Jump to content
kylerbuckner

LINGUISTIC THANATOLOGY K- BRAND NEW CRITIQUE

Recommended Posts

Sounds to me like a variant of Baudrillard/Lacan/Suffering Ks. I've read several Baudrillard and Suffering reps K's that talk about body count, and how thats a devaluation of suffering, making comparisons to Hitler, Stalin  and stuff.... theres tons of ev on this in suffering files on like openev/camp files

 

IS IT LIKE THIS:

Their use of a bodycount to get a ballot perpetuates suffering.

HOLT 2006 (Jim, frequent NYT contributor, “Math Murders,” New York Times, March 12, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312wwln_lede.1.html?_r=0)

 

Counting the dead is a paradoxical business. Suppose I told you that around 150 million people have died over the last century in wars, genocides, man-made famines and other atrocities. This number might evoke in you a certain horror. But it is, of course, only a wild guess. Its very vagueness lends it an air of unreality. Yet what purpose would be served by making it more precise? Where mass death is concerned, the moral significance of scale seems to be one of those things that our brains aren't equipped to handle. A single life may have infinite value, but the difference between a million deaths and a million and one strikes us as negligible. The moral meaning of death counts is further obscured by their apparent lack of objectivity. Take the war in Iraq. How many Iraqi civilians have died as a consequence of the American invasion? Supporters of the war say 30,000, a number that even President Bush finally brought himself to utter late last year. Opponents of the war say more than 100,000. Surely there must be a fact of the matter. In practice, though, there are only competing methodologies and assumptions, all of which yield different numbers. Even if we could put politics aside and agree on one, it would be hard to say what it meant. Does it matter, for instance, that the higher estimate of 100,000 is the same order of magnitude as the number of Iraqi Kurds that Saddam Hussein is reckoned to have killed in 1987 and 1988, in a genocidal campaign that, it has been claimed, justified his forcible removal? ''It is painful to contemplate that despite our technologies of assurance and mathematics of certainty, such a fundamental index of reality as numbers of the dead is a nightmarish muddle,'' wrote Gil Elliot in his 1972 volume, ''The Twentieth Century Book of the Dead.'' Figuring out the number of man-caused deaths is rarely as straightforward as counting skulls in a mass grave. You can kill people with bombs, guns and machetes, but there are also more indirect ways: causing them to die of starvation, say, or of exposure or disease. (The disease need not be indirect -- witness the radiation victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Of the nearly two million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge, for instance, perhaps half were executed outright. By contrast, in the ongoing civil war in the Congo -- the deadliest conflict since World War II -- 2 percent of the estimated 3.9 million victims have died of direct violence; the rest perished when their subsistence-level lives were disrupted by the war. Quantifying man-made death thus means, at the very least, having an idea of the rate at which people die naturally. And that entails recordkeeping. In 17th-century Europe, registers kept by church parishes -- dates of baptisms, marriages and burials -- made it possible to gauge the devastation caused by the Thirty Years' War, which was deadlier for civilians than for soldiers. The last century, strange to say, has not always matched this level of demographic sophistication. Even in the case of Nazi Germany, supposedly a model of efficiency, the implementation of the Final Solution was so chaotic that the number of victims can be known only to the nearest million. If our methodology of counting man-made deaths is crude, our moral calculus for weighing the resulting numbers is even cruder. Quantification, it is often thought, confers precision and objectivity. Yet it tells us very little about comparative evil. We feel that Hitler was every bit as evil as Stalin, even though Stalin was far more successful in murdering people (in part because he had a longer run). Mao may have been more successful still; in their recent book, ''Mao: The Unknown Story,'' Jung Chang and Jon Halliday estimate that the Chinese leader was responsible for ''well over 70 million deaths,'' which would come to nearly half of the total number of man-made deaths in the 20th century. In relative terms, however, Mao is easily eclipsed by Pol Pot, who directed the killing of more than a quarter of his fellow Cambodians. Raw death numbers may not be a reliable index of evil, but they still have value as a guide to action. That, at least, is the common-sense view. It is also part of the ethical theory known as utilitarianism, which holds that sacrificing x lives to save y lives is always justified as long as y is greater than x. This utilitarian principle is often invoked, for example, in defense of President Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed between 120,000 and 250,000 Japanese civilians, on the assumption that the death toll would have been worse had the war been prolonged. Yet some thinkers (like the British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe) have questioned whether, morally speaking, numbers really count. In a choice between saving 5 lives and saving 10, they ask, why should we be dutybound to act in behalf of the greater number? Because, you say, it would be worse for 10 people to die than for 5 people. They reply: Worse for whom? Arithmetic misleads us into thinking that deaths aggregate the way numbers do. Yet in reality there are only individuals suffering. In a dilemma where the deaths of one group of people or another is unavoidable, why should someone have to die merely by reason of being in the smaller group? This sort of skepticism about the significance of numbers has some perverse consequences. It implies that all atrocities have an equal command on our moral attention, regardless of scale. Yet a refusal to aggregate deaths can also be ethically salubrious. It helps us realize that the evil of each additional death is in no way diluted by the number of deaths that may have preceded it. The ongoing bloodbath in Darfur has, all agree, claimed an enormous number of victims. Saying just how many is a methodological nightmare; a ballpark figure is a quarter of a million, but estimates range up to 400,000 and beyond. Quantitatively, the new deaths that each day brings are absorbed into this vast, indeterminate number. Morally, they ought to be as urgent as those on the first day of the slaughter. ''What is the moral context in which we should see those killed by violence? There exists a view that one violent death has the same moral value as a thousand or a million deaths. . . . The killer cannot add to his sin by committing more than one murder. However, every victim of murder would claim, if he could, that his death had a separate moral value.'' Source: ''The Twentieth Century Book of the Dead,'' by Gil Elliot (1972)

