Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Good

About CausticAutist

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 01/01/1992

Profile Information

  • Biography
    Does Not Exist
  • Location
    In your head
  • Occupation
    Remaining unemployable
  1. Sorry, I had a tournament last weekend and was not able to work on it. I honestly don't know when I'll have the 2NR up, although I know I'll have time to work on it at the end of Thanksgiving weekend. . . I realize that this is has been an interminable wait, so if you want to finish the round immediately, I could concede now, or you could invite someone else could step in and write the 2NR, but if you're okay with waiting a little longer, I'll have the 2NR up by Sunday. . . Again, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I would be this busy and I've always been able to finish my other VDebate speeches on time, and I realize how annoying it is to wait on seemingly endless extensions. . .
  2. I've got tests in all six of my AP classes this week, so this will have to wait until next week-end. . .
  3. 1. Moralism cannot see anything that causes pain as beautiful--all life causes pain, so all life becomes ugly. 2. Joyous destruction is the active destruction outlined in the 1NC Deleuze evidence. 3. Sure. Your link occurs when either (1) someone says that the intrinsic value to life is lost under some circumstances or (2) people view themselves as having no reason to live. Our argument is that your ethical stance views life as having no value. Value is subjective: a dollar can is valuable only insofar as it is viewed as valuable. Your framework cannot accommodate any value to life except when it is circularly defined ex post facto. That means that we don't link because we never claim that you have any affect any intrinsic value to life, and you link because you must view your own (and everyone else's) lives as purposeless by never addressing what you are living for. 4. Of course. My analytics were where it's at, the bee's knees, the bomb,and otherwise awesome. . . yo. 5. You said it was in your last CX. . . In any case, you concede you view it as Evil to be avoided, which functions as a link. 6. No. At the point that you've justified your ethical stance, your case can become offense. Ethics are a priori. 7. It's not about morals, it's about ethics. 8. NO. Ethics ≠ morals. 9. You define it backwards--it's good to promote life. 10. No. 11. Umm. . . choosing the "lesser of two evils" seeks to prevent the most Evil? 12. Reasons why we act precede what we do. Your impacts are inevitable. Voting aff/neg has no bearing on said inevitable impacts. How to establish value precedes a comparison of values. . . 13. No, because your concept of "bad" (which is a negative value judgement) can't be accessed without first winning the conceded aesthetics debate.
  4. I've lumped them together for convenience and so you can CX both. Road-map: Overview, NVTL Counter-K, Case, Nietzsche, Realism Counter-K, and How to Weigh the Round http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AUgq2iZsvdW6ZGhuMmc2cDZfMTI2ZmJweGRrY2M&hl=en
  5. Sorry, but the 2NC will have to be delayed because I have a bunch of concurrent deadlines approaching in school. I'll have it up no later than Monday night, though.
  6. Alright, I still haven't gotten an answer to #4, but it's past time to end CX, so if you don't get around to answering this, it's fine. . . 4. What is the intrinsic value to life that you affirm?
  7. 1. So, how does the self-fulfilling prophecy argument apply to anything but one recognizing the meaninglessness of one's life? Like, how does this apply to debate about the meaning of life? 2. Is death always bad? 4. It's your alternative on the NVTL Kritik. . . Can you explain what "Vote affirmative to affirm intrinsic value to existence" means? 5. In other words, are you only using the perm to test competition, possibly advocating the perm, definitely advocating the perm, or what? 7. What are the statuses of the Counter-Kritiks? (i.e. are they conditional, unconditional, dispositional?)
  8. 5. What's the status of the perm? 6. Could you please clarify the relevance of the Realism Counter-K impact?
  9. 1. This is a quote from the end of the first Frankl card, "They preferred to close their eyes and to live in the past. Life for such people became meaningless." How is this not asserting that certain conditions (living in the past) make life meaningless? 2. What is the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" death? 3. Is your case premised on realism? 4. What is "the intrinsic value of existence?"
