No topic

Thanks for accepting, "Prove it" -I am a psychic, and I am telling you, I have won this debate round. Now we will look to all the reasons why debate in itself is flawed and must be changed. I presented that case that I have won this debate round and it was not taken as fact, however my opponent found it necessary to make me prove this fact. If he finds my answer inadequate, he will surely debate me on it. This mindset is all too prevalent in debate today. "Prove it", prove what? That I have won this debate round? Must we question everything that we hear? What is the overall impact of me winning this debate round? Are people going to die? No. There is absolutely no reason to debate the fact whether I have won this debate round or not. These "prove it" mentality ruins the institution of what debate was meant to be 3 Independent reasons on why modern debate is bad- 1. It is not discussion - Modern debate forces one to take a definate "pro" or "con stance on an issue, however life does not work this way. A) This strips our minds of being capable of believing that a mixture of the two stances can be true. We being to see things in a "black and white" way, however the world is not really like that. Seeing the world within the spectrum of only black and white we begin to believe that it is either "this or that" and takes away our belief that compromises are possible. Compromises have time and time again proven themselves to keep the world going. Just look in a US history book and you can see that all the greatest advancements in our history were because of compromises. When debate begins to spread, with more people engaging in the activity, more and more people will begin to see things as "black or white" thus losing touch of the compromises that move the world along. The Negative team wishing to debate me on an issue, and not willing to merely compromise proves he falls under the foul institution that debate has become. I wish my opponent had said something such as "Why is that so?" because answering in question form stimulates discussion. However, an argumentative "prove it" stimulates debate. B) Discussions are key to moving the world forward. True education comes from a discussions that truly delves into both sides of an issue. Inherent biases are lost, and we become a more understanding human race. 2. Nietzsche- Ressentiment Debates structure of harms and solvency is founded in ressentiment. Ressentiment finds pain in everything and hates rather than respects suffering and misfortune. Debates demonizing of the status quo functions in the same way. Nietzsche- "Inability to admire, respect or love... The memory of traces is itself full of hatred... even in the most tender and most loving memories... they reproach the being whose memory they pretend to cherish... What is most striking in the man of ressentiment is... his disgusting malevolence, his capacity for disparagement... He does not even respect his friends or even his enemies. He does not even respect misfortune or its causes... the man of ressentiment must turn misfortune into something mediocre, he must recriminate and distribute blame: look at his inclination to play down the value of causes, to make misfortune "someone's fault". The way in which the slave takes his misfortunes seriously shows a difficult digestion and a base way of thinking which is incapable of feeling respect" The ressentiment for the present makes extinction desireable. We constantly want to fix problems, when that is solved we then want to solve another, then another arises, and another. We function in an endless cycle of fixing these problems and hate the present when we cannot. Debate makes this mindset worse by setting up an institution where we can gripe and complain about the status quo. And only allow our point of view to be heard. 3. Only allows certain discourse The traditional framework of policy debate assumes that discourse is a neutral medium through which thoughts are transmitted. This whitewashes the fact that discourses are produced such that they define what can and cannot be said through a violent process of control and exclusion Roland Bleiker- "The doorkeepers ...make sure that the discipline's discursive boundaries remain intact. Discourses,...are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process. They determine the limits of what can be thought, talked, and written of in a normal and rational way. In every society the production of discourses is controlled, selected, organized, and diffused by certain procedures. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile...They explain, to return to Nietzsche, why "all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their origin in unreason thereby becomes improbable."28 Academic disciplines are powerful mechanisms to direct and control the production and diffusion of discourses. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods, techniques, and instruments that are considered proper for the pursuit of knowledge. Within these margins, each discipline recognizes true and false propositions based on the standards of evaluation it established to assess them." Modern politics wrongly alienates difference as evil because of its quest to maintain a unified identity. This creates a feeling of responsibility to eradicate the Other for the Self Connoly in 2k2 "The modern normal, responsible individual can redirect resentï¿½ment against the human condition into the self, first, by treating the rational, self-interested, free, and principled individual as morally responsible for willful deviations from normal identity and, secï¿½ond, by treating that in itself and other selves which falls below the threshold of responsibility as a natural defect in need of conquest or conversion, punishment or love. The modern individual, in short, contains resentment against the human condition in its own idenï¿½tity, and this comes out most clearly in the intensity of the resentï¿½ment it expresses against any others who deviate significantly from that identity. For such deviations, if they proliferate, make the self-identical self appear to be a sucker for accepting the disciplines and restraints required to maintain itself in this way. Only if these deï¿½viations are false or evil can it see itself as true." In debate we only allow certain language, certain beliefs are always favored over others. Right winged debaters become vote bombed while some beliefs automatically receive votes merely because they share the same beliefs. When we suppress the thoughts of some beliefs we create an "us V them" mentality and allows for the worst of human right violations. This one last debate should be the end of debate and the creation of discussion. Your votes here today are what will truly change the world by halting the "black and white" debate and allowing for discussion that allows us to see both sides of an issue, and compromise thereafter. These discussions will allow "non-traditional" discourse so that all of our thoughts and ideas do not have to be whitewashed and conformed to the status quo in order to even be listened to. Not only that, we signify that we will let nature work itself out and we will not hold ressentment for the present, but live and embrace ever second. Thank you.