The Instigator
ProveWhatYouSay
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dripht
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Violence provoking the act of murder.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 84152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

ProveWhatYouSay

Con

I have posted the comment below elsewhere on this site, but is worth repeating.
When a person starts one of these discussions, they are forced to choose "pro" or "con." There is no category for "Neither," so I just picked one. Nevertheless, this discussion is only partially about gun control.

I say neither, because you can not ban guns in a country that has a machine tool industry. Anyone who can run a lathe, mill, finishing grinder and cutter can make a gun for every one of their friends. It's a moot discussion that serves only to keep the focus off of the real issue. A way to waste our time in an act of futility. Our problem isn't even about guns. The excuse is always, "We can't stop Hollywood (discussed below) so let's go after what we can." The fact is that if you want to fail at solving this problem, fighting the gun issue is the way to go. You can 'kill' with a stick, knife, poison, blunt objects etc.

What is the definition of "copout?" Human suffering, chopped off heads, squirting blood, torture, rape, mutilation, cannibalizing and all other forms of hideous sickness is now entertainment. People will scream like a pig under a gate about "guns" and never say one potent word about the cause of murder. We have desensitized people until they will pay to watch someone's guts spilled onto the street.

It sickens those of us who value human life as sacred, to hear those individuals claim this hideous display qualifies as free speech, or that it doesn't affect them. You have merely to open your eyes and ears to pick up references to these horrid human degrading productions in association with murders every day. It has desensitized them, otherwise they would be able to see how this "entertainment" creates crime! Interfering with freedom, not promoting it. Determining that injury can interfere with freedom and pursuit of happiness is why you can't scream fire in a theater. It's not free speech. How have we allowed this virus to sicken society to the point that people will adamantly defend their 'right' to watch human suffering? Fiction or not, how did people come to enjoy this!?

It's easy and quite "safe" to jump on a bandwagon about guns. "Scream about Hollywood and the video games our kids and adults as well, play? Oh, for Gods sake no! That's actually taking a solid stand!" Why aren't folks trying to outlaw knives? That's even safer!
dripht

Pro

I accept.
The [#] is the source number

Case
I will begin attacking his argument that violent media causes problems.

It's actually the opposite - the more violent that entertainment / media becomes, the less violent a society becomes.
The source says, and I quote:

The study notes that film violence followed “a rough U pattern” during this time period, but that societal violence fluctuated differently, with the latter half of the 20th century even showing an increase in film violence “associated with reduced societal violence”. [1]

Regardless of becoming desensitivized, people become less violent. His subsequent argument doesn't exactly make sense with what he is arguing, but I will try to answer it here:

Actually, yelling FIRE in a theatre pervades the clause of "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In fact:

The issue is not the action of exercising your free speech, it’s about creating a hazardous environment for people by virtue of yelling fire or any other method you might use. Because this then creates a panic, and thus a dangerous situation where people could be trampled or otherwise harmed in some way as they attempt to evade a danger that only existed in your sadistic mind. You could pull the fire alarm, not yell anything, and you’d be guilty of the same violation; so the speech used is never the issue.

By creating a panic, you infringe on someone’s right to life, as enumerated in the Constitution, since a panicked crowd becomes a serious health hazard to everyone involved.

Sadly, our Constitution is misunderstood, violated, and under attack every day. As Americans, we should understand that the Constitution was right long before we even fully understood how to implement it. We were slave owners declaring all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, after all. [2]

And my final source, that guns actually increase the risk of homocide and lethality:

The unique significance attached to guns is summarized by the “weapon instrumentality” effect. This phrase refers to the independent effect of weapon type on crime and likelihood of injury, a factor dramatically illustrated in cases 3 and 4 at the beginning of this chapter. That is, the death rate and degree of injury associated with crimes involving guns is far higher than it would be if guns were not involved.One study concluded that assaults with guns were five times more likely to result in death than knife assaults. [3]


Sources
1) http://www.independent.co.uk...
2) http://logicallibertarian.com...
3) Robert J. Spitzer, Political Science Professor SUNY, 2015, The Politics of Gun Control, 6th edition, p. 57
---
Capitalism Critique

‘Human rights’ subordinate everyone to the only people who count as human, a determination made by global capital.

