2NC Buddhism

Overview

The affirmative attempts to solve by extending the modern global economy poses the question of whether or not advocating the economy is complicating with a good process.

The aff asks you to vote for greed. They extend the modern global economy and ask you to be complicit in the that process. Instead of asking how many fictional lives you can save, you should ask yourself: do the debaters leave the round better or worse people? The problem is that an aff vote encourages debaters to think that materialism and selfishness are good—that's Sivaraksa.

Our interpretation for this debate round is that only ethics should be evaluated, none of the 1ac policy impacts. Don't think “oh my god, if I vote neg the plan won't pass and everyone will die!” Instead, think, is the 1ac good—is it honest, kind, inclusive, and loving?

Selfishness makes people think that its only a dog eat dog world. If we're out to get other people, well always think that they're out to get us. We become paranoid and strike out at anything that we think is intimidating. Our Ikeda 7 agrees that this paranoia culminates in nuclear apocalypse.

Our alternative is to vote negative for meditation and mindfulness. You should vote for self-reflection, love, and selflessness. Only by thinking of others before we act can we avoid the approaching crisis caused by the 1ac.ZEN BUDDHISM IS NOT OCCURING THIS IS CLASSICAL BUDDHISM!!!!

AT- Perm

It create a concrete links—you can cross apply all of our link evidence. The greed accumulation of the 1ac has already done the damage and they can't take it back. The permutation can't resolve the ego and greed of the aff.

AS WELL

It's intrinsic—there's nothing in the plan or the alternative that suggests buddhist acts in “all other instances”. We argue for meditation in the face of the 1ac, not forever or all the time. Intrinsicness is a reason to reject the perm because it allows the aff to add things that were never discussed—that makes them unpredictable and unfair.

Our alternative in the Dhammanada evidence is to be RIGHT HERE, in the NOW- the affirmative continues a mindset of looking into the future to apprehend conflicts years later- it guts our ability to engage in mindfulness.

The Ikeda 7 evidence also contradicts the perm because they engage in the state’s politics and economics- it endorses egotistical competition for wealth and influence. When society interferes with the alt, we lose sight of the eightfold path.

AT- Framework

Our interpretation for the debate round is that only ethics should be evaluated. This means that the implementation of the 1ac through the government and their impacts cannot be looked at until they prove that the 1ac is ethical.

Reasons to prefer:

A. Fiat Doesn't exist—We're only a group of people in a room. Nobody is able to pass a policy through the government. That means it's unrealistic to pretend the world works that way.

B. Real World—we can actually use Buddhist teachings to care for others in real life. The odds of us becoming policy makers is pretty low since under 500 people are elected officials out of millions. We can use this philosophy to change our consumption patterns, care for the homeless, or simply lie less. The main point is just that ethics can be used in our actual lives.

C. Buddhist ethics are practical and solve genuine problemsPayutto 88 (a well-known Thai Buddhist monk, an intellectual, and a prolific writer. He is among the most brilliant Buddhist scholars in the Thai Buddhist history. He authored Buddha Dhamma, which is acclaimed to as one of the masterpieces in Buddhism that puts together Dhamma and natural laws by extensively drawing upon Pali Canon, Atthakatha, Digha, etc., to clarify Buddha's verbatim speech, Buddhist Economists: A middle way for the Marketplace, pg 15) //T.C.To be ethically sound, economic activity must take place in a way that is not harmful to the individual, society or the natural environment. In other words, economic activity should not cause problems for oneself, agitation in society or degeneration of the ecosystem, but rather enhance well-being in these three spheres. If ethical values were factored into economic analysis, a cheap but nourishing meal would certainly be accorded more value than a bottle of whiskey. Thus, an economics inspired by Buddhism would strive to see and accept the truth of all things. It would cast a wider, more comprehensive eye on the question of ethics. Once ethics has been accepted as a legitimate subject for consideration, ethical questions then become factors to be studied within the whole causal process. But i f no account is taken of ethical considerations, economics will be incapable of developing any understanding of the whole causal process, of which ethics forms and integral part. Modern economics has been said to be the most scientific of all the social sciences. Indeed, priding themselves on their scientific methodology, economists take only measurable quantities into consideration. Some even assert that economics is purely a science of numbers, a matter of mathematical equations. In its efforts to be scientific, economics ignores all non-quantifiable, abstract values. But by considering economic activity in isolation from other forms of human activity, modern economists

have fallen into the narrow specialization characteristic of the industrial age. In the manner of specialists, economists try to eliminate all non-economic factors from their considerations of human activity and concentrate on a single perspective, that of their own discipline.