  10. 2. Ok, wouldn’t excesses of life be like sex, booze, etc? am I misunderstanding you here? Those are other aspects of life commonly condemned as excessive and needy of being trimmed back, yes. 3. Even if you win that suffering is inevitable, that doesn’t prove why it is bad to stop an instance of suffering. Can you explain how the inevitability arg disproves case? Pain and death are inevitable. Life will overflow every dam we build for it; to deny this is silly. It is only a question of whether we affirm suffering or condemn it, whether we experience it as joy or pain. If we affirm pain it can only serve to make us stronger. Everything we experience makes us stronger. 5. What makes the alt intrinsically good? What is (in the round) not Evil? The alt asserts itself as Good. It is an affirmation of life. What's not Evil? The aff claims its world to be preferable simply because it is less Evil (contains less death) than 'our suffering,' what will happen if the plan is not enacted. As we've shown, defining the good in terms of what is not evil makes us hate our very existence, making our extinction desirable and turning your case. 8 & 9. If we win that the status quo is bad, will we win the debate? No. You can win by demonizing the status quo, but before that can become offense, you'll have to justify your ethical framework. 10. Please answer my question. How are you nihilistic? Nihilism is the will to nothingness, and the case-turn illustrates that will is inherent in your decision framework. You can't discuss value to life. You deny life instead of affirming it. You define the Good as that which is not Evil. 11. Ok… is one of the impacts in the 1NC NVTL? This whole “life-denying” thing? Yes. We cannot condemn a part of life without condemning all of it. Denying becoming its innocence and attempting to confine it to certain boundaries ensures that all of life becomes contemptible. Everything causes us pain and everything becomes ugly. We are doomed to wander the earth searching for a purpose we will never find. Only an affirmation of life can redeem life and remove us from the crucifix of morality. 13. Does that make the alternative pre-fiat? Our differing ethical stances should be evaluated before fiat, if that's what you mean. 18. the tag is literally a paragraph long. Could I get a summation of you alternative? It's an irreducibly complex idea, but it's basically to deny life in your name as a transformative affirmation of all life, including all its excesses.
  11. 1. Is this ‘twist’ arg in the o/v related to the K? Yes. It's a case-turn based on your reported decision framework, which we criticize. Under your framework of trying to minimize death, extinction is actually preferable to continuing life because it's a smaller number of deaths in the long run. Thus, under your framework, the judge must vote neg. It's a clear example of your flawed, life-denying thinking that has a direct decision impact. It can also function independent of the K, but they complement nicely. 2. How do we abolish the excesses of life? Like, at all? You want to abolish all suffering. As you state in CX, the best decision you can make is the one that prevents the most harms. You identify as painful excesses of life economic collapse, war, tyranny, terrorism, and oil-shocks and seek to destroy them--"solve for them," as it were. 3. You claim that the logic “Good is the least pain” is life-denying. What is Good? And why is pain and suffering a good thing? "Good is the least pain" is life-denying as exemplified by the case turn. If what is good is what hurts least, global suicide would be the logical best policy option. What is good? Active creation as opposed to reactive ressentiment. Why is suffering good? Leading question with a false premise, but suffering is an inevitable part of life, not something that can be solved for or condemned. By condemning this part of life, you condemn all life, see case-turn. Still, acting against oppression is not mutually exclusive with the alternative, it is rather a question of how we relate to others. Our alternative is a personal one—we embrace the struggle of life and affirm it as beautiful. We do not act to bring about a utopian Beyond, but for the sake of acting, for the struggle itself. 4. At the point where we attempt to save the whole human race, how do we (and I quote) “making it [life] something to be abolished.”? See the case-turn. If your primary motive is reducing the total bodycount of the round, immediate extinction is logically preferable to life. 5. Why do you pity man? Since your alt is enacted by man, isn’t it doomed? We pity how you diminish humanity by your representation of minimizing suffering as the ultimate goal of life. No, the key distinction is that it is intrinsically good, as opposed to simply being not Evil. 6. You claim that suffering has created endurance in man, allowing for advancements, etc. Even if this is true, since our form of suffering (death) leaves man incapacitated for any advancements (obviously), why do we link? Your form of suffering? Death is inevitable, everyone who's been born has died. You portray death as evil, and you link by attempting to solve for Evil, by identifying as good that which is not Evil. And as we've shown, a world without death is a world without life. 7. Do you pity me? We pity how you diminish humanity by your representation of minimizing suffering as the ultimate goal of life instead of affirming the beauty of life. 8. You claim moralism denies life. When did I set up a code of morals? You operate according to the dictates of moralism--you wish to purge the world from evil. The world SHOULD be different than it