachelor's degree in psychology) 2010

[Suicide Note, online @ http://www.suicidenote.info/, loghry]

There is a very popular opinion that choosing life is inherently superior to choosing death. This belief that life is inherently preferable to death is one of the most widespread superstitions. This bias constitutes one of the most obstinate mythologies of the human species. This prejudice against death, however, is a kind of xenophobia. Discrimination against death is simply assumed good and right. Absolutist faith in life is commonly a result of the unthinking conviction that existence or survival, along with an irrational fear of death, is “good”. This unreasoned conviction in the rightness of life over death is like a god or a mass delusion. Life is the “noble lie”; the common secular religion of the West. For the conventional Westerner, the obvious leap of faith to make here is that one’s “self” and its preservation constitute the first measure of rationality. Yet if one begins reasoning with the unquestioned premise that life is good, or that one’s own life or any life is justified, this is very different from bringing that premise itself to be questioned rationally. Anyone who has ever contemplated his or her own mortality might question the ultimate sanity of the premise of self-preservation. Even if it is possible to live forever, moreover, this makes not an iota of difference as to the question of the value of existence. Most people are so prejudiced on this issue that they simply refuse to even consider the possibilities of death. Humans tend to be so irrationally prejudiced towards the premise of life that rational treatment of death seldom sees the light of day. Most people will likely fall back on their most thoughtless convictions, intuitions, and instincts, instead of attempting to actually think through their biases (much less overcome them). Yet is choosing death “irrational”? For what reason? For most people, “irrationality” apparently refers to a subjectivity experience in which their fear of death masters them — as opposed the discipline of mastering one’s fear of death. By “irrational”, they mean that they feel compelled to bow down before this master. An individual is “free”, apparently, when he or she is too scared to question obedience to the authority of the fear of death. This unquestioned slavery to the most common and unreasonable instincts is what, in practice, liberal-individualists call rationalism. Most common moral positions justify and cloak this fear of death. And like any traditional authority, time has gathered a whole system of rituals, conventions, and customs to maintain its authority and power as unquestionable, inevitable, and fated; fear of death as the true, the good, and the beautiful. For most people, fear of death is the unquestionable master that establishes all other hierarchies — both social hierarchies, and the hierarchies within one’s own mind. Most are humbly grateful for the very privilege of obedience and do not want to be free. I propose opening your mind towards the liberation of death; towards exposing this blind faith in life as a myth, a bias, and an error. To overcome this delusion, the “magic spell” of pious reverence for life over death must be broken. To do so is to examine the faith in life that has been left unexamined; the naïve secular and non-secular faith in life over death. Opening one’s mind to death emerges from the attempt to unshackle one’s mind from the limitations of all borders. It leads to overcoming all biological boundaries, including borders between the “self” and the larger world. It reaches towards the elimination of biologically based prejudices altogether, including prejudice towards biological self preservation. The attempt to go beyond ethnocentrism and anthropomorphism leads towards overcoming the prejudices of what I call viviocentrism, or, life-centeredness. Just as overcoming ethnocentrism requires recognition of the provincialism of ethnic values, overcoming viviocentrism emerges from the recognition of the provincialism of life values. Viviocentric provincialism is exposed through an enlarged view from our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the limits of our knowledge of the larger cosmos we live in. Overcoming the prejudice against death, then, is only an extension and continuation of the Western project of eliminating bias, especially biologically based biases (i.e. race or sex based biases). The liberation of death is only the next step in the political logic that has hitherto sought to overcome prejudices based on old assumptions of a fixed biological human nature. Its opposite is an Aristotelian, teleological conception of nature; a nature of natural slaves, natural aristocracy, natural patriarchy, natural inferiority of women, natural racial kinds, natural heterosexuality and, finally, natural self-preservation. This older, teleological view suggests that individual self-preservation is an expression of a fixed biologically based nature that culture and/or reason is incapable of changing, altering, or overcoming. Just as it was considered unnatural or even insane that men be loosed from “natural” subordination to their king, or that women be unchained from “natural” subordination to their fathers and husbands, today it is considered unnatural that death be liberated from its “natural” subordination to the tyranny of life. From this point of view, one can recognize that the pro-choice stance on abortion and the right to die stance on euthanasia have already opened paths over conventional pro-life superstitions. These developments towards the liberation of biological death may lead to what may be the highest fulfillment of egalitarian progress: the equality of life and death. Further liberations of death should challenge one’s convictions in the same way that egalitarianisms of the past have challenged common assumptions and convictions: the equality of all men, the equality of the races, the equality of the sexes, the equality of sexual orientations, the equality of the biological and physical, and the equality of life and death. Overcoming the “will to live”, then, represents one of the final steps in overcoming the provincial and “primitive” life instincts probably inherited from our evolutionary past, i.e. inclinations towards patriarchy, authoritarianism, sexism, kinism, and racism. It is not only a contribution to civilization but a culmination of the progress of civilization, that is, the application of reason to human existence. Only when the will to live itself is civilized, can one be free to acknowledge that reason itself does not dictate a bias towards life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a suicide note as evidence, classy.

