The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Hayslip
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,970 times Debate No: 7910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

wjmelements

Pro

I accept burden of proof.

Apathy- lack of interest or concern http://www.merriam-webster.com...
pacifism- opposition to war or violence of any kind http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny." -Laurence Overmire

Part I: Apathy
When a people do not care what their government does to them, they are more likely to tolerate it. People gradually take more and more until they are victims of tyrrany.
Being apathetic is the ultimate cause of tyrrany. If such a thing occurs to a people, it is often because they were apathetic.
Apathy leads to tyrrany; therefore, it is a dangerous approach towards politics.

Part II: Pacifism
Often times, violence is justified. This is especially true when a people are being attacked by a group that does practice violence. The group that is pacifist will tolerate this violence towards them. Ultimately, they will be abused and ultimately ruled by the very people who were violent towards them.
Pacifism leads to being ruled by foreigners who care not for your people.

Part III: Conclusion
When a people tolerate too much, their situation gets worse and it effects their lives in dangerous ways.
I'll leave it there and await an opponent.
Hayslip

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for the ability to test my hypothesis on the impact of Friedrich Nietzsche's literature on the current geopolitical situations.

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
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

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.

I do thank my opponent for contending my points, and hope he now understands what the resolution is.
Hayslip

Con

Hayslip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

There is little I can do. My opponent has forfeited round 2.
(Ooh look! Now I'm some sort of poet).

I would like to apologize for calling my opponent's case nonsense. However, I still cannot see a way that it applies to this debate.
--------------
Apathy, or the lack of interest, towards politics leads to the ability of governments to establish tyrrany.
--------------
Unconditional pacifism, or the refusal to be violent in any situation, leads to the fall of a government. Such a government is replaced by a mroe detructive one.
--------------
Both results are dangerous, or able to inflict injury or harm, to a people. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO.
Hayslip

Con

Hayslip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Fres,
I am attacking UNCONDITIONAL pacifism. I'm not attacking pacifism. And I certainly am not defending militarism.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Well, I suppose the use of the word "and" instead of "or" might throw me off like that :)
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
"I am neither defending militarism nor attacking pacifism"

lol stop trying to squirm out of every little thing and defend your argument.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
No, the negative position must only negate one side for the statement to be negated.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
So, my assumption is that a negative position requires the defense of both apathy and pacifism, yes? That would be my hesitation in joining this debate. The two are completely different political stances, and because of that, the impacts of supporting one are completely different than supporting the other. One isn't a lack of action, as you clearly state. There is action, but it encourages diplomacy over hard power in the other.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Some good quotes on apathy and laziness can be found in Proverbs.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
wjmelementsHayslipTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70