is. Democracy good. Chauvinistically promoting hegemony. Need I say more? 9. Quote: “Life, in all its excess, is beautiful”. Again, I’m not seeing what you’re talking about or its relevance. In what way do I try to limit the excesses of life? Instead of affirming life as it is, you demonize the status quo, try to make the judges hate life as it is, in order to get them to vote aff. 10. “but the existential pain of their nihilistic approach to life remains as a splinter in our minds, destroying us from this inside out.” Umm, how are we nihilist? What is the meaning of life? 11. You do argue that our actions as the affirmative lead to no meaning or value to life? (This is for clarity, I’d just like to identify the impact) You never identify a value to life. You say the most valuable action is one that minimizes death. As shown in the case-turn, overview, and first Nietzsche card, this attitude makes life something to be abolished. 12. What is midnight? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche 13. Is it possible to affirm life when dead? (keep the answer to yes or no) No. (But we are alive NOW, and voting aff or neg literally has no difference on whether you or I will be alive tomorrow, but whether or not we affirm life NOW.) 14. IS there a difference between pain and death? Obviously. 15. What is the dawn? Can you give an explanation of the metaphors in your Deleuze evidence? The dawn is a reference to the eternal return. And I'd be happy to explain if you identify which metaphors you would like clarified. (Zarathustra is from Nietzsche's book Thus Spake Zarathustra. . . I can explain his significance.) 16. Can people affirm life when dead? See answer to #13. 17. How does our case turn itself? If we base our actions reactively on the calculation of what will cause the least total death--as you do--extinction becomes preferable, meaning the scenarios you avoid are actually a reason to vote neg. 18. Can I get an alt text? Re-read the Deleuze tag. 19. Status of the K? Conditional. Feel free to damn the freedom of conditionality in your next speech if you like.
  12. One off and then their case OVERVIEW The affirmative presents you with an automatic negative ballot. They call on you to vote for the policy option that minimizes death, which they consider the ultimate evil. However, their will to purge the world of evil is self-defeating. Death and violence are inevitable, and hence the twist: if we are motivated to eliminate as the most evil from the world—to prevent largest number of deaths possible—we should ALLOW their extinction scenarios to happen as soon as possible. This is because more people being born means more people eventually dying, and if the world goes on living more people will be born and eventually die than if the world ended immediately. In other words, if extinction happens now 7 billion people will die, and if extinction happens a half-second later 7 billion + 1 people will die because another person will be born. Not only does their logic turn itself, but it is the ultimate denial of life. NIETZSCHE A. The affirmative is premised on the desire to abolish all of the excesses of life. They assume that that which is Good is that which causes the least pain, which caters to the weak and protects them from the strong. However, this logic denies life, making it something to be abolished. Nietzsche, Anti-Christ and really smart German dude, 1886[Friedrich,Beyond Good and Evil] Whether it is hedonism or pessimism, utilitarianism or eudaemonism –alltheseways of thinking that measure the value of things in accordance withpleasureandpain, which are mere epiphenomena and wholly secondary, are ways of thinkingthat stay in the foreground and naivetieson which everyone conscious ofcreativepowers and an artistic conscience will look down not without derision, nor without pity.Pity withyou– that, of course, isnot pity in your sense: it isnot pity with social “distress,” with “society” and its sick and unfortunate members, with those addicted to vice and maimed from the start, though the ground around us is littered with them it iseven less pity with grumbling, sorely pressed, rebellious slave strata who long for dominion, calling it “freedom.”Ourpity is a higher and more farsighted pity: we see howmanmakes himself smaller, howyoumake him smaller– and there are moments when we beholdyourvery pity with indescribable anxiety, when we resist this pity – when we find your seriousness more dangerous than any frivolity.You want, if possible – and there is no ore insane “if possible” –to abolish all suffering.And we?It really seems thatwewould rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us anend, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destructiondesirable. The discipline of suffering, ofgreatsuffering – do you notknow that onlythisdiscipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength,its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness –was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?In mancreatureandcreatorare united: in man there is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, form-giver, hammer hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day: do you understand this contrast?And thatyourpity is for the ”creature in man,” for what must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, and purified – that whichnecessarilymust andshouldsuffer?Andourpity –do you not comprehend for whom ourconversepity is when it resists your pity as the worst of all pamperings and weakness? Thus it is pityversuspity. But to say it once more:there are higher problems than all the problems of pleasure, pain, and pity; and every philosophy that stops