Moufawad-Paul, 13, http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com...



The pro creates this sense of life and moral security- this construction of rhetoric produce the same annihilation

Pever Coviello, Prof. of English @ Bowdoin, 2k [Queer Frontiers, p. 39-40]


This focus of life creates a survivalism destroying the value to life - turns their case

Slavoj Zizek 2003, (the puppet and the dwarf, 94-5)


No value to life with capitalism- it takes away rights to education, democratic decision-making, and workers’ rights, and increases gender and racial inequality

Hill 7 (David, Prof. of Education Policy at University of Northampton, UK, Chief Editor:Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies “Analysing and Resisting Capitalist Education: Six Theses,” Rouge Forum Conference, http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...) (Karusala)

Resisting reliance on capitalism is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale

Zizek and Daly 2k4 (Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)


The alternative is to do nothing solves the inevitability of capitalism action is doomed to fail – it can only replicate the parameters which produce violence in the first place – abstaining from this desire solves capital and the aff Zizek 2008 Slavoj Violence p 216-217


Spanos

Western conceptions of freedom otherize the Orient and assume unlimited and natural power to colonize the other, drawing on American exceptionalism in doing so.

Burke, 7

(Anthony, Senior Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence, p. 225)


The affirmative’s attempt to avert crisis is ultimately rooted in a fear of the uncivilized Other and can only be achieved by civilizing that Other.

Spanos, 2k

(William, America’s Shadow, p. 18-19)


In this way, American exceptionalism creates a socio-political context that defines humanity in terms of those that are civilized enough to be considered human and those that are un-human.

Spanos, 8

(William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse)



This normalization of violence devalues life and creates the ontological conditions that make extinction possible.

Spanos, 8

(William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse)


Refusing to acknowledge the unique colonial violence of exceptionalism perpetuates war and produces a blindness and indifference to the sociopolitical violence against other humans that allowed the Holocaust to happen.

Spanos, 8

(William, Distinguished Professor at Binghamton University, “Global American: The Devastation of Language Under the Dictatorship of the Public Realm,” Project Muse)


The alternative is to refuse the imperialist logic of the affirmative in favor of ontology of guerilla warfare.

Shanahan, 8

(Bill, YES – that Shanahan, Did General Petraeus betray us?, 15 April 2008, http://www.everydaycitizen.com...)


Ontology of guerilla warfare will expose the inefficiencies of Western metaphysics and cause it to self-destruct.

Spanos, 2k

(William, America’s Shadow, p. 154-155)

Ontology comes first - it’s the starting point for all political considerations Dillon, 99
(Dillon, Prof of Politics- University of Lancaster, 99 [Michael, Moral Spaces p. 97-98])


Debate Round No. 1
ProveWhatYouSay

Con

my opponent chooses to use other people's arguments, so I shall begin with the same method, although the difference might be that I actually know the man who wrote it.

"Teaching Kids To Kill"

By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Phi Kappa Phi National Forum, Fall 2000, 2500 words

Authors note: This was published in Phi Kappa Phi "National Forum," in their Fall 2000 issue. "National Forum is one of the most prestigious, interdisciplinary, academic journals. An earlier version was published in "Christianity Today," "Saturday Evening Post," "US Catholic," "Hinduism Today," and many other US publications, and it was translated and published in periodicals in nine different languages. I am the copyright holder, and I authorize reproduction and distribution of this article by the readers of this web page.

A Case Study: Paducah, Kentucky
Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old killer in the Paducah, Kentucky school shootings, had never fired a real pistol in his life. He stole a .22 pistol, fired a few practice shots, and took it to school. He fired eight shots at a high school prayer group, hitting eight kids, five of them head shots and the other three upper torso (Grossman & DeGaetana, 1999).