What an awful, despicable thing to do. Chris should be embarrassed. If you need a suicide note to make your "fear of death k" argument, you're a bad debater.

 

A person *took their life* after writing what is apparently nothing more than a debate card. How disrespectful.

 

I don't say that to Miro simply for posting the card - but I do say that to ANYONE who reads this in a round. Turning someone's death into a ballot seeking enterprise is fucking disgusting.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an awful, despicable thing to do. Chris should be embarrassed. If you need a suicide note to make your "fear of death k" argument, you're a bad debater.

 

A person *took their life* after writing what is apparently nothing more than a debate card. How disrespectful.

 

I don't say that to Miro simply for posting the card - but I do say that to ANYONE who reads this in a round. Turning someone's death into a ballot seeking enterprise is fucking disgusting.

If you read the note, you'll find that the first few paragraphs of it explicitly talk about why he wants the note to be read and expects it to be suppressed.  In this context, I think Heisman would have been in favor of being read in rounds.  Your notion of "respect" is also problematic; you seem to be basing it on some concept of societal norms about these things that disregards and actively contradicts Heisman's desires for the note.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the note, you'll find that the first few paragraphs of it explicitly talk about why he wants the note to be read and expects it to be suppressed.  In this context, I think Heisman would have been in favor of being read in rounds.  Your notion of "respect" is also problematic; you seem to be basing it on some concept of societal norms about these things that disregards and actively contradicts Heisman's desires for the note.

Bullshit. I haven't read the full note, but the text in the card doesn't support anything like that. It's clear the guy wanted people to stop fearing death, but reading this as a debate K doesn't further that function. There's a distinction between spreading his note to bring light to his ideas, and commodifying his note as one of X conditional advocacies.

 

Respect for the gravity of suicide can't simply be ignored with the simplistic dismissal "well it's socially constructed". No shit it's constructed - the question is the normative value of that construction. There's a zero percent chance Heisman wanted his death to become another chess piece in a high speed debate match. His kritik of fear of death doesn't conflict with my argument that death is a serious matter, whether or not its good or bad. I support physician assisted suicide ("death can be acceptable") without finding it acceptable to demean or degrade the conditions surrounding the actual act itself. Suicide is something many students struggle with - the casual deployment of a suicide note as a card is *disgusting*.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your notion of "respect" is also problematic; you seem to be basing it on some concept of societal norms about these things that disregards and actively contradicts Heisman's desires for the note.

I doubt his thoughts on the socially constructed feelings we have towards death would mean he wants his most intimate thoughts before taking his own life to be read at 350 wpm in order to win a shitty, faux-intellectual showdown.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suicide note above is actually a card that was used against me, but after this, they framed the K as 'an acceptance of death, because life is the prerequisite for all atrocities.' I wanted to counter-K with fatalism, the link being that the negative's fatalist acceptance of death (The belief that death is inevitable, so we shouldn't do anything to stop it) justifies social paralysis, which is bad. Does this explain more?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. I haven't read the full note, but the text in the card doesn't support anything like that. It's clear the guy wanted people to stop fearing death, but reading this as a debate K doesn't further that function. There's a distinction between spreading his note to bring light to his ideas, and commodifying his note as one of X conditional advocacies.

 

Respect for the gravity of suicide can't simply be ignored with the simplistic dismissal "well it's socially constructed". No shit it's constructed - the question is the normative value of that construction. There's a zero percent chance Heisman wanted his death to become another chess piece in a high speed debate match. His kritik of fear of death doesn't conflict with my argument that death is a serious matter, whether or not its good or bad. I support physician assisted suicide ("death can be acceptable") without finding it acceptable to demean or degrade the conditions surrounding the actual act itself. Suicide is something many students struggle with - the casual deployment of a suicide note as a card is *disgusting*.

Look at the first two paragraphs under the section "Freedom of Speech on Trial" at suicidenote.info.  They're pretty explicit about the ideas that public discussion of his theories is key to testing the validity of liberal democracy, as well as making equally explicit claims that his works will be suppressed and trivialized; he pretty clearly wants it to be readed.