with them is a naïveté. B. Life is an art, its only value is aesthetic. Life, in all its excess, is beautiful. The only life worth living is a reckless, amoral, joyous one. Moralism denies the beauty of life by attempting to abolish all of its excesses. Life is intrinsically amoral, thus, the desire to abolish excess and confine it within moral boundaries is both futile and the worst, most dangerous of errors. Life no longer has any meaning and becomes something to be abolished. The unbearable pain that life itself now causes us is the only true form of suffering. No matter what they change, no matter what action they take, life will still remain something Evil, to be destroyed and cast into the abyss. The backdrop may change, but the existential pain of their nihilistic approach to life remains as a splinter in our minds, destroying us from this inside out. Nietzsche, Anti-Christ and really smart German dude,1872[Friedrich,The Birth Of Tragedy] Already in the preface addressed to Richard Wagner,art, andnotmorality, ispresented asthe trulymetaphysicalactivity of man.In the book itself the suggestive sentence is repeated several times, thatthe existence of the world isjustifiedonly as an aesthetic phenomenon.Indeed, the whole book knowsonly an artistic meaning and crypto-meaning behind all events – a “god,”if you please,but certainly only an entirely reckless and amoral artist-god who wants to experience, whether he is building or destroying, in the good and in the bad, his own joy and glory – one who, creating worlds, frees himself from thedistressof fullness andoverfullnessand from theafflictionof the contradictions compressed in him soul.The world – at every moment theattainedsalvation of God, as the eternally changing, eternally new vision of the most deeply afflicted, discordant, and contradictory being who can find salvation only inappearance: you can call this whole artists’ metaphysics arbitrary, idle, fantastic;what matters is that it betrays a spirit who will one day fight at any risk whatever themoralinterpretation and significance of existence. Here, perhaps for the first time,a pessimism “beyond good and evil”is suggested. Here that “perversity of mind” gains speech and formulation against which Schopenhauer never wearied of hurling in advance his most irate curses and thunderbolts:a philosophy that dares to move, to demote, morality into the realm of appearance– and not merely among “appearances” or phenomena (in the sense assigned to these words by Idealistic philosophers), butamong “deceptions,” as semblance, delusion, error, interpretation, contrivance, art.Perhaps the depth of thisantimoralpropensity is best inferred from the careful and hostile silence with which Christianity is treated throughout the whole book – Christianity as the most prodigal elaboration of the moral theme to which humanity has ever been subjected.In truth, nothing could be more opposed to the purely aesthetic interpretation and justification of the worldwhich are taught in this bookthan the Christian teaching, which is, and wants to be,onlymoral and which relegates art,everyart, to the realm oflies; with its absolute standards, beginning with the truthfulness of God, it negates, judges and damns art.Behind this mode of thoughtand valuation, which must be hostile to art if it is at all genuine, I never failed to senseahostility to life– a furious, vengeful antipathy to life itself: for all of life is based on semblance, art, deception, points of view, and the necessity of perspective and error.Christianity was from the beginning,essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in “another” or “better” life. Hatred of “the world,” condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life, at bottom a craving for the nothing, for the end, for respite, for “the Sabbath of Sabbaths” – all this always struck me, no less than the unconditional will of Christianity to recognizeonlymoral values, as the most dangerous and uncanny form of all possible forms of “will to decline” – at the very least a sign of abysmal sickness, weariness, discouragement, exhaustion, and the impoverishment of life.For,confronted with morality(especially Christian, or unconditional, morality),lifemustcontinually and inevitably be in the wrong, because lifeissomething essentially amoral – and eventually, crushed by the weight of contempt and the eternal No, lifemustthen be felt to be unworthy of desire and altogether worthless.Morality itself – how now?might not morality be “a will to negate life,” a secret instinct of annihilation, a principle of decay, diminution, and slander – the beginning of the end?Hence,the danger of dangers? C. Midnight is upon us. All is dark and the time of selection has come. Only that which affirms and is affirmed will see the dawn, all else will remain in the abyss of the night. The eternal return is not the assurance that we will see the same day again, but that the sun will rise and fall again, that becoming, chance and multiplicity all occur within the same unity of existence, the same plane of immanence. The thought of the eternal return is a revaluation of all knowable values. There are two kinds of values – those known and those not known. All known values are a product ofressentimentand can never see the dawn, can never bring about the return. They are intrinsically linked to negation. We deny life in their name, we act to bring about their existence and cage life within their bounds. However, affirmation brings about new values, unknowable values, values that are created by affirmation, not adhered to or strived towards. These values know no boundaries; they come into being through action