I train numerous elite military and law enforcement organizations around the world. When I tell them of this achievement they are stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can we find an equivalent "achievement."

Where does a 14-year-old boy who never fired a gun before get the skill and the will to kill? Video games and media violence.

A Virus of Violence

First we must understand the magnitude of the problem. The murder rate does not accurately represent our situation. Murder has been held down by the development of ever more sophisticated life saving skills and techniques. A better indicator of the problem is the aggravated assault rate -- the rate at which human beings are attempting to kill one another. And that has gone up from around 60 per 100,000 in 1957, to over 440 per 100,000 by the mid-1990"s (Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1957-1997).

Even with small downturns recently, the violent crime rate is still at a phenomenally high level, and this is true not just in America but worldwide. In Canada, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993. According to Interpol, between 1977 and 1993 the per capita assault rate increased nearly fivefold in Norway and Greece, and in Australia and New Zealand it increased approximately fourfold. During the same period it tripled in Sweden, and approximately doubled in: Belgium, Denmark, England-Wales, France, Hungary, Netherlands, and Scotland. In India during this period the per capita murder rate doubled. In Mexico and Brazil violent crime is also skyrocketing, and in Japan juvenile violent crime went up 30 percent in 1997 alone.

This virus of violence is occurring worldwide, and the explanation for it has to be some new factor that is occurring in all of these countries (Grossman, 1999b). Like heart disease, there are many factors involved in the causation of violent crime, and we must never downplay any of them. But there is only one new variable that is present in each of these nations, bearing the same fruit in every case, and that is media violence being presented as "entertainment" for children.

Killing Unnaturally

I spent almost a quarter of a century as an Army infantry officer, a paratrooper, a Ranger, and a West Point Psychology Professor, learning and studying how we enable people to kill. Most soldiers have to be trained to kill.

Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind. Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads. Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.

When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear our thought processes become very primitive, and we slam head on into that hardwired resistance against killing. During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998). You can observe this in killing throughout history, as I have outlined in much greater detail in my book, On Killing, (Grossman, 1996), in my three peer-reviewed encyclopedia entries, (Grossman, 1999a, 1999b, and Murray, 1999) and in my entry in the Oxford Companion to American Military History (1999).

That's the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are willing and able to kill. When the military became aware of this, they systematically went about the process of "fixing" this "problem." And fix it they did. By Vietnam the firing rate rose to over 90 percent (Grossman, 1999a).

The Methods in this Madness: Brutalization

The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.

Brutalization, or "values inculcation," is what happens at boot camp. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality. You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment. In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media. It begins at the age of 18 months, when a child can begin to understand and mimic what is on television. But up until they're six or seven years old they are developmentally, psychologically, physically unable to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. Thus, when a young child sees somebody on TV being shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded, or murdered, to them it is real, and some of them embrace violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in a brutal new world. (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

On June 10th, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a definitive study on the impact of TV violence. In nations, regions, or cities where television appears there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That's how long it takes for a brutalized toddler to reach the "prime crime" years. That's how long it takes before you begin to reap what you sow when you traumatize and desensitize children. (Centerwall, 1992).

The JAMA concluded that, "the introduction of television in the 1950"s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually." The study went on to state that "...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (Centerwall, 1992).

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society is superior to that linking cancer and tobacco. The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Surgeon General, and the Attorney General have all made definitive statements about this. When I presented a paper to the American Psychiatric Association"s (APA) annual convention in May, 2000 (Grossman, 2000), the statement was made that: "The data is irrefutable. We have reached the point where we need to treat those who try to deny it, like we would treat Holocaust deniers.
dripht

Pro

Overview
First off, the opponent dropped everything I said, and again argued to add more onto his case. Don't let him bring anything up in the past speeches including mine, and is a reason to just vote Pro. You have to evaluate every part of the debate.

Case
So the article he puts out establishes a narrative of a school shooter: Michael Carnael. My best interest is to discredit this.

