Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lamp

  1. I don't understand why everyone automatically assumes that. It's possible that it was because mandatory comprehensive service.


    no i thought that the reason was because there wasnt enough lit on the mandatory part of the topic. i forgot who told me but i remember finding them credible...


    uhhhh not so much, that's actually what i was referring to...

  2. religion can be good but it can be dangerous too. a lot of it i think depends on the curriculum, the way its taught, etc. for example, i know a girl who goes to a largely catholic school in Chile who is being required to protest the morning after pill despite her belief in its morality. im not trying to get into a debate about the morality of contraceptives but i just think that this is an instance in which religion in schools has gone too far.

  3. I say they have to say USFG or a specific part no matter what. It's a time suck strategy in the CX period and then its abusive to neg ground.



    time suck in cross-x? double bind--either a) it's crucial enough to neg ground to ask in cross-x or B) it's not and you don't have to ask.


    plus sucking cross-x time is a goal of the game--teams are taught to ramble strategically to waste cross-x. i mean i know i was. :)

    • Upvote 1

  4. yeah, its redonk


    synergy will you be competing at the TOC?



    sounds like a good idea but i agree with everyone else, $75 = too much because i rationalize it like this... this T/F consists of 3 or 4 disads... each T/F is usually 2 disads and is $10....

  5. the question of Justice IS the question that has to be mediated by the third. The third is the state or external institution that is also constantly in a state of questioning by the ethical subject. This is seen perfectly when we look to Derrida's concept of undecidability. Contrary to its fancy name undecidability does not mean we can't make a decision but rather its when we are forced to make a decision (ie the choice isn't already made for us like when two Others that we are equally devoted to come into contact) this decision must be mediated ethically but it is made by the third. This is justice.



    David Campbell, professor of international politics at the University of Newcastle, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, ed. by Campbell and Shapiro, 1999, p. 38

    In these terms, proximity could also signify the closeness of culture, the priority of time over space. But on other occasions the spatial dimension is there, notably when the third party enters. "In proximity a subject is implicated in a way not reducible to the spatial sense which proximity takes on when the third party troubles it by demanding justice.” Indeed, the major problem with the entry of the third party is that the disturbance of responsibility in the one-to-one relationship it creates requires justice. As Levinas argues, "f there were only two people in the world, there would be no need for law courts because I would always be responsible for and before, the other." The justice required is, according to Levinas, a justice of laws, and courts, and institutions, which means that as soon as the third party enters, "the ethical relationship with the other becomes political and enters into a totalizing discourse of ontology." Moreover, the spatial dimension foregrounded by the third party's disturbance and the resultant need for justice is associated with the state. "Who is closest to me? Who is the Other?.. . We must investigate carefully. Legal justice is required. There is need for a state." Equally, in Otherwise Than Being, Levinas writes that "a problem is posited by proximity itself, which, as the immediate itself, is without problems. The extraordinary commitment of the other to the third party calls for control, a search for justice, society and the State.” Indeed,Levinas has an approving view of the state, regarding it as "the highest achievement in the lives of western peoples,” something perhaps attributable to his contestable interpretation of the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

  6. Could you explain to me why nuclear war isn't an example of structural violence?


    if you say nuke war = structural violence in the 2ac after reading like a hege key to stop nuke war impact, then you are begging to lose on Kato.

  7. framework--

    interp--judge should weigh the world of the aff plan vs the world of the alternative

    solves their exclusion arguments and prevents the 1ac from being mooted

    now you can make right to life outweighs arguments

    also some arguments like ethical imperative to prevent nuke war

    as well as util good like was mentioned before--which is a direct response to this "Ethics comes first?"--what the hell does that even mean? we should probably have some system of ethics to abide by and util is exactly that.

    just an idea though--you should probably also just cut some cards specific to why ontology or ethics don't come first--shouldn't be too hard to find.

  • Create New...