itself.This round is about ethics, not policy, not action, not advocacy. We ask for your ballot as an endorsement of our ethical stance, not to bring about a utopian Beyond, but because our request is good in itself. Because our very act of debating and the action it entails is active and creative. Vote negative as an act of joyous destruction.Vote as an affirmation of their impacts, as an affirmation of the beauty of life, even that which causes us pain, vote to burn their morals to ash and baptize the Overman in them. All suffering is transmuted into joy, all that is heavy becomes light and our spirits become free. We return with the dawn to live a new day. Deleuze, concerned-looking French guy, 1962[Gilles,Nietzsche and Philosophy] We know whattransmutation or transvaluation meansfor Nietzsche: not a change of values, buta change in the element from which the value of values derives. Appreciation instead of depreciation, affirmation as will to power, will as affirmative will.As long as we remain in the element if the negative it is no use changing values or even suppressing them, it is no use killing God: the place and the predicate remain, the holy and the divine are preserved, even if the place is left empty and the predicate remain, the holy and the divine are preserved, even if the place is left empty and the predicate unattributed. Butwhen the element is changed then, and only then, can it be said that all valuesknown or knowable up to the presenthave been reversed. Nihilism has been defeated: activity recoversits rights but only in relation and in affinity with the deeper instance from which these derive. Becoming-active appears in the universe but as identical with affirmation as will to power. The question is: how can nihilism be defeated? How can the element of values itself be changed, how can affirmation be substituted for negation? The values which depend on this old element of the negative, the values which fall under a radical critique, are all the values known or knowable up to the present. “Up to the present” means up to the time of transmutation. But what does “allknowablevalues” mean? Nihilism is a negation as a quality of the will to power. Nevertheless, this definition remains insufficient if we do not take the role and function of nihilism into account: the will to power appears in man and makes itself known in him as a will to nothingness. And, in point of fact, our knowledge of the will to power will remain limited if we do not grasp its manifestation inressentiment, bad conscience, the ascetic ideal and the nihilism which forces us to know it. The will to power is spirit, but what would we know of the body without the sickness which makes it known to us? Thusnihilism, the will to nothingness, is not onlya will to power,a quality of the will to power, but theratio cognoscendi [appearance]of the will to power in general. All known and knowable values are, by nature, values which derive from thisratio. –If nihilism makes the will to power known to us, then conversely the latter teaches us that it is known to us inonly one form, in the form of the negative which constitutes only one of its aspects, one of itsqualities. We “think” the will to power in a form distinct from that in which we know it.(Thus thethoughtof the eternal return goes beyond all the laws of ourknowledge.) The other side of the will to power, the unknown side, the other quality of the will to power, the unknown quality, is affirmation. And affirmation, in turn, is not merely a will to power, a quality of the will to power, it is theratio essendi [essence] of the will to power in general.It is the ratio essendiof the will to power as a whole and therefore theratiowhich expels the negative from this will, just as negation was the ratiocognoscendiof the whole will to power (thus the ratio which does not fail to eliminate the affirmative from the knowledge of this will). New values derive from affirmation: values which were unknown up to the present, that is to say up to the moment when the legislator takes the place of the “scholar”,creation takes the place of knowledge itselfand affirmation takes the place of all negations. Thus we can see that the relation between nihilism and transmutation is deeper than was initially suggested. Nihilism expresses the quality of the negative as ratio cognoscendi of the will to power; but it cannot be brought to completion without transmuting itself into the opposite quality, into affirmation asratio essendiof the same will. A Dionysian transmutation of pain into joy, which Dionysus announces in reply to Ariadne in a suitably mysterious way “Must we not first of all hate ourselves if we have to love ourselves?” (DD “Adriane’s Complaint). This is to say: must you not know me as negative if you are going to experience me as affirmative, espouse me as the affirmative, think of me as a affirmation? But why is transmutation nihilism brought to its conclusion if it is true that it is content to substitute one element for another? A third reason must be taken into account, a reason which risks passing unnoticed, so subtle or scrupulous do Nietzsche’s distinctions become. Let us reconsider the history of nihilism and its successive stages: negative, reactive and passive.Reactive forces owe their triumph to the will to nothingness: once this triumph is established they break off their alliance with it, they want to assert their own values on their account.This is the great resounding event: the reactive man in the place of God. We know what the result of this is- the last man, the one who prefers a nothingness of will, who prefers to fade away passively, rather than a will to nothingness. But