D. Language shapes reality—we must examine the ethics and words of something because they make policiesEscobar 10 – PhD in Philosophy, Policy, and Planning (Arturo, 12 January 2010, 'LATIN AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS', Cultural Studies, 24: 1, 1 — 65, http://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/text/eng/escobar.2010.CulturalStudies.24-1.pdf)

Despite the contradictory and diverse forms it has taken in the present decade, the so-called ‘ turn to the Left’ in Latin America suggests that the urge for a re-orientation of the course followed over the past three to four decades is strongly felt by many governments. This is most clear in the cases of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador ; to a greater or lesser extent, Argentina, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador; and in the cases of Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, which make up what some observers have called

the ‘pragmatic reformers.’ Why is this happening in Latin America more clearly than in any other world region at present is a question I cannot tackle fully here, but it is related to the fact that Latin America was the region that most earnestly embraced neo-liberal reforms , where the model was applied most thoroughly, and where the results are most ambiguous at best. It was on the basis of the early Latin American experiences that the Washington Consensus was crafted. The fact that many of the reforms of the most recent years are referred to as ‘anti-neoliberal’ seems particularly apposite . Whether these countries are entering a post-neoliberal let alone, post-liberal social order remains a matter of debate. There is also an acute sense that this potential will not necessarily be realized , and that the projects under way, especially in their State form, are not panaceas of any sort; on the contrary, they are seen as fragile and full of tensions

and contradictions. But t he sense of an active stirring up of things in many of the continent’s regions, from southern Mexico to the Patagonia, and especially in large parts of South America, is strong. How one thinks about these processes is itself an object of struggle and debate , and it is at this juncture that this paper is situated. Is it possible to suggest ways of thinking about the ongoing transformations that neither shortcut their potential by interpreting them through worn out categories, nor that aggrandize their scope by imputing to them utopias that might be far from the desires and actions of the main actors involved? Is it enough to think from the space of the modern social sciences, or must one incorporate other forms of knowledge, such as those of the activistintellectuals that inhabit the worlds of many of today’s social movements? In other words, the questions of where

one thinks from, with whom, and for what purpose become important elements of the investigation; this also means that the investigation is, more than ever, s imultaneously theoretical and political. This specificity also has to do with the multiplicity of long-term histories and trajectories that underlie the cultural and political projects at play . It can plausibly be argued that the region could be moving at the very least beyond the idea of a single, universal modernity and towards a more plural set of modernities. Whether it is also moving beyond the dominance of one set of modernities (Euro-modernities), or not, remains to be seen. Although moving to a post-liberal society does not seem to be the project of the progressive governments, some social movements could be seen as pointing in this direction. A third layer to which attention needs to be paid is, of course, the reactions by, and projects from, the right. State, social movements, and the right appear as three inter-related but distinct spheres of cultural-political intervention. Said differently, this paper seeks to understand the current conjuncture, in the sense of ‘a description of a social formation as fractured and conflictual, along multiple axes, planes and scales, constantly in search of temporary balances or structural stabilities through a variety of

practices and processes of struggle and negotiation’(Grossberg 2006, p. 4). Latin America can be fruitfully seen as a crossroads: a regional formation where critical theories arising from many trajectories (from Marxist political economy and post- structuralism to ‘decolonial thought’), a multiplicity of histories and futures, and very diverse cultural and political projects all find a convergence space . As we shall see, the current conjuncture can b e said to be defined by two processes: the crisis of the neo-liberal model of the past three decades; and the crisis of the project of bringing about modernity in the continent since the Conquest.

E. Justify the aff—there's always an ethics behind every aff. They can weigh their impacts, they just have to win that competitiveness rhetoric and greed are good ethics. There is a substantial amount of lit. on that.

F. Limits—there's only a limited amount of K's on the topic—Cap, Buddhism, Development, and Fuko. There can't be more than ten possible Ks. However, there are more than fifty possible affs. On this topic, K's are much more predictable.

