Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics.

Also, all words used are my own though cites are used for referential literature. As the Negative, or Con, I Affirm that within the political realm we must be apathetic, EG Amor Fati, to sustain any true value within our lives. I would like to also state that the Affirmative has offered to accept the burden of proof which means that you 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 (the Affirmative stance, the opposite of the Con stance). For the sake of argumentation, I will accept both definitions. "People have moved beyond apathy, beyond skepticism into deep cynicism. " - Elliot Richardson Regarding the quote of Laurence Overmire we must first examine what is to be discussed during our short, but fun, three rounds together. I believe that the wording chosen for the topic is that of international politics, though it may contain a hint of domestic policies also; regardless of the scenario, Apathy does not breed tyranny, it allows the alive to affirm what meaning is as a whole. I will be dividing my offensive arguments and my defensive arguments; I will start with my responses to your arguments. Part I: Apathy You've chosen a scenario of political indifference in domestic politics, but you must also chose to defend the whole of the topic (including international relations) - we must first consider that tyranny is a byproduct of the lack of freedom, not the un-want of action. A quote does not count as a justification for such a fallacious statement; you continue to go into a tangent upon which apathy breeds tyranny without any backing other than a quote by a man taken largely out of context. Part II: Pacifism I will agree that violence occurs, but is never justified; the basis for human morality is wholly on a plane in which we judge how we interact with each other - in a world in which violence is Affirmed unconditionally (my opponent's stance) there is no such thing as morality. You said that violence is justifyable in the face of violence, but I'd like to argue that this only perpetuates a chain of violence; the strongest force against the British empire in India was non-violent resistance lead by Mahatma Gandhi. You brought up a situation in which people who are pacifists "will tolerate this violence towards them" but fail to state any occurrence in which the pacifist country has been attacked and tolerated said attack whilst un-provoking the opposing forces. The ideology that a country will be taken over for being pacifist is part of a hegemonic ideology, this being the leading mentality behind the United States' strive towards war. Part III: Conclusion My opponent has failed to realize the true scenarios within the topic he/she has chosen; Tyranny is not the spawn of apathy nor is the downfall of a nation the result of pacifism. Now I will discuss Nietzsche's concept of "Amor Fati": Amor Fati translated equates to "Love Fate" - what does this mean in politics? Apathy is not going to spawn tyranny, 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. Within your scenarios you consider modernity as a game of perceived imperfection and the remedy is security and stability (through violence, or other means). 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. Suffering, in your mentality, comes to be seen only as a result of imperfections. (1) The modern age is characterized by a disavowal of tragedy, the triumph of your Socratic reasoning manifests in our attempts to resolve the chaotic aspects of life and avoid suffering. This requires the construction of an ideal real world toward which our apparent world aspires creating life as negative Vis-A-Vis our internalization of ressentiment. (2) Your political statements are justification for your pathos of reaction; the proposed affirmation of a life striving towards perfection creates a false valorization of resistance steeped in preoccupation with negativity to capture the boredom of your world. You don't truly do anything but give yourself a feel of revolution, everything will be the same regardless of your affirmation of this debate or my negation. (3) Lastly, your affirmation attempts to extend this negative concept of mastery to the whole event of existence, to eradicate the chaos of the world. Against such an ordering, you should affirm the free spirit as an active fooling about with this framework of life through metaphysics. It is the only positive choice. (4) (1) . http://www.williams.edu... %20contents. htm (2) Paul Saurette 1996 : "I mistrust all Systematizers and Avoid Them: Nietzsche, Arendt and the Crisis of the Will to Order in International Relations Theory. " Millenium Journal of International Studies. Vol. 25, number 1. pp. 3-6] (3) Friedrich Nietzsche 1887: "The Gay Science" pg. 117-118 (4) Friedrich Nietzsche 1873: "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense", pg 7