Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About Adam.A.A

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/05/1991
  1. Watch out for Lincoln High Novice.
  2. I am in dire need for a good terrorism file that: Links to Imperialism. Links to Hegemony. Links to Counterproliferation. Will trade for a positive rep.. I need this ASAP for a TOC bid tournament this Friday. Help me out! Please PM me or send the file to adamazzam@gmail.com
  3. A/T Nietzsche K: Nietzsche was German, and quoting him leads to Nuclear War. Azzam, A. "I'm awesome, Nietzsche is not." Journal of all things Awesome, 2008. Ad Hominem, ad shmominem. Nietzsche was a german, and lived during the time of Bismarck. Meaning that he could write whatever he wanted and Europe would just accept it because he cowered behind Bismarck. Quoting Nietzsche is dehumanizing because Nietzsche was not human, and dehumanization leads to nuclear war. Quoting Nietzsche is biopower because by quoting him, you're telling other people how to think, and consequently destroying their intellectual autonomy - which is biopower. Biopower leads to nuclear war. Nietzsche is statism. If you want my warrant than you're a statist. Statism leads to nuclear war.
  4. You should also post A/T Nietzsche K.
  5. It seems LD is transitioning to Policy-like resolutions, and PF is transitioning to LD-like resolutions. Policy just stays the same.
  6. The point of the offensive messages were to gain attention. By acknowledging it, he's only succeeding.
  7. A compositional fallacy is "A fallacy when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."
  8. If you can point out where and on what arguments I lost on in a Private Message I would like to know. Thank you, Adam
  9. Tomak- You're eagerness to concede is both alarming and disappointing. I was debating for the fun of it, and I believe you took it for more than it was worth. The point of all debate is education, and the fact that you are more eager to assert my ignorance rather than defend and educate is averse to why we debate. You're impression of my deliberate misunderstanding is offensive, and I see no evidence in my argument to support this. My argument has been simplistic, but I get the impression that you are too quick to dismiss anyone who challenges your absolutist power of knowledge. I hope that the things you find to do with your time will be fruitful, and I wanted to let you -- and everyone else involved in this debate that I had fun. Edit: I believe I found where we were differing in argumentation. I was arguing intentions while you were arguing actions.
  10. Sorry I didn't address it, I will now. I understand this, but I'm arguing the contrapositive. If Rand is interested in why we should not do X, then she is equally interested in why we should do "Not-X". Redefining action "Not-X" to be "Y," we can see that Rand is interested in why we should do Y and why we should do X. I hope this makes sense. No, I do not believe I am. Relating this to your oversimplification - I'm answering the argument by saying that you can't say cars are bad because they don't exist. Relating this to the actual philosophy, Rand says that acting altruistically is bad, and I'm saying that no human can be altruistic. Comical, but conceded. My second argument was an attempt to oversimplify Rand's argument -- I then went on to introduce the prison dilemma. It seems that the only argument I found on your link is:"The Prisoner's Dilemma is a game, not real life." If a doctrine of how we ought to act can not solve for all scenarios, then it is illegitimate. We see several scenarios in international business when rival companies compete non-cooperatively. I really see no offense off of your link besides saying that it's a game, when the rules outlined in that game are seen all the time. I would answer that with your previous flattery:
  11. Source: Victory Briefs The following people from Nebraska: Carly Persell Lincoln East Adam Russnogle Lincoln East Lisa Johnson Lincoln High School Blake Neff Lincoln High School Adelle Burk Millard South High School Ashlee Portelli Millard South High School Sammi Stahlnecker Millard South High School Clare Maakestad Millard West High School You can find the full list at: http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2007/12/03/field-report-dowling-catholic/
  12. Rand, Ayn. "Atlas Shrugged" My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. Happiness defined to be "state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy." Happiness subsumes "good feeling." Distinguishing between Rand and acting to seek "good feeling or your self-interest," is irrelevant. Rand believed 2, this is now irrefutable and Objectivism falls. So providing public health assistance that didn't come from tax revenue would be alright? The first acknowledgment of many. Thank you. Running a Critical argument based on a philosophy that falls in the context of individual interaction is not a good Neg. strategy in my opinion. First, is ethical supposed to be italicized or is the word individualism? Either way: Rand, Ayn "Introducing Objectivism" First, Rand's philosophy of Ethics is what we've been debating this entire time. Second, Government is a collection of individuals. So all individual ethics apply to government. I like this debate.
  13. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Psychological Egoism is not the same as Psychological Hedonism. Hedonism is we all naturally pursue pleasure, Egoism is we all naturally self-interest. Although actions might not apparantly be self-interested, one's contemplated or reactionary expectation of their actions is the sole factor of the decision. You argument is flawed on two levels. Firstly, if the government gave the taxes back to the people, what's the point of taxing them in the first place? Secondly, generalizing your argument would be "Individuals acting in self-interest good -- things preventing that self-interest bad." Using that train of logic, we instantly derail. Insofar as Objectivism never accounts for what to be done in conflict of interest. One only needs to read Game Theory, or even know of the Prison Dilemma. If both should act in self interest as Objectivism tells us to. Each would betray the other to recieve the lesser prison sentence. But both insofar as both of them acting in their self-interest yields a worse sentence than not acting in their self-interest - this would suggest that both prisoners stay quiet - but this is not in their self-interest insofar as betraying the other will yield the least sentence. Objectivism can not account for conflicts of interest. Is this defense?
  14. I actually believe it's quite responsive to Rand. If she polarizes how humans should act into Egosim and Altruism, this relies on the assumption that humans (or collections of humans) can act altruistically. Because psychological egoism claims that all humans are egoistic and can never be altruistic, then Rand's argument's fall. Firstly I would say that a "good feeling," is always in someone's self-interest -- because it is obvious that a "bad feeling," is in no one's self interest -- at least in no one's rational self-interest. Firstly I would say that by altruism, taxes would be considered wrong because it inhibits an individual's right to pursue their own ends by subtracting a portion of their income and not letting them pursue their goals fully. Now, in anticipation of your rebuttal, "We need taxes to maintain a society." I would say that once the taxes are out of the hands of the people it no longer affects their self-interest insofar as they have no control over it when it leaves their hands. So whatever the government does with is amoral as far as rand is concerned. Secondly I would say is that Rand's philosophy only applies to individuals -- and not government. The distinction is important and I regret I don't have more time to address it.
  15. Firstly I would say that any well defended idea of Psychological Egoism could demolish any Objectivist view of international policy. First, to familiarlize everyone with the concept. Psychological egoism is the claim that humans are always motivated by rational self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. Even in cases of health assistance, philanthropy, volunteer work, and martyrdom -- psychological egoism claims that even altruistic-appearing actions are simply the actions of individuals seeking a good feeling. Some argue that it's non-falsifiable, because "good feeling" is subjective, but in all honesty a review of human nature proves that we all act in our self-interest -- all the time. So, even if a good Neg. said "Objectivism is god, Ayn Rand is the greatest, and Altruism is the devil's work." Any good Aff. Psycho. Egoism card could turn your argument. Because if all actions in your self interest are good. And all actions someone does are in their self interest. All actions are good, including providing health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. . It doesn't take a genius to see the contradiction. Psychological Egoism is a claim of human nature, and Objectivism is a claim of how we ought to act. And Human Nature always trumps ethics. As James Rachels said in "Elements of Moral Philosophy," "What's the point of telling us what to do when it is impossible to do it?" Try James Rachels, Ethical Egoism. This is so much better with so many more claims. It's similar to Objectivism but doesn't condemn altruism.
  • Create New...