In my first attempt, let's also note that Carnael was also delusional - he reported sightings of hallucinations he called "the danes". The article also reports "wanting to bring a gun to show-and-tell while in kindergarten, then use the weapon on anyone who didn't like his presentation -- a plot that never came off."
[4]

That was before the 90s.

Now extend my previous article:
1- Violence fluctuated very differently during that period. The later half of the 20th century even showed reduce societal violence. This should be preferred because it was a long time study, versus one that reacts three years later. The article concludes that:

In a press statement Ferguson notes that the media narrative surrounding violent video games and youth violence may be due to the “limited amount of resources and attention” that society can devote to “the problem of reducing crime”.

He adds, however, that if the wrong problem is identified, it may "distract society from more pressing concerns such as poverty, education and vocational disparities and mental health."

Ferguson writes: "This research may help society focus on issues that really matter and avoid devoting unnecessary resources to the pursuit of moral agendas with little practical value."

Now, extend source 3: the weapon instrumentality effect increased the death rate and degree of injury. That turns case.

Sources
4) http://www.wdrb.com...

Capitalism Critique
They conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because capitalism subjects all to this Otherization.


They link because their first speech talks about human rights are a necessitation and disregarded by media implications. They also use rhetoric to preserve life, as their last speech practically concluded. Coviello says that
apocalypse is set out defined to a contagion through the perpetual threat of "destruction", that is of life.


The implication of apocalypse shouldn't be evaluated. Zizek begins with: "What if we are "really alive" only if and when we engage ourselves with an excessive intensity which puts us beyond "mere life?"" When we are ready to take the RISK of challenging the dominant, we are ready.


Now you should do nothing towards the con- our view of abstention is radical and the way we do it is better than contribution to the "visible [...] Empire" - the threat isn't passitivity, it's activity that masks the nothingness of the Empire.


The Aff is concerned with solving fleeting , conjunctural crises, which are inevitably recurring features of the fundamental structural crisis of capital. Error replication is inevitable, and our impacts outweigh

Meszaros, 06

(Istvan, “Structural Crisis of Politics,” Monthly Review, September, Proquest, Accessed 7-11-09, PAK)

This card is saying that in the way that they try to repair the violence perpetrated by media will just cause the same violence and probably strengthen the same violence, i.e. error replication.


The CON displaces the perspective of those most violently affected by the plan – they bracket the debate to certain benefits while erasing the ecological violence done against the peripheryturns case and causes extinction

Bryant 95 (Bunyan, Professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, and an adjunct professor in the Center for Afro-American and African Studies at the University of Michigan, Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions, p. 209-212

Spanos
They conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because Western epistemology disregards the ontic - the ontic allows us to question who WE are in order to place ourselves in politics.

Some part of their case card includes Holocaust deniers - but it is colonial/imperialist exceptionalism that allows for this. Without the alternative you produce a violence that allows things like the Holocaust itself. That's Spanos in 8.

If violence is continued and as the con normalizes it as if it's a day-to-day thing: life never gains value, it just creates the condition for extinction. That's also Spanos in 8.

Their conception of human rights and freedom is flawed- it also allows us to colonize the other especially in poverty- slavery is an empiric example. That's Burke in 7

Spanos in 2000 wrote that attempts to avert crisis (i.e., school shootings) it just allows for the OTHER to be colonized, and have no say in the matter. Any history could show you that.

ANY POLITICAL QUESTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ANSWERING WHO WE ARE- AND THEN CHALLENGING WESTERN THOUGHT
Debate Round No. 2
ProveWhatYouSay

Con

I wanted to put this in. This the 2nd part. I have a rebuttal, but the room for it is not allowed
Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning is like Pavlov's dog in Psych 101. Remember the ringing bell, the food, and the dog could not hear the bell without salivating

In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death. Their friends would cheer them on. Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls." The result? They learned to associate violence with pleasure.