G. Purely policy knowledge guarantees non-critical thinking and extinctionSnauwaert 9 - Associate Professor of Educational Theory and Social Foundations of Education; Chair of the Department of Foundations of Education, University of Toledo(Dale, “The Ethics and Ontology of Cosmopolitanism: Education for a Shared Humanity,” Current Issues in Comparative Education 12.1, Directory of Open Access Journals)//BB

The Ghandhian perspective is not foreign to Western philosophy and education. It was the dominant paradigm of Ancient philosophy. For the Greeks and Romans, philosophy did not primarily concern the construction of abstract theoretical systems; philosophy was conceived as a choice of a way of life, a justification for that choice, and the articulation of the path or curriculum leading to the realization of the ideals of that way of life. The focus of philosophy and education was the transformation of one’s life as a mode of Being. As a path, philosophy included sets of spiritual exercises necessary for the transformation of one’s being in accordance with the spiritual vision of the philosophy. Schools were formed out of the chosen way of life of the philosophy and those attracted to the philosophy. In these schools, the way of life defined by the philosophy and the understandings and exercises necessary to live that life were developed, taught, and experienced. Philosophy and inner transformation are linked in such a way that the discovery of the true and the good is contingent upon the transformation of the truth seeker’s being. Education is thus devoted to the internal transformation of the consciousness of the student (Foucault, 2005; Hadot, 1993, 2002; Hadot & Davidson, 1995; Hadot & Marcus, 1998). The necessity of internal transformation was not only pertinent to the search for truth; it had great relevance for morality as well. The moral response to others was thought to be contingent upon the quality of the moral agent’s character. Character was understood as a structure of virtues or capacities that enabled one to morally respond to others. The care of the self was thus thought to be interconnected and interdependent with care for others. However, as Michel Foucault demonstrates, at the beginning of modernity (referred to as the “Cartesian” moment), modern epistemology divorces the true and the good from the subject, resulting in the separation of knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge becomes merely the technical discovery of truth divorced from the subjectivity of the knower; education in turn becomes the transmission of technical knowledge with little or no concern for the internal subjectivity of the student. In addition, care of the self is disconnected from care of others. In this separation, modern knowledge, ethics, and education lose their transformative power (Foucault, 2005). The cosmopolitan perspective calls for a reclamation of the ontological perspective of Gandhi and Ancient Western philosophy. If we are to be capable of responding to the inherent value and dignity of all human beings, we must undergo an internal self-transformation. The following developmental hypotheses elaborate further the interconnection between a universal duty of moral consideration and internal transformation: 1. “Self-transformation” (i.e., decreased egoic attachment, increased pre-discursive, nonpositional self-awareness, and the realization of the Unity of Being) increases the capacity for empathy and, in turn, compassion. The more self-aware I am, the more I can be aware of the subjectivity of others, and thus, the more empathetic and compassionate I can be. 2. “Self-transformation” increases one’s capacity for tolerance. As egoic attachment decreases, holding on to one’s own truth decreases; openness to falsification and dialogue increases; hearing and understanding the other’s truth increases. One becomes less rigid, decreasing the tendency to impose and thereby increasing one’s capacity for tolerance. 3. “Self-transformation” increases one’s capacity for restraint from doing harm. One gains a more heightened awareness of internal contradiction and disharmony. This awareness prevents one from doing harm and/or withholding charity to others. 4. “Self-transformation” decreases fear. Fear is born of duality, and it drives violence. If valid, these hypotheses can be translated into educational aims focused on internal selftransformation. These aims define the core of a cosmopolitan education grounded in internal self-transformation.

Impact

Don't evaluate the 1ac extinction impacts—even if you vote aff, you aren't changing the government in any way. Framework is a gateway issue; they must win the aff is a good idea before we play the pretend game where the plan passes. The aff is unethical, so don't look at the impacts.

We're the root cause—the reason for violence in the first place is insecurity and greed. Individuals who believe that the world is filled with nastiness are usually cruel in return. Our Ikeda 7 evidence argues that we lash out against those we think are trying to take our things or mean to hurt us. This paranoia ends in nuclear extinction through military build up. Even if you do the plan, we will continue to be selfish and violence which means the 1ac is a band-aid at best. We solve the root of the problem.

