Jump to content
DiamondLouisXIV

Why is God Dead in Policy?

Recommended Posts

I, and everyone who does policy has realized that there is currently no place for god in the debate space. Although I am atheist, this norm disturbs me. Debate is supposed to be a place of transformation, we talk about race, LGBT, fem and gender studies, all sorts of identity arguments, and if certain ethics are good or bad. Badiou even says all ethics are bad (basically).

 

What I don't understand is that despite the transformative nature of debate, we exclude the most important question: Is there an objective morality? Even in LD there is but a mention of god, I fact the only place you can find a good God debate is on YouTube or debate.org. The worst part to me is that we are excluding a question this big from the debate space and silencing that voice. The closest argument relating to god I've heard is the god k, which just mocks Christianity.

 

You may argue that we shouldn't argue about god because it's an indeterminate question, but That's a contention of debate not a fact, even if it is, just argue that in round and say interminable questions bad. You may also say it gets people to emotional, My answer would be get over it, if debate is going to be transformative, we can't require they must be happy in the process, that alone is an idea for kritik.

 

So why DO we have these norms, and should they be altered?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a case about native spirituality: i think debate can he a space of religious significance ie arguing for ur religious rights.

 

I think your idea that God must be the center of the question of morality is a bit off, but maybe i'm confused. Like we debate about ethics all the time. I think that answers objective morality to some degree, but of course it depends on the round. I feel like every K debate treads those waters with regards to ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the Bible is particularly strategic in terms of constructing a criticism around it. I think that those voices shouldn't be excluded however I feel like there would be no strategic benefit to reading it, so I don't really think it's like a silencing of it but more of a general consensus that it is just not a strategic argument to make. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion blocks freedom

Park ’06 (James, Philosophy Professor at the University of Minnesota, “Our Existential Predicament: Loneliness Depression Anxiety and Death”, p. 303, jj)

 

Unfortunately, religion is sometimes a barrier to Existential Freedom. Worshiping and believing might be intended to help us feel good inside. Or perhaps because we so intensely desire 'peace of mind', we use religion primarily as a means of psychological self-help. If these are the ways organized religion has functioned for us, religiousness might be our basic obstacle to Existential Freedom.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is dead, but immeasurably more importantly, God is death (except ‘God’ means the fascist ass-hole of the West). The beginning of the secret is that death (= 0) is immense. 


From birth we are brain-washed into conformity with the cage, taught to accumulate, to shore ourselves up, to fear madness and death. Trapped in a constricting tangle of language routines we tread a narrow circuit in the maze 


We are told that chance will not take care of us, and that it is difficult to live  but work and seriousness are slums of delusion the garbage-heap of individuation has no worth what is called life at the outer edge of patriarchy is a bleak box of lies, drudgery, and anaesthesia blended with inane agony what matters about the outside of the box is not just that it is the outside of the box, but that it is immense what matters is the abyss, the gulf 


* *


They want us to fear death so much, but we can inhabit it like vermin, it can be our space, in our violent openness to the sacred death will protect us against their exterminations, driven insane by zero, we can knot ourselves into the underworld, communicate through it, cook their heavenly city in our plague.  we can scamper in and out of the maze in a way they cannot understand,  during the first weekend of June  at half-past one on Sunday morning  deep in the crypt of the night 


together with a fellow voyager in madness 


i crossed the line into death 


which is called Hell because the police control heaven  * * * Melting shells drunk on our inexistence  torched in the flame of the sacred 


we trudged though the burnt and blackened swamps of the shallows  testing the edge of the estuary  dripping brimstone from our boots 


an immense ocean of annihilation stretched out before us  


  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the Bible is particularly strategic in terms of constructing a criticism around it. I think that those voices shouldn't be excluded however I feel like there would be no strategic benefit to reading it, so I don't really think it's like a silencing of it but more of a general consensus that it is just not a strategic argument to
I don't think that the Bible is particularly strategic in terms of constructing a criticism around it. I think that those voices shouldn't be excluded however I feel like there would be no strategic benefit to reading it, so I don't really think it's like a silencing of it but more of a general consensus that it is just not a strategic argument to make.