 

The social construction point is may have been unclear earlier, sorry.  It's not just that the gravity of the situation is socially constructed, it's that you're deploying that construct in direct opposition to the desires of the person you claim to be using that construction to respect.   

 

I'm not entirely sure why reading the argument in a debate somehow makes it casual or not capable of being taken seriously, and if it does imply that, I'm also not sure why that doesn't invalidate most, if not all, of the discussions we have within debate (Certainly, there will be teams deploying the argument offensively, but that shouldn't invalidate it entirely).

 

Even if you're right that it becomes a chess piece, that's still more serious academic attention than he's gotten before; given that he wants to be discussed, it's at least a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

The suicide note above is actually a card that was used against me, but after this, they framed the K as 'an acceptance of death, because life is the prerequisite for all atrocities.' I wanted to counter-K with fatalism, the link being that the negative's fatalist acceptance of death (The belief that death is inevitable, so we shouldn't do anything to stop it) justifies social paralysis, which is bad. Does this explain more?

I don't think that's particularly responsive; most teams running this sort of thing will also make claims about death not existing or being good because it ends the suffering that occurs during life; inevitability is rarely a particularly key part of the argument.  That said, you may have hit a different spin, in which case that sounds like an interesting idea (if death should be embraced and we're all about to die because of the aff's impact scenarios, I'm not sure why social paralysis still matters, which could be problematic for your argument).

Edited by BobbyTables
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's particularly responsive; most teams running this sort of thing will also make claims about death not existing or being good because it ends the suffering that occurs during life; inevitability is rarely a particularly key part of the argument.  That said, you may have hit a different spin, in which case that sounds like an interesting idea (if death should be embraced and we're all about to die because of the aff's impact scenarios, I'm not sure why social paralysis still matters, which could be problematic for your argument).

 

The K reads very simply, like a novice's attempt at a death K, but it is performed poorly. It says, 'The Aff tries to avoid death which is viviocentrisism, which is bad. The Alt is inaction with the acceptance of death. Simply, do nothing and be happy because morally we have to accept death because the only other option is to keep trying to survive. Survival is bad because survival, or living, is the prerequisite to racism, sexism, bigotry, and hatred. So die, because those don't exist after extinction. The call to action is literally, 'accept death and be happy.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The K reads very simply, like a novice's attempt at a death K, but it is performed poorly. It says, 'The Aff tries to avoid death which is viviocentrisism, which is bad. The Alt is inaction with the acceptance of death. Simply, do nothing and be happy because morally we have to accept death because the only other option is to keep trying to survive. Survival is bad because survival, or living, is the prerequisite to racism, sexism, bigotry, and hatred. So die, because those don't exist after extinction. The call to action is literally, 'accept death and be happy.'

wAQayqy.gif

 

Just read VTL good and nihilism bad.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nihilism bad is nonresponsive to death good; they agree that there are meaningful things and morality exists, etc.  They just think that life is net bad; that's pessimism, not nihilism.  There's also a worry that the 2nr will spin it as a reps K; you should probably have fear of death good as well as death bad to hedge against that (particularly since fear of death good probably implies action to avoid death also good even if death itself is good).  VTL isn't as strong as you might think; the precautionary principle is a pretty solid response to it, and VTL isn't hugely responsive to the other claims the neg will make (also, that's one of the most common responses to death bad, so the neg will know how to beat it if they have any intent to go for it).

Edited by BobbyTables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nihilism bad is nonresponsive to death good; they agree that there are meaningful things and morality exists, etc.  They just think that life is net bad; that's pessimism, not nihilism.  There's also a worry that the 2nr will spin it as a reps K; you should probably have fear of death good as well as death bad to heg against that (particularly since fear of death good probably implies action to avoid death also good even if death itself is good).  VTL isn't as strong as you might think; the precautionary principle is a pretty solid response to it, and VTL isn't hugely responsive to the other claims the neg will make (also, that's one of the most common responses to death bad, so the neg will know how to beat it if they have any intent to go for it).

