Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sweater last won the day on October 13 2011

Sweater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29 Good

About Sweater

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    Alec Kerrigan
  • School
    Jupiter High School
  1. Sweater


    Why does this thread exist?
  2. In case you forgot about the below, I'm writing another comment.

    If you don't want to give me those articles

    1. don't make promises like that

    2. please let me know

  3. I seriously saw this thread and starting banging my head against my wall, causing minor bleeding due to a preexisting scar. Thanks
  4. Thats more or less the impact. The link is pretty convoluted and Baudrillardish, so if you wanna run this cutting is gonna have to be precise. oh you
  5. Here you go Sid-Ahmed, Mohamed. (Political analyst, pretty cool guy) "Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | The Post-earthquake World." Al-Ahram Weekly | Front Page. Jan. 2005. Web. 06 Oct. 2011. <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm>. BTW Chaos, I think there is a card somewhere saying that disasters on other planets are more likely, but it might of just been on the moon, I can't remember.
  6. I assume that your using it for a get off the rock aff? Them sidahmed 04 is the only real viable one, but its still kinda meh. Im curious, I haven't seen anybody using natural disasters as an advantage to colonize affs, why is that?
  7. Heres a......video of the K being.....read And Heres the book being read http://www.scribd.com/doc/26789030/Michel-Serres-the-Parasite Basically it says that assisting someone without their consent causes them to seek revenge because the existential problem the act puts them in causes regret. I havn't read the whole book yet so Im not 100% sure
  8. And it did. Thanks for that
  9. Not my argument. I argue in my case that capitalism stands because individuals ignore the suffering of the other. I argue that the capitalism stands only as long as we do not assist the other with their suffering. Im not fiating ANYTHING. Im not saying we should reject cap thus because it assists others, that would be dumb. Im saying assisting others IS by DEFINITION the rejection of cap. Im saying the reason we have a moral obligation to assist others because that is staight, 100%, what cap is not. Its not "adding" argument. Its just plain explaining why Individuals have a moral obligation to assist others. Because cap fails when people assist others. Its simple. I see where your coming from Christian, but my case explains how assisting those in need is does not reduce or challenge cap, it straight up destroys it. Im not sure how to explain it other than to just copy paste my case, but Ill try Lets imagine a situation where where have a moral obhligation to preserve capitalism. If there was a person in need, then we would have an obligation not to assist them, because that harms my ability to be elite and control the workers like Im suppose to So take it on a bigger scale, a corporation (which is made up of individuals) sees a group of people suffering on the street. Well, they clearly don't help them because they have a moral obligation to preserve capitalism, because there is no profit in helping people in need. In capitalism, we don't help those in need, we help those who have something to give to us. I see your argument, and its correct. Im making sure to make it clear in my case the Affirming and cap are 100% mutually exclusive.
  10. No, assisting those in need IS the rejection of the capitalist structure
  11. The AC Im writing explains how sense individuals have a moral obligation to reject the social system of capitalism, they have a moral obligation to assist people is need, as capitalism requires upkeep of social antagonism and individualism. The tags and framework are carefully written to avoid theory pitfalls. There shouldn't be much to worry about there though. I would advice people to use a definition of moral obligation as a spike Ayn Rand NCs. Im saying that morality is a constraint against humans naturally objectivity nature, thus you can extend it saying you concede the entire NC, but still win because the Rand argument just says that people are naturally egoistic, not that we have an obligation to be egoistic. Be careful if its used as permissibly though.
  12. Ayn Rand on neg = I come to your circuit personally just to slap you
  13. Aff Cap (writing this now) Levinas Generic Deont Neg Skep All forms of Nietzsche Permissibly Ethical deadlock (cant have infinite obligations) Baudrillard/Serres K Victims K K of "Individuals" (some people will run this as a PIC)
  14. Well, I mean in my circuit, you need to do 2 local quals to go to local finals to qual for CFL nationals, so there still is plenty of tournements to go to qual for local finals. Im tight on money, so that $20 had to come from something else in my budget, but I planned on buying it awhile ago for my collection.
  15. From what Ive read about this book, I see the best arguments using it will be not directly using the arguments, but sort of using them as an example. The book talks about how television condensing reality is bad, so I guess saying that condensing reality in a debate round is bad. Theres also arguments in the book against surveillance, saying that it also condenses reality, so a good K of space surveillance. This book dropped me $20 and in turn a CFL qual. Meh,nothing really lost
  • Create New...