Jump to content
vmanAA738

LD Jan-Feb Topic (Handguns)

Recommended Posts

anthro aff is an uphill battle, I worked with a group of four other people trying to write one, but there is no real lit about handguns and speciest violence.

Edited by EndlessFacepalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys think that a Mexican Drug Cartel Aff would be a good way to go?

Yeah that sounds good. So far people have read cartels as an advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I did not read every single post on this thread but I feel that perhaps the Aff could circumvent civil war/constitutionality with the obvious "ought" wording and historical precedent, i.e. operate post-fiat because it is stupid to say something is against the constitution before it is ratified. Historically, people did not argue that it would be unconstitutional to ban alcohol when the amendment was being debated. Only problem would be burden of proving ratification by states (fat chance of that) and deflecting prohibition arguments, like a) guns are not booze and B) prohibition was a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridding ourselves of private ownership of guns is key to communal ownership -> Cap Aff. 

 

I get where you're coming from but private property is not the same thing as personal property. A handgun would be personal, rather than private property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you're coming from but private property is not the same thing as personal property. A handgun would be personal, rather than private property.

 

I don't see the distinction.  All personal property is private property, by definition.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the distinction.  All personal property is private property, by definition.

Isn't the whole thing about ownership of the factors of production anyways? Pretty sure communists didn't have communal toothbrushes. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the distinction.  All personal property is private property, by definition.

Pretty sure a lot of socialists make the distinction between possessions and property

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the whole thing about ownership of the factors of production anyways? Pretty sure communists didn't have communal toothbrushes. 

 

Pretty sure a lot of socialists make the distinction between possessions and property

 

Between possessions and property is one thing.  But private property is still property.  A possession isn't necessarily property.  Pure socialism recognizes no right to ownership.  Even toothbrushes.  And while that doesn't make toothbrushes communal, it means they aren't property.  And under communism, if the government decides that it has need of one of your possessions, it is the government's right to simply take it for whatever use they have in mind. 

 

Property => a right to ownership of the thing.  It is non-existent under communism.

 

(Directly relevant to guns: individuals would certainly possess guns, even if the only guns were government property.  Ie, the police and army would issue firearms to individuals, who would possess them.  But they would not own them.)

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Property => a right to ownership of the thing.  It is non-existent under communism.

I'm sure some people fully object to private property, but Snark is 100% that the dominant brands of Marxism support worker ownership of the means of production, rather than any given product (that way, specific products can be produced and distributed fairly to society). Communism is less about musical underwear and more about making sure everyone gets underwear from the underwear factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know which philosophers I can reference to give merit to my value of human life? I need a reason why human life should outweigh any other value in the round. My opponent ran a racism neg and said oppression was worse than death, I then argued that (other than the fact that her offense was non-unique) death was the greatest form of oppression and should outweigh her value, but she had cards with well known philosophers making the case that oppression was the worst impact. I had nothing on why human life was the supreme value. How can I make this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know which philosophers I can reference to give merit to my value of human life? I need a reason why human life should outweigh any other value in the round. My opponent ran a racism neg and said oppression was worse than death, I then argued that (other than the fact that her offense was non-unique) death was the greatest form of oppression and should outweigh her value, but she had cards with well known philosophers making the case that oppression was the worst impact. I had nothing on why human life was the supreme value. How can I make this case?

Death bad

Paterson 03 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, “A Life Not Worth Living?”, Studies in Christian Ethics,http://sce.sagepub.com)

Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that is really the objective evil for us, not because it deprives us of a prospective future of overall good judged better than the alter- native of non-being. It cannot be about harm to a former person who has ceased to exist, for no person actually suffers from the sub-sequent non-participation. Rather, death in itselfis an evil to us because it ontologically destroys the current existent subject — it is the ultimate in metaphysical lightening strikes.80 The evil of death is truly an ontological evil borne by the person who already exists, independently of calculations about better or worse possible lives. Such an evil need not be consciously experienced in order to be an evil for the kind of being a human person is. Death is an evil because of the change in kind it brings about, a change that is destructive of the type of entity that we essentially areAnything, whether caused naturally or caused by human intervention (intentional or unintentional) that drastically interferes in the process of maintaining the person in existence is an objective evil for the person. What is crucially at stake here, and is dialectically supportive of the self-evidency of the basic good of human life, is that death is a radical interference with the current life process of the kind of being that we are. In consequence, death itself can be credibly thought of as a ‘primitive evil’ for all persons, regardless of the extent to which they are currently or prospectively capable of participating in a full array of the goods of life.81  In conclusion, concerning willed human actions, it is justifiable to state that any intentional rejection of human life itself cannot therefore be warranted since it is an expression of an ultimate disvalue for the subjectnamely, the destruction of the present person; a radical ontological good that we cannot begin to weigh objectively against the travails of life in a rational manner. To deal with the sources of disvalue (pain, suffering, etc.) we should not seek to irrationally destroy the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82

 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know which philosophers I can reference to give merit to my value of human life? I need a reason why human life should outweigh any other value in the round. My opponent ran a racism neg and said oppression was worse than death, I then argued that (other than the fact that her offense was non-unique) death was the greatest form of oppression and should outweigh her value, but she had cards with well known philosophers making the case that oppression was the worst impact. I had nothing on why human life was the supreme value. How can I make this case?

Read Bostrom. 

 

EDIT: It depends on your exact impact, actually. Bostrom is great if you have extinction-level impacts, but only meh if you don't. 

 

EDIT #2: I'm really not sure why you don't access racism on the aff. see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/racism-and-gun-violence-a_b_7627318.html

Edited by TyR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommendations: Black-market disad or civil war disad? Which is easier to prove? Which has better impacts? Which is easier to run with traditional judges/ parent judges? Also, what is the best way to run each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommendations: Black-market disad or civil war disad? Which is easier to prove? Which has better impacts? Which is easier to run with traditional judges/ parent judges? Also, what is the best way to run each?

black market

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an actual card that says homicide is worse than suicide? Most people try to spin out of it by saying no card/more suicide than homicide, save more life, and the judge actually voted for them(insert crying frog face) p.s. I'm competing at UPenn tomorrow for LD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an actual card that says homicide is worse than suicide? Most people try to spin out of it by saying no card/more suicide than homicide, save more life, and the judge actually voted for them(insert crying frog face) p.s. I'm competing at UPenn tomorrow for LD

Suicide good is responsive, and there's a lot of lit on the right to die and suicide being good, from deleuzian defenses of physician assisted suicide to pop philosophers dronging about autonomy

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an actual card that says homicide is worse than suicide? Most people try to spin out of it by saying no card/more suicide than homicide, save more life, and the judge actually voted for them(insert crying frog face) p.s. I'm competing at UPenn tomorrow for LD

do you even meme

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody help me! I have been reading counter-plans and disadvantages for every tournament on this topic, but now I'm going to a tournament with super-traditional judges who don't like policy arguments. Any suggestions on a neg concept that is both effective to run and appeals to traditional judges?

  • 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...