Selfishness destroys value to life, there's no purpose to living without meaningZsolnai 11 - professor and director of the Business Ethics Center at the Corvinus University of Budapest(Laszlo, “Ethical Principles and Economic Transformation – A Buddhist Approach,” p. vi)//BB

Today happiness is a top priority in economic, psychological and sociological research. In the last several decades the GDP doubled or tripled in Western countries but the general level of happiness – the subjective well-being of people – remained the same. Happiness research disclosed evidences, which show that the major determinant of h appiness is not the abundance of material goods but the qual- ity of human relationships and a spiritual approach to material welfare . Buddhist countries perform surprisingly well in this respect. There is a growing interest in Bhutan, this small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas, where the King of Bhutan introduced the adoption of an alternative index of social progress, the so-called Gross National Happiness (GNH). This mea- sure covers not only the material output of the country but also the performance of education, the development of culture, the preservation of nature and the extension of religious freedom. Experts attribute to the adoption of GNH that while Bhutan’s economy developed, the forestation of the country and well-being of people also increased. Thai Buddhist monk and philosopher, P. A. Payutto once said that one should not be a Buddhist or an economist to be interested in Buddhist economics. Buddhist ethical principles and their applications in economic life offer a way of being and acting, which can help people to live a more ecological and happier

life while contributing to the reduction of human and non-human suffering in the world .

Rampant consumerism guarantees liquidation of the earth—global warming and destruction of the planet are the most probable extinction impacts

Brown 11 – MA in Agricultural Economics, Professor @ Chinese Academy of Sciences, the most foundational environmentalist of the 20th century

(Lester R., “World on the Edge,” Google Book)//BB

The signs that our civilization is in trouble are multiplying. During most of the 6,000 years since civilization began we lived on the sustainable yield of the earth’s natural sys- tems. But in recent decades humanity has overshot the level that those systems can sustain. We are liquidating

the earth’s natural assets to fuel our consumption . Half of us live in countries where water tables are falling and wells are going dry. Soil erosion exceeds soil formation on one third of the world’s cropland, draining the land of its fertility . The world’s ever-growing herds of cattle, sheep, and goats are converting vast stretches of grassland to desert. Forests are shrinking by 13 million acres per year as we clear land for agriculture and cut trees for lumber and paper. F our fifths of oceanic fisheries are being fished at capacity or over- fished and headed for collapse . In system after system, demand is overshooting supply . Meanwhile, with our massive burning of fossil fuels, we are overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2), pushing the earth’s temperature ever higher. This in turn generates more frequent and more extreme climatic events, including crop-withering heat waves, more intense droughts, more severe floods, and more destructive storms. The earth’s rising temperature is also melting polar ice sheets and mountain gla- ciers. If the Greenland ice sheet, which is melting at an accelerating rate, were to melt entirely, it would inundate the rice-growing river deltas of Asia and many of the world’s coastal cities. It is the ice melt from the mountain glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau that helps sustain the dry-season flow of the major rivers in India and China—the Ganges, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers—and the irrigation systems that de- pend on them. At some point, what had been excessive local demands on environmental systems when the economy was small became global in scope. A 2002 study by a team of scient- ists led by Mathis Wackernagel aggregates the use of the earth’s natural assets, includ- ing CO2 overload in the atmosphere, into a single indicator—the ecological footprint. The authors concluded that humanity’s collective demands first surpassed the earth’s regenerative capacity around 1980. By 1999, global demands on the earth’s natural sys- tems exceeded sustainable yields by 20 percent. Ongoing calculations show it at 50 percent in 2007. Stated otherwise, it would take 1.5 Earths to sustain our current consumption . Environmentally, the world is in overshoot mode . If we use environmental indic- ators to evaluate our situation, then the global decline of the economy’s natural support systems—the environmental decline that will lead to economic decline and social collapse—is well under

way. No previous civilization has survived the ongoing destruction of its natural supports. Nor

will ours . Yet economists look at the fu- ture through a different lens. Relying heavily on economic data to measure progress, they see the near 10-fold growth in the world eco- nomy since 1950 and the associated gains in living standards as the crowning achieve- ment of our modern civilization. During this period, income per person worldwide climbed nearly fourfold, boosting living standards to previously unimaginable levels. A century ago, annual growth in the world economy was measured in the billions of dol- lars. Today, it is measured in the trillions. In the eyes of mainstream economists, the world has not only an illustrious economic past but also a promising future.

