Jump to content
AlisonPotter

Suffering/Let Everyone Die K

Recommended Posts

I went to Fort Osage this weekend and in one of my rounds we ran our case and we hit a K that we've never heard of and were not prepared for. Basically they set up their links in cx by asking if I thought suffering was bad, if I could only die by being alive, if being alive meant consciousness, if we wanted peace, etc and then they go up and spend the whole time on T (Which was dropped after the 1nc) and this wonderful kritik. Basically they cross applied that without our plan extinction and nuclear war will occur and said that the alt was to reject our plan and let those things happen and let everyone die because that's the only true way to end suffering. We answered their argument about how happiness is an illusion and in reality you're always suffering when alive with a flimsy argument that there is no harm in letting people believe they're happy etc. We don't know if we won the round yet (probably not because it was a mess trying to even answer that), but on the off chance I ever hit that again, what would you recommend doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting...do you have any cards or authors I can refer to?

They gave us a paper copy of the k and we didn't have very long to look at it before they asked for it back. I probably should've wrote down some authors though, but it was a huge shock and we were pretty thrown off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's cites from a K I have...hope it helps :):

 

Life is nothing but never-ending suffering, but the aff’s advantages prevent natural extinction, continuing suffering

 

Schopenhauer 1804

 

 

(Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISMhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

In early youth, as we contemplate our coming life, AND life is a disappointment, nay, a cheat.

 

And Happiness in Life is Meaningless and is outweighed by pain

 

Schopenhauer 1804

 

 

(Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISMhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

I know of no greater absurdity AND his hand, it is only when we are delivered over to the misery of boredom.

 

The Alt to reject the aff and allow the extinction

 

Schopenhauer 1804

 

 

(Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISMhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

 

The ancients, moreover, AND declares that if we had any certainty of being annihilated by it, death would be infinitely preferable to the world as it is. But there lies the rub!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting...do you have any cards or authors I can refer to?

Rust Cohle

 

Anyways, a key thing here would be a 'VTL subjective' card, because if you can win it, it turns the entire case into a giant turn for the K. You may be able to apply the Camus counter K that someone ran against Theparanoicmachine in a V-debate a short time ago, but I didn't bother reading it closely.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rust Cohle

 

Anyways, a key thing here would be a 'VTL subjective' card, because if you can win it, it turns the entire case into a giant turn for the K. You may be able to apply the Camus counter K that someone ran against Theparanoicmachine in a V-debate a short time ago, but I didn't bother reading it closely.

#wilhoite4ever

 

But yeah Camus works decent depending on how they run the k

Edited by MartyP
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a TOC bid round where this K was read, and particularly what the aff did was basically read how the negs argument didn't work. The scenario was slightly different though, rather it was a sort of turn to nuclear war tied into death good. Neg says nuclear war good, we need to die iirc they read some Schopenhauer. Aff says wont nukes cause suffering, neg argues its quick and the only way to do so, so the aff read cards saying that there is suffering with nukes, being burned alive, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An answer I've seen a few times is that people who find life intolerable have the option of committing suicide, and causing extinction denies people the choice to live.  

 

If the 1ac doesn't explicitly defend extinction, you could read spark.

 

Some versions of the K are in the context of future generations, which could be a link to Edelman (might contradict your aff, though.

 

Their representations are probably bad for people in the round with depression or suicidal thoughts, so you could make that a reason to reject them if they don't warn everyone watching beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a TOC bid round where this K was read, and particularly what the aff did was basically read how the negs argument didn't work. The scenario was slightly different though, rather it was a sort of turn to nuclear war tied into death good. Neg says nuclear war good, we need to die iirc they read some Schopenhauer. Aff says wont nukes cause suffering, neg argues its quick and the only way to do so, so the aff read cards saying that there is suffering with nukes, being burned alive, etc.

The problem with stuff like that is the neg probably also read Lanza and Chopra, as well as Schopenhauer, which is a kind of sneaky way to obviate those arguments (not that they still shouldn't be made).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read Camus? No, that's totally absurd

I c u what u did there ;)

 

Rust Cohle

 

Anyways, a key thing here would be a 'VTL subjective' card, because if you can win it, it turns the entire case into a giant turn for the K. You may be able to apply the Camus counter K that someone ran against Theparanoicmachine in a V-debate a short time ago, but I didn't bother reading it closely.

 

Never forget #Camus2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nietzsche works really against Schopenhauer; although both say embrace suffering - Schopenhauer says asceticism or suicide; whereas Nietzsche says that's a form of slave morality; a form of reactive nihilism that is pessimistic upon institutions of power (basically, a negative will to power); Nietzsche says that suicide and/or asceticism is manifestation of the most depressive forms of will to power (as well as the ascetic ideal) and that we should instead engage in active nihilism and fight "for what we believe, than live a life without meaning."