Hmmm. My conceptualization of nihilism is predicated off of this book: http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/20th/camus.stranger.html where the guy gives up and accepts death, but on a second look I'd agree that it's pessimism not nihilism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the explanation of how I should answer, but do you have any literature, or cards that would help. I only continue to ask for more help because my school has literally zero files, so I have to compile my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This schell card is pretty responsive 

Extinction is a D-Rule-- value exists only when there is life

Schell, 82 (Jonathan, Professor at Wesleyan University, The Fate of the Earth, pages 136-137)

Implicit in everything that I have said so far about the nuclear predicament there has been a perplexity that I would now like to take up explicitly, for it leads, I believe, into the very heart of our response-or, rather, our lack of response-to the predicament. I have pointed out that our species is the most important of all the things that, as inhabitants of a common world, we inherit from the past generations, but it does not go far enough to point out this superior importance, as though in making our decision about ex- tinction we were being asked to choose between, say, liberty, on the one hand, and the survival of the species, on the other. For the species not only overarches but contains all the benefits of life in the common world, and to speak of sacrificing the species for the sake of one of these benefits involves one in the absurdity of wanting to destroy something in order to preserve one of its parts, as if one were to burn down a house in an attempt to redecorate the living room, or to kill someone to improve his character. but even to point out this absurdity fails to take the full measure of the peril of extinction, for mankind is not some invaluable object that lies outside us and that we must protect so that we can go on benefiting from it; rather, it is we ourselves, without whom everything there is loses its value. To say this is another way of saying that extinction is unique not because it destroys mankind as an object but because it destroys mankind as the source of all possible human subjects, and this, in turn, is another way of saying that extinction is a second death, for one's own individual death is the end not of any object in life but of the subject that experiences all objects. Death, how- ever, places the mind in a quandary. One of-the confounding char- acteristics of death-"tomorrow's zero," in Dostoevski's phrase-is that, precisely because it removes the person himself rather than something in his life, it seems to offer the mind nothing to take hold of. One even feels it inappropriate, in a way, to try to speak "about" death at all, as. though death were a thing situated some- where outside us and available for objective inspection, when the  fact is that it is within us-is, indeed, an essential part of what we  are. It would be more appropriate, perhaps, to say that death, as  a fundamental element of our being, "thinks" in us and through  us about whatever we think about, coloring our thoughts and moods  with its presence throughout our lives.

 

and you might want to couple that with Pinker or some variant that says things in the world are getting better (although some don't like the evidence) 

Things are getting better 

Pinker (An experimental psychologistcognitive scientistlinguist and popular science author; He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind) 11,  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking, 2011. Print. pp. 12

Six Trends (chapters 2 through 7). To give some coherence to the many developments that make up our species’ retreat from violence, I group them into six major trends.  The first, which took place on the scale of millennia, was the transition from the anarchy of the hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago. With that change came a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death. I call this imposition of peace the Pacification Process.  The second transition spanned more than half a millennium and is best documented in Europe. Between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to- fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide. In his classic book The Civilizing Process, the sociologist Norbert Elias attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure of commerce. With a nod to Elias, I call this trend the Civilizing Process.  The third transition unfolded on the scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries (though it had antecedents in classical Greece and the Renaissance, and parallels elsewhere in the world). It saw the first organized movements to abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism. Historians sometimes call this transition the Humanitarian Revolution.  The fourth major transition took place after the end of World War II. The two-thirds of a century since then have been witness to a historically unprecedented development: the great powers, and developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another. Historians have called this blessed state of affairs the Long Peace.2  The fifth trend is also about armed combat but is more tenuous. Though it may be hard for news readers to believe, since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds— civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks—have declined throughout the world. In recognition of the tentative nature of this happy development, I will call it the New Peace.  Finally, the postwar era, symbolically inaugurated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has seen a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals. These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day which I will call the Rights Revolutions.

 

Pardon the tags- i changed them because they were part of blocks and it wouldn't make sense if i just copied and pasted

 

and sorry for the bad editing on the ev

Edited by Alwaysgoforinherency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This schell card is pretty responsive 

Extinction is a D-Rule-- value exists only when there is life

Schell, 82 (Jonathan, Professor at Wesleyan University, The Fate of the Earth, pages 136-137)