UTOPIAN TURN –CROSS_X and ZIZEK SAYS

Turn – the Affirmative is utopian – they engage in roleplaying. This is utopian, because we are not in the role of a policymaker; we are students and teachers.

2. The negative is not Utopian – we don’t “fiat the world” or “fiat mindsets”. That comes from a misunderstanding of how alternatives work. Our framework says that if the judge views the policy and our spiritual understanding of life, the judge would reject the plan. We then defend that the judge should adopt an ontology that looks toward enlightenment and the middle path as a better option in light of the affirmative’s plan text.

3. The idea that we can never get rid of desire is exactly what we’re critiquing – we critique the possibility that man can reach enlightenment in this day and age and eliminate desire entirely.

Alt Solvency

There’s two levels to this alt solvency debate-

1. THEY don’t do anything.

Your plan doesn't do anything! The 1ac pretends that their plan passes through Congress and becomes a bill, but I'm pretty sure Obama isn't counting aff ballots to decide Latin America policy. We are only people in a room talking about politics, so the plan does nothing.

Who cares! As long as we win that an aff ballot makes us worse people, it's better to vote neg. Even if we don't change the world completely, it's better to vote for the ethically preferable option. A neg ballot is for inclusion and cooperation instead of greed and competition—that' enough for you to vote neg.

We're more real world—our alternative of mindfulness and meditation allows individuals to discover solutions to problems and feel better about the world. We can create collaborative movements to end social injustice—extend Sivaraksa.

2. And if they win the ballot role-playing is a good thing…

Our Dhammada 2 evidence explains how engaging in the world via the middle or eightfold path empties us of loaded desires to secure the world and our resources. It prevents us from falling into despair when the next storm comes on the horizon. This prevents the impact perpetualization and military build-up paranoid of the Ikeda 7 evidence. We outweigh their impacts!

Mindfulness redraws economic frameworks – creates systemic change that reverses injusticeMagnuson 11 – PhD in Economics, Professor @ PCC(Joel, “Ethical Principles and Economic Transformation – A Buddhist Approach,” p. 99)//BB

In a literal sense, mindfulness is a state of mind in which people become aware of their thoughts and actions, and are fully occupied in the present moment. To be mindful is to be totally engaged in the here and the now. With mindfulness, our minds are not cluttered with a running mental commentary or mental chatter about the millions of things that can capture our thoughts in a state. Mindfulness is a state that is free from this chatter and thereby enables us to openly and directly be engaged in the activities before us. With a daily practice of mindfulness, we can break out of the treadmill of pathology of action and mind. We become awakened to the true dynamic between action and ideality, and develop a clear understanding of the meaning of our actions and our motives. Mindfulness is thoughtfulness without superfluous baggage, and thoughts are clear, open and directly focused on the tasks at hand. Cultivated over time with practice, mindfulness allows us to be present in our minds and directly engaged in our daily tasks without delusion or attachment. But these tasks are not random, they are directed toward bringing about human and ecological well-being and this will involve playing a role in institutional and systemic change.¶

Active social participation is part of the Buddhist way. According to the teach- ings of the Buddha, people are not to escape from life, but to relate and engage to it as thoroughly as possible (Hanh 1998, 8). Such engagement is the practice of mindfulness. With appropriate mindfulness, people can begin the hard work of restructuring key economic institutions that direct economic activity

on to a new course that leads systemic change and healthier livelihoods. Just as the institutions of capitalism have evolved over time to cohere into a complete economic system, the new institutions of a mindful economy, in time, will evolve and cohere into a new system. With appropriate mindfulness, systemic change will come to pass as a result of a process that will evolve out of, and away from, the current capitalist system, but not by overthrowing it as many critics of capitalism have advocated.¶ Systemic change is predicated on a kind of redrawing the

institutional map . By this we mean actively mapping out a new set of institutions that are fully integrated and cohere systemically. S ystemic change is an evolutionary process that openly seeks to redefine all aspects of economic life : the structure of ownership, the relationships between workers and managers, how consumers and producers interact, the nature and function of financial systems and financial instruments, public policy, clear ideas of what “fairness” and “justice” mean, as well as ecology and people’s relationships to their natural environment. All of these elements cohere into, and are embedded within, a broader cultural configuration that will be the mindful economy.