This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training, but the media is doing it to our children. Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high school teachers told me about her students' reaction when she told them that someone had shot a bunch of their little brothers, sisters, and cousins in the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay, "they laughed." We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate human death and suffering with pleasure (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

Operant Conditioning

The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a powerful procedure of stimulus-response training. We see this with pilots in flight simulators, or children in fire drills. When the fire alarm is set off, the children learn to file out in orderly fashion. One day there's a real fire and they're frightened out of their little wits, but they do exactly what they've been conditioned to do (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes. Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view. That's the stimulus. The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, repeated hundreds of times. Later, when they are in combat and somebody pops up with a gun, reflexively they will shoot and shoot to kill, 75 to 80 percent of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of training (Grossman & Siddle, 1999).

In his national Presidential radio address on April 24, 1999, shortly after the Littleton high school massacre, President Clinton stated that: "A former Lieutenant Colonel and Professor, David Grossman, has said that these games teach young people to kill with all the precision of a military training program, but none of the character training that goes along with it."

The result is ever more homemade pseudo-sociopaths who kill reflexively and show no remorse. Our kids are learning to kill and learning to like it. The most remarkable example is in Paducah, Kentucky the school killer fired eight shots, getting eight hits, on eight different milling, scrambling, screaming kids. Five of them were head shots (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

Where did he get this phenomenal skill? Well, there is a $130-million law suit against the video game manufacturers in that case, working itself through the appeals system, claiming that the violent video games, the murder simulators, gave that mass murderer the skill and the will to kill.

In July, 2000, at a bipartisan, bicameral Capital Hill conference in Washington, DC, the AMA, the APA, the AAP and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) issued a joint statement saying that "viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life ...Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment [such as video games] on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies or music."

Role Models

In the military your role model is your drill sergeant. He personifies violence, aggression, and discipline. (The discipline, and doing it to adults, are the safeguard)(Grossman, 1996). The drill sergeant, and heroes such as John Wayne, Audey Murphy, Sergeant York and Chesty Puller, have always been used as role models to influence young, impressionable teenagers.

Today the media are providing our children with role models, not just in the lawless sociopaths in movies and in TV shows, but in the transformation of these schoolyard killers into media celebrities.

In the 1970's we learned about "cluster suicides," in which TV reporting of teen suicides was directly responsible for numerous copycat suicides of other teenagers. Because of this, television stations today generally do not cover teen suicides. But when the pictures of teenage killers appear on TV, the effect is tragically similar. If there are children willing to kill themselves to get on TV, are there children willing to kill your child to get on TV?

Thus we get the effect of copycat, cluster murders that work their way across America like a virus spread by the six o'clock local news. No matter what someone has done, if you put their picture on TV, you have made them a celebrity and someone, somewhere, may emulate them. This effect is magnified when the role model is a teenager, and the effect on other teens can be profound.

In Japan, Canada, and other democracies around the world it is a punishable, criminal act to place the names and images of juvenile criminals in the media, because they know that it will result in other tragic deaths. The media has every right and responsibility to tell the story, but do they have a "right" to turn the killers into celebrities?

Unlearning Violence

On the night of the Jonesboro shootings, clergy and counselors were working in small groups in the hospital waiting room, comforting the groups of relatives and friends of the 15 shooting victims. Then they noticed one woman who had been sitting alone.

A counselor went up to the woman and discovered that she was the mother of one of the girls who had been killed. She had no friends, no husband, no family with her as she sat in the hospital, alone. "I just came to find out how to get my little girl's body back," she said. But the body had been taken to the state capital, for an autopsy. Told this, she said, "I just don't know how we're going to pay for the funeral. I don't know how we can afford it."

That little girl was all she had in all the world, and all she wanted to do was wrap her little girl"s body in a blanket and take her home. Some people"s solution to the problem of media violence is, "If you don"t like it, just turn it off." If that is your only solution to this problem, then come to Jonesboro, and tell her how this would have kept her little girl safe.

