Terraria IS better than minecraft!
Debate Rounds (3)
In this debate, my burden is only to prove that the resolution is false - not that I agree with its inverse (that Minecraft is better than Terraria would be the inverse of the resolution as it stands). Falsehood does not mean that I agree with inversehood.
In this round, I will be providing a kritik of the resolution that assumes that either of these can be better than the other in the world. My case will hinge on the idea that both of these are equally as sinister in the world because they are capitalist components of the wider market and world - and capitalism is the worst demon to step foot on the earth (and then a couple more kritiks as well)
Link: The affirmative is entrenched in the world of capitalism by saying that one capitalist creation is better than another. Capitalism is what fuels their arguments so they are operating within a capitalist framework in the status quo (the only position that they can defend). My case will attack this.
Impact: Capitalism, the framework of the affirmation's debate, negates the value of individual life and makes extinction inevitable.
Joel Kovel, "The Enemy of Nature" pages 140-141 in 2002:
Alternative: Instead of letting the affirmation get away with their capitalist mindset, you need to vote against them! The resolution can't be true because both Minecraft and Terraria are the physical manifestations of capitalism's need to destroy the value of life as we know it and decomplex life from life into the unliveable.
Role of the Ballot: You are in the body of a policy maker here today as well as someone that is deciding if this resolution is true or false. The first part of your role is to directly attack capitalism by not allowing any capitalist tendencies to get away from us and to continue their havoc on the world. The second part of your role is to make sure that you reflect this in a ballot of negation by saying that the resolution can't be true if both Terraria and Minecraft are elements of a capitalist framework.
Link: The affirmation is claiming that we need to focus on the impacts of the games based on their attributes that are only recognisable by humans - meaning that they are only talking about the plights of human beings and not those of other life forms. We can't let them get away with this as I will explain.
Impact: Their unwillingness to consider the plights of trillions of other beings allows the constant extraction of their way of life and to force them into inhumane suffering that is beyond what we can consider to be 'moral'. Eric Sean Nelson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, in “Can There Be an Ethics of Nature?” 2012 concurs this through his meta-analysis of inhumane suffering of billions of what we consider unliving objects - something we can't possibly do. The affirmation's obsession with humanity is distancing us away from recognising animals and to not recognise their plight. We can't sit here deciding this when there is a larger impact somewhere else - we need to figure that out first.
Alternative: Vote against the team that isn't recognising the plight of animals in response to the resolution.
Role of the Ballot: You are a policymaker: by voting in negation, you are attempting to recognise the suffering of billions or trillions of living things in the world. Voting in affirmation means that you can't consider these plights because the only action you have is by accepting the affirmative's plantext. The resolution must be false because it doesn't consider the plight of animals in the world.
Link: The affirmative's use of common sense in what we should consider to be the best thing and to have a vested interest in what we assume to be true reinforces the antagonism against black people worldwide, as Frank Wilderson in 2003 in his book "Gramsci's Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society" finds.
Impact: Black flesh no longer has meaning when we use common sense in what we claim to be 'true' or valid. Hortense Spillers, 1987, in "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe: An American Grammar Book" finds. We no longer have meaning of what the plight of black people are when we claim that we know what is to be true when the plights of black people are not having the voice that they deserve because we can only consider what the 'majority' claim to be true.
Alternative: Vote against the team that is making black flesh meaningless.
Role of the Ballot: Do not allow the team that is reinforcing the idea that black flesh is meaningless to win - attack racism at all costs. The resolution can't be true (or you cannot make it even look true) if it is racist, as it does stand now - vote in negation and vote against racism.
Western Epistemology Kritik
Link: The affirmative's speech is based around what the West considers to be an important thing when analysing the resolution and does not consider the plights of those that are not in the West (whether they are just called isolated or called "Eastern", whatever that may mean), and as Kennedy, PhD, in 2007 in their book "Ocean Views: An investigation into human-ocean relations" when we focus on the West, we can exploit anything that is not Western.
Impact: Extinction is inevitable when we have an irrational obsession with what the West considers to be true. Idelber Avelar 2014 in their book "Contemporary Intersections of Ecology and Culture: On Ameridian Perspectivism and the Critique of Anthropocentrism", extinction is inevitable if we are obsessed with the West and the extraction of the "Other" side of the world. Extinction will happen if you affirm the resolution because you do not consider other worldviews.
Alternative: Vote against the Western-focused mind.
Role of the Ballot: Not letting the affirmative team get away with their Western-focused approach to finding what they consider to be the 'truth'.
The affirmative is: going to cause extinction, does not consider the plight of animals, does not consider the 'East', makes more extinction, is racist, does not consider suffering as something important, destroys the natural world on land, and destroys the oceans. Do not let them get away with this - vote in negation.
Extend - my opponent never attacks my kritiks.
Extend. Absolutely none of my kritiks are answered! You must cary each at its full weight. I repeat, the affirmative's worldview and advocacy leads to racism, extinction, even more extinction, etc. etc.
Easily vote neg and save the world.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar goes to Con; Pro frequently used all caps, capitalized words that weren't at the starts of sentences, and didn't capitalize proper nouns. Arguments go to Pro; explained in a comment.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.