this result is a result for the reactive man, not for the will to nothingness itself. The will to nothingness continues its enterprise, this time in silence, beyond the reactive man.Reactive forces break their alliance with the will to nothingness,the will to nothingness, in turn, breaks its alliance with reactive forces.It inspires in man a new inclination: for destroying himself, but destroying himself actively. What Nietzsche calls self destruction, active destruction,must not, above all, be confused with the passive extinction of the last man. We must not confuse, in Nietzsche’s terms, the last man” and “the man who wants to perish.” One is the final product of becoming reactive, the final way in which the reactive man who is tired of willing, preserves himself. The other is the product of a selection which undoubtedly passes through the last men but does not stop there Zarathustra praises the man of active destruction: he wants to overcome, he goes beyond the human, already on the path of the overman, “crossing the bridge”, father and ancestor of the overman. “I love him who lives for knowledge and who wishes to know that one day the overman may live.And thus he wills his own downfall.(Z Prologue 4 p. 44*). Zarathustra wants to say: I love him who lives for nihilism as theratio cognoscendiof the will to power, but who finds in the will to power aratio essendiin which man is overcome and therefore nihilism is defeated.Active destruction means: the point, the moment of transmutation in the will to nothingness. Destruction becomes active at the moment when, with the alliance between reactive forces and the will to nothingness broken, the will to nothingness is converted and crosses over to the side of affirmation, it is related to a power of offspring which destroys the reactive forces themselves. Destruction becomes active to the extent that the negative is transmuted and converted into affirmative power: the “eternal joy of becoming”which is avowed in an instant,the “joy of annihilation”, the “affirmation of annihilation and destruction”(EH “Birth of tragedy”).This is the “decisive point” of Dionysian philosophy: the point at which negation expresses an affirmation of life, destroys reactive forces and restores the rights of activity. The negative becomes the thunderbolt and lightning of a power of affirming.Midnight, the supreme focal or transcendent point which is not defined by Nietzsche in terms of equilibrium or a reconciliation of opposites, but in terms of a conversion. Conversion of the negative into its opposite, conversion of theration cognoscendiin the ratio essendiof the will to power. We asked:why is transformation the completion of nihilism? It is because in transmutation we are not concerned with a simple substitution, but with a conversion. Nihilism reaches its completion by passing through the last man, but going beyond him to the man who wants to perish. In the man who wants to perish, to be overcome, negation has broken everything which still held it back, it has defeated itself, it has become of affirming, a new power which is already superhuman, a power which announces and prepares the Overman. “ You could transform yourselves into forefathers and ancestors of the Overman: and let this be your finest creating”( Z II “on the Blissful Islands” p 110’*). Negation sacrifices all reactive forces,becoming “relentless destruction of everything that was degenerating and parasitical”, passing into the service of an excess of life( E H III “Birth of Tragedy” 3-4):only here is it completed. THEIR CASE - Turns Itself: If you accepttheir moralistic drive to minimize evil, then you must vote neg because more death will occur in a world where people continue to live (and therefore die) than in a world where life and death have ended in extinction without the plan. This also illustrates the fundamentally anti-life framework the aff espouses. As we've just shown, defining the Good in terms of that which is not Evil logically leads to sacrificial extermination on a global scale, and you'll end up voting neg anyway because extermination is calculated to be a lesser evil than continuous death. If we convince you by the end of the round to affirm life, you ask you to vote negative as an act of joyful, affirmative destruction. - And Fails Epically: In their haste to paint a world full of Evil to be conquered, they've patched together a highly flawed case. Advantage 1 - Telemedicine There is simply no internal link between giving $20 a month to low-income families and any improvement in telehealth networking. Scenario 1 - Bioterror Bowersox 01 saves the day, telehealth tech from 8 years ago is enough to prevent the impact. Scenario 2 - Economy No link – They never read evidence tying digital divide-solvency (or low-income broadband access or social services or Lifeline or Link Up) with advances in telemedicine. No impact A) Empirically disproved by current economic decline Mead is a crazy alarmist C) War is inevitable Advantage 2 - Competitiveness They can't be serious. Advantage 3 - Democracy Can’t solve globally – Even if US participation increases, other authoritarian regimes won’t be affected because their people won’t have broadband. Turn – The plan is undemocratically enacted. If there is any risk of an impact, then plan-passage itself will trigger it because no one took a vote on the plan and it's enacted by fiat – the plan is an edict. Advantage 4 - Broadband They're right, they've got no internal links! Ferguson says their horrible impacts are inevitable, never relating them to broadband expansion. UNDERVIEW Voting aff is a fundamentally life-denying exercise in futility.
  • Create New...