All of us can keep our kids safe from this toxic, addictive substance, and it won"t be enough if the neighbors are not doing the same. Perhaps the time has come to consider regulating what the violence industry is selling to kids, controlling the sale of visual violent imagery to children, while still permitting free access to adults, just as we do with guns, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, sex and cars.

Fighting Back: Education, Legislation, Litigation

We must work against child abuse, racism, poverty and children"s access to guns, and in rebuilding our families, but we must also take on the producers of media violence. The solution strategy that I submit for consideration is, "education, legislation, litigation
dripht

Pro

Again, the con provides as to no answer to any of my arguments. That is an independent voter.

Case:
The con never answered this properly. Look back two sources 1, 3, and 4. Society should devote the problem of violence to reducing crime, because as of now there are a limited amount of resources, and attention to this problem they say there is. It distracts from the fact their narrative is clouded because the actor had schizophrenic behavior. The pursuit of the con is a moral agenda without any "practical" value.

The fact that weapons are out there everywhere especially in the US has a big effect on how many people die, and that's proven many times. That's my third source.

My fourth source proves that the narrative being driven after a schizophrenic individual.

Capitalism:

You can practically look at the last speech before the con's second extension of the same article.

MESZAROS 6 SAYS WHENEVER YOU CONCERN YOURSELF WITH THE PROBLEMS OF VIOLENCE WITHOUT CHALLENGING CAPITALISM - YOU REPLICATE THE SAME HARMS

THE NARRATIVE OF THEIR ARGUMENT DISPLACES THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHILDREN AND BRACKETS THE DEBATE TO THE BENEFITS OF EDUCATION, THAT DOES MORE DAMAGE TO THOSE AFFECTED AND ALSO FLOWS TO THE SPANOS KRITIK. DIRECTLY CAUSES EXTINCTION.

Repitition of the capitalism K from last speech:
They link because their first speech talks about human rights are a necessitation and disregarded by media implications. They also use rhetoric to preserve life, as their last speech practically concluded. Coviello says that apocalypse is set out defined to a contagion through the perpetual threat of "destruction", that is of life.


The implication of apocalypse shouldn't be evaluated. Zizek begins with: "What if we are "really alive" only if and when we engage ourselves with an excessive intensity which puts us beyond "mere life?"" When we are ready to take the RISK of challenging the dominant, we are ready.


Now you should do nothing towards the con- our view of abstention is radical and the way we do it is better than contribution to the "visible [...] Empire" - the threat isn't passitivity, it's activity that masks the nothingness of the Empire.


Spanos:

You can practically look at the last speech before the con's second extension of the same article.
Who am I? What am I? What about yourself, who may you be?

The con concedes that ontological questionining comes first - and allows us to engage in this debate "space". Their refusal to acknowledge this colonial violence that their moral claims propose perpetuates a blindness and indifference to sociopolitical violence - including the pertained "violence" that media just might create.

An interrogation of ideals must be the starting point for political change. The alternative is to refuse the exceptionalist logic of the affirmative and instead engage in an ontology of guerilla warfare. The Shanahan and Spanos evidence both indicate that this form of ontological opposition will expose the faults of dominant Western ideology and cause exceptionalism to self—destruct.

The alternative is to refuse the imperialist logic of the affirmative in favor of an ontology of guerilla warfare. The Shanahan evidence indicates that Guerilla warfare as an ontology allows us to exploit the blind-spots in American imperialism by disappearing from strategic view through an unconventional re-thinking of what we know to be true.We propose that we start the debate by questioning U.S. imperialism and the atrocities it justifies. Only by questioning the ontology that allowed these policies to take hold can we challenge the “logic that America can do no wrong.” The Spanos evidence explains that this method for challenging with ultimately cause metaphysical thought to self-destruct.

And now repitition from the last speech:
They conceded this in their last speech. That means they agree you should do nothing in face of the con. It solves all claims of violence - because Western epistemology disregards the ontic - the ontic allows us to question who WE are in order to place ourselves in politics.