 

I agree, reading only from Leviticus in your speech speech would be a terrible idea. What's probably more strategic would be to read logical syllogisms on god's existence, and from there argue morality. On some level I think it's pretty strategic. For instance, people who identify with that religion would be more inclined to vote on it. But even if you were just reading the bible, you can't tell me it's any less strategic then other Kritiks (The Batman K, The vampire k...and other crazy Ks).

 

Assuming X religious stance is true, it may matter most that the argument Is True. I feel like strategy may play a role, but that the larger barrier is normativity in policy debate, which, again, really irritates me because of what policy debate is supposed to be and is for so many other concepts.

Edited by DiamondLouisXIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heart of literature is the death of God, the violent absence of the good, and thus of everything that protects, consolidates, or guarantees the interests of the individual personality. The death of God is the ultimate transgression, the release of humanity from itself, back into the blind infernal extravagance of the sun.  


  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The heart of literature is the death of God, the violent absence of the good, and thus of everything that protects, consolidates, or guarantees the interests of the individual personality. The death of God is the ultimate transgression, the release of humanity from itself, back into the blind infernal extravagance of the sun.  

 

You really love Bataille lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, no.

 

1And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 13:1 KJV

 

Contention I is Blasphemy

 

1. The dragon empowers the beast to blaspheme

Revelation 13:2-6 KJV

2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? 5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

 

etc....

 

It's here:

https://www.cross-x.com/topic/58812-file-dump-2014-2015/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberty seriously runs a God K in college debate. The argument reads like a security kritik -- it boils down to "embrace insecurity and quit trying to plan - let god be in control". The link story is that the affirmative's plan is an attempt to control God's world, and the alt is to cede control to God. There are other versions of it (there was a factory farming Christ affirmative a while back) that cited heavily to William Cavanaugh -- I still own my copy of Theopolitical Imagination, which is relatively cardable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberty seriously runs a God K in college debate. The argument reads like a security kritik -- it boils down to "embrace insecurity and quit trying to plan - let god be in control". The link story is that the affirmative's plan is an attempt to control God's world, and the alt is to cede control to God. There are other versions of it (there was a factory farming Christ affirmative a while back) that cited heavily to William Cavanaugh -- I still own my copy of Theopolitical Imagination, which is relatively cardable.

They haven't ran that in years,though. The most recent (Christian) religion arguments were probably the Pope DA from I think GSU. There was also something about tropes of Christian femininity last year too, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? it wasn't a great argument, but people had like zero blocks to it. i remember cutting the Christian Bible's book of Matthew as an answer because we had like ten seconds to prep our kids.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habermas, an agnostic himself, points to the historicity of freedom:

 

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."

 

(Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).

 

2) Naturalism = materialism.  Materialism = determinism.  Determinism = no meaning, no purpose, no rights, no responsibility, and no justice.  This is pretty much the ultimate TKO to finding fundamental ethics from naturalism. 

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/three-ms-that-naturalism-cant-provide/

 

3) The concept of the Imago Dei that we are found in the image of God.  That is rational, emotional, and creative.  This is a sharp contrast with naturalism.

 

4) Humans are more than physics, biology, and chemistry.  Our experiences point to more robust experiences in terms of choice, relationships, and love--as well as an appreciation for beauty.

 

5) Given the above, its not surprising that Bentham was a naturalist and called natural rights "nonsense on stilts" (which is pretty anti-Constitutional) and that Hobbes was a naturalism, while John Locke was Christian.  Locke saw value in human beings.  The impact of this contrast is significant if you look throughout history on the violence caused by dictators versus governments that protect Constitional rights.

 

6) AT: Rose "existential freedom" argument above:

The existential freedom argument points out that books deprive people of existential freedom.  Culture and existing in social relationships does the same thing.  Not to mention his role as a university professor (at the university of minnesota)  does the same--assuming he wants to change his students or from them to be transformed by the process.  His indictment is an indictment of influence.  The only way to rid our lives of outside influence is to become hermits.  Even that wouldn't work, because it would lock in early influences. 

 

As an FYI, the K I believe was cut at a Wyoming camp several years back.  I seem to remember 2004 maybe.  It has been recycled and/or recut a number of times since.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an FYI, the K I believe was cut at a Wyoming camp several years back.  I seem to remember 2004 maybe.  It has been recycled and/or recut a number of times since.

It was '07

  • 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...