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not necessarily that, its like this exposure to violence in our adolescence leads us to sociopathic behavior and that is impacted out multiple ways like sociopathic behavior is the root cause of all violence like hitler was exposed to violence at a young age because his dad beat him and his sister like thats an extreme example of sociopathic behavior but it was an extreme act he committed he killed 6 million people and so the k basically has the impacts of dehumanization, sociopathic behavior, root cause of all violence, and a few more. its not necessarily talking about suffering its more exposure to violence and these kind of acts leads to a society of sociopaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not necessarily that, its like this exposure to violence in our adolescence leads us to sociopathic behavior and that is impacted out multiple ways like sociopathic behavior is the root cause of all violence like hitler was exposed to violence at a young age because his dad beat him and his sister like thats an extreme example of sociopathic behavior but it was an extreme act he committed he killed 6 million people and so the k basically has the impacts of dehumanization, sociopathic behavior, root cause of all violence, and a few more. its not necessarily talking about suffering its more exposure to violence and these kind of acts leads to a society of sociopaths.

is it the Giroux article

 

because I have that Giroux article (cut)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, generic K's are what you should be shying away from, not aiming for. This functionally seems like a Giroux + Util bad K (which is itself a variant on a security K), which, while useful would alone tend to be less persuasive than something with specific links (like security). Furthermore, the impact claims seem very tenuous, because from the way you've explained it, it basically would rely on one of the debaters getting in a position of power and then going all fatalistic dictator on everyone...which if your thesis is true is actually inevitable because of like every other round ever.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no its more of changing the way we do debate. like quality of life impacts, not death tolls and the other thing is that sociopathic behavior only means that you become dessensitized to the notion of death and like empirics check that when you are exposed to violence before the brain is fully develloped makes you become less sensitive to death - basically like a chemcical change in the brain that creates dessensitization of the brain and makes it like one of the root causes of violence, like stalin killed like all the people he was close to in the soviet union and ruled with an iron fist because he felt no empathy because he was a sociopath, a lot of cases prove that sociopathic behavior doesnt lead to crazy war mongers but again empricial studies check that sociopathic behavior is related to a lot of stuff like dehumanization and animal abuse but yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no its more of changing the way we do debate. like quality of life impacts, not death tolls and the other thing is that sociopathic behavior only means that you become dessensitized to the notion of death and like empirics check that when you are exposed to violence before the brain is fully develloped makes you become less sensitive to death - basically like a chemcical change in the brain that creates dessensitization of the brain and makes it like one of the root causes of violence, like stalin killed like all the people he was close to in the soviet union and ruled with an iron fist because he felt no empathy because he was a sociopath, a lot of cases prove that sociopathic behavior doesnt lead to crazy war mongers but again empricial studies check that sociopathic behavior is related to a lot of stuff like dehumanization and animal abuse but yeah

Sooooo...Giroux. 

 

I still don't see how voting neg overwhelms the UQ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deterrence

So is this like when topicality was invented and no one ever ran a non-topical aff again?

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this like when topicality was invented and no one ever ran a non-topical aff again?

 

The difference is that it just made people read MORE untopical affs so they can get those legit K's of T

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that it just made people read MORE untopical affs so they can get those legit K's of T

LOL.

If I ever got you on a panel I know what my 1 off is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay so i wrote a new critique I am not sure if there has been one like it.. its like 36 pages long, there is only one link because it literally links to everything that is not a critical aff, because it critiques teams that use solely body count arguments because it creates a sociopathic mindset, it basically talks about why that is bad and how like this sociopathic mindset is the root cause of all wars and how like hitler was exposed to violence at a young age and look how he turned out.. it also has answer to performance contradiction framework and some killer answer to k bad framework both long and short shell answers it has answer to the basic arguments ran against it. 

 

things in the file

 

notes and explanatino

short 1nc (link impact alt framework)

long 1nc (link impact x3 alt framework)

a2 k bad fw long shell

a2 k bad fw short shell

a2 perf con fw

a2 perm - analytics and card

a2 no solvency - analytics and card

hit and miss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not necessarily that, its like this exposure to violence in our adolescence leads us to sociopathic behavior and that is impacted out multiple ways like sociopathic behavior is the root cause of all violence like hitler was exposed to violence at a young age because his dad beat him and his sister like thats an extreme example of sociopathic behavior but it was an extreme act he committed he killed 6 million people and so the k basically has the impacts of dehumanization, sociopathic behavior, root cause of all violence, and a few more. its not necessarily talking about suffering its more exposure to violence and these kind of acts leads to a society of sociopaths.

 

I messaged you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably an issue with appropriating medical terms (sociopathy) and equating witnessing domestic violence with reading an extinction impact.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably an issue with appropriating medical terms (sociopathy) and equating witnessing domestic violence with reading an extinction impact.

its the daily discussions of death that causes sociopathy and thats why i used hitler as an extreme example bc domestic violence was an extreme offence but then again he killed 6 million + people

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably an issue with appropriating medical terms (sociopathy) and equating witnessing domestic violence with reading an extinction impact.

not if you have empirical medical studies that correlate adolescent exposure to violence creating sociopathic behavior..

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not if you have empirical medical studies that correlate adolescent exposure to violence creating sociopathic behavior..

Alt cause: video games

  • Upvote 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...