Some part of their case card includes Holocaust deniers - but it is colonial/imperialist exceptionalism that allows for this. Without the alternative you produce a violence that allows things like the Holocaust itself. That's Spanos in 8.

If violence is continued and as the con normalizes it as if it's a day-to-day thing: life never gains value, it just creates the condition for extinction. That's also Spanos in 8.

Their conception of human rights and freedom is flawed- it also allows us to colonize the other especially in poverty- slavery is an empiric example. That's Burke in 7

Spanos in 2000 wrote that attempts to avert crisis (i.e., school shootings) it just allows for the OTHER to be colonized, and have no say in the matter. Any history could show you that.

ANY POLITICAL QUESTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ANSWERING WHO WE ARE- AND THEN CHALLENGING WESTERN THOUGHT
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Lol, Zizek and Daly! Conformist to the typical cap K!
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 1 year ago
ProveWhatYouSay
Let me add a point. I agree that we as a nation are negligent in the treatment of 'real' mental sickness. Why feed it?
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
I personally don't believe in gun control, but for the sake and purpose of the debate I did draw it down to I believe the one card about gun instrumentality.

Eventually, in the last speech I do talk about how the card says there needs be a lot more.
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 1 year ago
ProveWhatYouSay
I am most definitely against gun control. I believe you should have to prove your responsibility when buying one, in the same way you do when you buy a car, but banning them solves nothing. You can't ignore some of the points made in my post about children who confuse reality with fiction. They are children. There are many, many references to video and media violence directly in association with crime. Here is something no one can dispute. Going back 60, 70, 80 years ago, there were more guns per capita than there are now. This is a fact. What has changed in the last 40 years?

My grandfather carried a shotgun to school because he and his brother rode a buckboard to school which was 10 miles away. There were other kids that did the same. We had no school shootings in the 30s or 40s or 50s. What changed?

The arguement that says that folks who watch a mass murder in a movie do not go out and commit crimes, therefore this is proof that there is no effect, is adolescent to say the least. The military, and ISIS by the way, uses these types of programming to effect the ability of a human to kill. The man in my arguement was one of the trainers for the military. I don't care how many "experts" you line up to defend this stuff, it is wrong to argue that the general public is not affected in a very bad way.

I couldn't effectively show the studies that have been done because I did not have the room, but believe me, they are not merely "speeches" by individuals. There are studies that have involved entire countries that prove what I am saying.

Gun control is not going to solve this problem. You can't control guns. I can run a lathe, mill, finisher, welder etc. I can make a gun. This is a country with a machine tool capability. There are a lot like me out there.
Posted by Richardsonalj 1 year ago
Richardsonalj
Can't we just all agree that mental illness, or any mental issues such as: depression, or any issue that falls under that type of category, are one of the biggest issues on the table here. Blaming media does nothing, it's that fact that mental illnesses are being romanticized, not seen as an actual threat or issue in America. We should find a way for everyone in the United States be able to access a mental illness clinic, be checked on, and get weekly or monthly visits to a trained professional that can help them with depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, anger management, stress, drug addiction, issues that are extremely present here in America.

Restricting what type of guns, and who gets them, does nothing, because people will still be able to access weapons nonetheless, and harm people. We need to see what drove a person to do what they did, not what they used! Our mental health is more important than our physical health, so let's focus on that for now.

I apologize if this was mentioned, I didn't read the entire debate, but I felt that I had to mention this. Let's not look at what they used, but rather their heads, why they did it. let's stop romanticizing something that is so severe and is hurting so many people in this world. What I purposed may be expensive, but at least what I purposed may hold results, but that shouldn't stop us from helping people.
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 1 year ago
ProveWhatYouSay
I don't know how to get the rest of my argument in.
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
Same thing with affirmative - replace with con
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
Also, I made some errors, replace pro on the Ks with con. My bad.
Posted by dripht 1 year ago
dripht
I just posted
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 1 year ago
ProveWhatYouSay
I see now.
No votes have been placed for this debate.