 

Alenka Zupancic explains Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer REALLY WELL in her book The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Two (one of the best books I've ever read btw) 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nietzsche works really against Schopenhauer; although both say embrace suffering - Schopenhauer says asceticism or suicide; whereas Nietzsche says that's a form of slave morality; a form of reactive nihilism that is pessimistic upon institutions of power (basically, a negative will to power); Nietzsche says that suicide and/or asceticism is manifestation of the most depressive forms of will to power (as well as the ascetic ideal) and that we should instead engage in active nihilism and fight "for what we believe, than live a life without meaning."

 

Alenka Zupancic explains Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer REALLY WELL in her book The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Two (one of the best books I've ever read btw) 

Why isn't Nietzsche a double turn with the aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't Nietzsche a double turn with the aff?

huehuehuehue you got me there Batman ;)

 

Edit 1: In case they ever hit it on negative; then can read Nietzsche 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a TOC bid round where this K was read, and particularly what the aff did was basically read how the negs argument didn't work. The scenario was slightly different though, rather it was a sort of turn to nuclear war tied into death good. Neg says nuclear war good, we need to die iirc they read some Schopenhauer. Aff says wont nukes cause suffering, neg argues its quick and the only way to do so, so the aff read cards saying that there is suffering with nukes, being burned alive, etc.

I was at that round too and I looked up the cites. They read ligotti and dolan as the alt i have the cites if you want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Fort Osage this weekend and in one of my rounds we ran our case and we hit a K that we've never heard of and were not prepared for. Basically they set up their links in cx by asking if I thought suffering was bad, if I could only die by being alive, if being alive meant consciousness, if we wanted peace, etc and then they go up and spend the whole time on T (Which was dropped after the 1nc) and this wonderful kritik. Basically they cross applied that without our plan extinction and nuclear war will occur and said that the alt was to reject our plan and let those things happen and let everyone die because that's the only true way to end suffering. We answered their argument about how happiness is an illusion and in reality you're always suffering when alive with a flimsy argument that there is no harm in letting people believe they're happy etc. We don't know if we won the round yet (probably not because it was a mess trying to even answer that), but on the off chance I ever hit that again, what would you recommend doing?

the Death K. "we should let everyone die bc they're conforming?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Death K. "we should let everyone die bc they're conforming?"

 Closer to "We should let everyone die bc life is terrible", at least as I've seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Fort Osage this weekend and in one of my rounds we ran our case and we hit a K that we've never heard of and were not prepared for. Basically they set up their links in cx by asking if I thought suffering was bad, if I could only die by being alive, if being alive meant consciousness, if we wanted peace, etc and then they go up and spend the whole time on T (Which was dropped after the 1nc) and this wonderful kritik. Basically they cross applied that without our plan extinction and nuclear war will occur and said that the alt was to reject our plan and let those things happen and let everyone die because that's the only true way to end suffering. We answered their argument about how happiness is an illusion and in reality you're always suffering when alive with a flimsy argument that there is no harm in letting people believe they're happy etc. We don't know if we won the round yet (probably not because it was a mess trying to even answer that), but on the off chance I ever hit that again, what would you recommend doing?

the Death K. "we should let everyone die bc they're conforming?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After running this many times you just wanna ask them firstly how does the Alt solve the Link claim ?

 - No Answer - Use that a solvency deficit to kill their ethos

 Secondly : Put Death is real , and we better allows trasncdence because Nuclear Wasteland is uniquely worse than what we have right now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After running this many times you just wanna ask them firstly how does the Alt solve the Link claim ?

 - No Answer - Use that a solvency deficit to kill their ethos

 Secondly : Put Death is real , and we better allows trasncdence because Nuclear Wasteland is uniquely worse than what we have right now 

well they said the alt solves the link claim (ie alt= not doing our plan which leads to nuclear war) which they claim is good because it ends all suffering. We're thinking about going the "nuclear war still causes suffering" route and fighting to live is better than giving up (thanks MartyP) idk if that's what you're getting at on the second part of your answer, but yeah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they said the alt solves the link claim (ie alt= not doing our plan which leads to nuclear war) which they claim is good because it ends all suffering. We're thinking about going the "nuclear war still causes suffering" route and fighting to live is better than giving up (thanks MartyP) idk if that's what you're getting at on the second part of your answer, but yeah. 

Low key a pretty trolly way to go is with transhumanism.  At my last tournament I hit 1-off death good and I won on this card saying that we will eventually be able to genetically engineer happiness, which takes out all of their "life is net suffering" claims.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low key a pretty trolly way to go is with transhumanism.  At my last tournament I hit 1-off death good and I won on this card saying that we will eventually be able to genetically engineer happiness, which takes out all of their "life is net suffering" claims.

"hello, yes, I would like some genetically engineered happiness please"

Edited by apot7372
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low key a pretty trolly way to go is with transhumanism.  At my last tournament I hit 1-off death good and I won on this card saying that we will eventually be able to genetically engineer happiness, which takes out all of their "life is net suffering" claims.

That works if they drop it, but there's some pretty good evidence that transhumanism will only be beneficial to the economic elites, while worsening the conditions for the lower classes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...