Implicit in everything that I have said so far about the nuclear predicament there has been a perplexity that I would now like to take up explicitly, for it leads, I believe, into the very heart of our response-or, rather, our lack of response-to the predicament. I have pointed out that our species is the most important of all the things that, as inhabitants of a common world, we inherit from the past generations, but it does not go far enough to point out this superior importance, as though in making our decision about ex- tinction we were being asked to choose between, say, liberty, on the one hand, and the survival of the species, on the other. For the species not only overarches but contains all the benefits of life in the common world, and to speak of sacrificing the species for the sake of one of these benefits involves one in the absurdity of wanting to destroy something in order to preserve one of its parts, as if one were to burn down a house in an attempt to redecorate the living room, or to kill someone to improve his character. but even to point out this absurdity fails to take the full measure of the peril of extinction, for mankind is not some invaluable object that lies outside us and that we must protect so that we can go on benefiting from it; rather, it is we ourselves, without whom everything there is loses its value. To say this is another way of saying that extinction is unique not because it destroys mankind as an object but because it destroys mankind as the source of all possible human subjects, and this, in turn, is another way of saying that extinction is a second death, for one's own individual death is the end not of any object in life but of the subject that experiences all objects. Death, how- ever, places the mind in a quandary. One of-the confounding char- acteristics of death-"tomorrow's zero," in Dostoevski's phrase-is that, precisely because it removes the person himself rather than something in his life, it seems to offer the mind nothing to take hold of. One even feels it inappropriate, in a way, to try to speak "about" death at all, as. though death were a thing situated some- where outside us and available for objective inspection, when the  fact is that it is within us-is, indeed, an essential part of what we  are. It would be more appropriate, perhaps, to say that death, as  a fundamental element of our being, "thinks" in us and through  us about whatever we think about, coloring our thoughts and moods  with its presence throughout our lives.

 

and you might want to couple that with Pinker or some variant that says things in the world are getting better (although some don't like the evidence) 

Things are getting better 

Pinker (An experimental psychologistcognitive scientistlinguist and popular science author; He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind) 11,  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking, 2011. Print. pp. 12

Six Trends (chapters 2 through 7). To give some coherence to the many developments that make up our species’ retreat from violence, I group them into six major trends.  The first, which took place on the scale of millennia, was the transition from the anarchy of the hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago. With that change came a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death. I call this imposition of peace the Pacification Process.  The second transition spanned more than half a millennium and is best documented in Europe. Between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to- fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide. In his classic book The Civilizing Process, the sociologist Norbert Elias attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure of commerce. With a nod to Elias, I call this trend the Civilizing Process.  The third transition unfolded on the scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries (though it had antecedents in classical Greece and the Renaissance, and parallels elsewhere in the world). It saw the first organized movements to abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism. Historians sometimes call this transition the Humanitarian Revolution.  The fourth major transition took place after the end of World War II. The two-thirds of a century since then have been witness to a historically unprecedented development: the great powers, and developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another. Historians have called this blessed state of affairs the Long Peace.2  The fifth trend is also about armed combat but is more tenuous. Though it may be hard for news readers to believe, since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds— civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks—have declined throughout the world. In recognition of the tentative nature of this happy development, I will call it the New Peace.  Finally, the postwar era, symbolically inaugurated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has seen a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals. These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day which I will call the Rights Revolutions.

 

Pardon the tags- i changed them because they were part of blocks and it wouldn't make sense if i just copied and pasted

 

and sorry for the bad editing on the ev

 

No problem, I really appreciate whatever help you could give me. I already did start cutting a response to Fear of Death and this weird-ass Viviocentrisism K. I'll post it when I have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to conclude perm - it says that "unquestioned fear of death" is the problem - that we assume death is always bad. I'm sure this guy would agree that some deaths can be bad - like deaths resulting involuntarily or with force. He clearly seems to be advocating for the choice to end one's own life rather than the ability to end the lives of others. I'd argue that means no link (your  1AC doesn't demand 'no suicide rights') and perm solves (it recognizes that death can be sometimes good and sometimes bad, which solves the internal link's criticism of an unquestioned presumption of death bad).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to conclude perm - it says that "unquestioned fear of death" is the problem - that we assume death is always bad. I'm sure this guy would agree that some deaths can be bad - like deaths resulting involuntarily or with force. He clearly seems to be advocating for the choice to end one's own life rather than the ability to end the lives of others. I'd argue that means no link (your  1AC doesn't demand 'no suicide rights') and perm solves (it recognizes that death can be sometimes good and sometimes bad, which solves the internal link's criticism of an unquestioned presumption of death bad).

 

i think this is pretty obvious if you simply look at the phaedo quote on page one of the book. 

Edited by gargamel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this is pretty obvious if you simply look at the phaedo quote on page one of the book. 

Is it a book or a suicide note?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a book or a suicide note?

It calls itself a suicide note, and the author did commit suicide after writing it, but it's about 2000 pages with a ten page bibliography, so it certainly isn't a traditional suicide note.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a book or a suicide note?

It calls itself a suicide note, and the author did commit suicide after writing it, but it's about 2000 pages with a ten page bibliography, so it certainly isn't a traditional suicide note.

 

it's a book called suicide note that is also a suicide note. 

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...