Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics.

My opponent claims to have accepted my definitions, but seems to want to use different ones. Further, he misrepresents the resolution. This debate is in need of clarification. ----------------------- "must not vote for the Negative's affirmation of both apathy and unconditional pacifism insofar as I can prove that it creates a better situation in comparison to that of militarism and interventionism" This debate is NOT entitled "Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally better in comparison to militarism and interventionalism". I am neither defending militarism nor attacking pacifism; I am affirming the resolution, "Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics. " "I believe that the wording chosen for the topic is that of international politics, though it may contain a hint of domestic policies also;" It clearly meant ALL policies, as the resolution states, "towards politics". The definition of politics is -The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Clearly, politics include all policy of government. My argument is NOT that unconditional violence is safe or just, but that unconditional pacifism is generally dangerous. --------------------------- Part I: Apathy My opponent argues that tyrrany is not caused by apathy but by a lack of freedom. However, to say that a definiton is a cause is a false statement, caused by false reasoning (A=A; therefore, A caused A). Apathy leads to a lack of freedom. When people have a lack of interest or concern towards politics, the government has a greater ability to establish tyrrany than before. Of tyrrany, Jon Roland says, "Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken later" . http://www.constitution.org... Apathy would allow such drastic measures to occur; therefore, it is a dangerous approach towards politics. Part II: Pacifism "in a world in which violence is Affirmed unconditionally (my opponent's stance)" False. Take a look at the resolution. I affirm that unconditional pacifism is dangerous. Your stance is that unconditional pacifism is not dangerous. My opponent claims that there are no historical examples of nations giving pacifism and getting taken over by an oppressive regime. Tibet is a perfect example. The pacifist people of Tibet were pacifists. In 1949, China took them over easily. They now suffer from a foreign tyrrany. . http://www.asianartmall.com... Of retaliatory violence: my opponent argues that it leads to a chain; however, it does not. A->B; B->A. There is no chain. Just a cute little circle. My opponent uses Ganhi as an example of successful non-violence. However, this was just one example. Further, had Gandhi been APATHETIC, he would not have lead a protest against a tyrrany. Overall, pacifism combined with apathy are dangerous approaches towards politics. Should a nation be invaded and not do anything about it, claiming that nonviolence will change the invader's minds, that nation would fall into the hands of the invaders. Part III: We can then conclude that the resolution is affirmed: that apathy is dangerous because it leads to tyrrany and that pacifism is dangerous because it can lead to violent foreign rule. ---------------- NIETZSCHE "apathy is not a willingness to sit by and be invaded, apathy is the affirmation of fate within the concept of the Nietzschein 'Amor Fati' concept. " You accepted the following definition of apathy: lack of interest or concern " As the Affirmative, you posit that your ideology will eradicate the pain and suffering of the world by renouncing the uncertain, contingent, and chaotic aspects of life. " FALSE. I am however saying that apathy towards politics is dangerous and unconditional pacifism is dangerous. I have not argued as you claim I have. "Suffering, in your mentality, comes to be seen only as a result of imperfections. " When did I say or even imply this? Overall, my opponent's case is truly nonsense and irrelevant to the debate at hand. There is just no other way to say it. Your source: (1) The link doesn't work. ----------------------------------- My opponent seems to have a thorough problem understanding the topic. I have done my best to clarify what is being debated and what is not.