AT- Reject Alt Voter

Reject alternatives are legitimate –

1. They just indicate the aff is a bad idea, and should be rejected. We just have the aff rejected for a particular reason

2. Crucial to garner uniqueness for critical impacts – otherwise a racist aff can win on “but there’s racism now” – two impacts

a. Critical education is necessary to mediate utopian roleplaying. The affirmative confuses their role with an Actual policymaker – only our framework places debaters in the role of Students, which is necessary for education.

b. Competitive equity – only kritiks have ended overwhelming Affirmative biases. Our framework allows the negative to choose how they attack the affirmative; flexibility is the only negative advantage in rounds

3. Counter-interpretation – alternatives need a solvency advocate that rejection of political proposals for a philosophical reason is good – solves their offense

4. Even if they win this, view the alternative as a policy option – Congress votes down a specific plan on grounds that it is _________________________

Overview (Working)Human civilization is a stark photograph of the Twin Towers – we’ve built something so high that it’s finally been hit by the plane of our own civilization. The world is collapsing, and we’re all going to die, that’s the D. Vogt evidence. When faced with the inevitability scenario, we have two choices – become a slave to our fate and try to defer extinction as much as possible, or activate Will to Power mode and commit suicide. Vote negative to commit suicide – it’s all about our ontological orientation toward suffering, that’s Faulkner ’08.

2NC Nietzche. The perm is completely impossible – the required action is literally to do nothing; our Wrisley evidence is fantastic. It indicates that avoidance of suffering is the wrong attitude – to avoid suffering as much as possible but recognize it has upsides is what Nietzsche explicitly rejects. Essentially, the alternative requires doing nothing, while the permutation does something, means it still links.2. There’s no net benefit to weigh – death is not an impact, and any risk of ressentiment turns the case; cross-apply that from the impact debate, I don’t need to do the work twice.3. If you grant them a perm, it has to be severance – they either sever their advocacy or the justifications for doing the plan, which is a voting issue because we never know what we advocate, makes it impossible to form arguments which kills debate and ensures we never win.4. Even then, vote negative on presumption – if they sever the justifications behind the aff plan or their advocacy, presumption flows negative because the alternative is to take no action – literally to not change the status quo.

. The perm is completely impossible – the required action is literally to do nothing; our Wrisley evidence is fantastic. It indicates that avoidance of suffering is the wrong attitude – to avoid suffering as much as possible but recognize it has upsides is what Nietzsche explicitly rejects. Essentially, the alternative requires doing nothing, while the permutation does something, means it still links.2. There’s no net benefit to weigh – death is not an impact, and any risk of ressentiment turns the case; cross-apply that from the impact debate, I don’t need to do the work twice.3. If you grant them a perm, it has to be severance – they either sever their advocacy or the justifications for doing the plan, which is a voting issue because we never know what we advocate, makes it impossible to form arguments which kills debate and ensures we never win.4. Even then, vote negative on presumption – if they sever the justifications behind the aff plan or their advocacy, presumption flows negative because the alternative is to take no action – literally to not change the status quo.

2NC Framework (1:00)

1. Interpretation – the role of the ballot is to answer the question “Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?” The negative says yes, the affirmative says no.

2. We meet, means no offense – the K is an impact turn, you can evaluate it as a reason the policy is bad; solving death is not a good thing.

3. Fiat is illusory – nothing happens when you vote affirmative, you just endorse an ideology, means the aff isn’t offense, cross apply that to the case debate, means we’re the only relevant consideration.

4. Framework is a link – their interpretation tries to create a perfect world of debate – extend 1NC Saurette, impacts in ressentiment.

5. K is offense – if the plan functions in their framework, links to the K are external offense; value to life is a disad, and their education is bad.

6. Non-unique – no reason debating policy is key to education; they have to justify the intrinsic value of debate against the meaning of existence; this is a turn, or at worst, moots their offense, means you err neg on framework.

7. K outweighs theory – procedurals require justifications; our K questions the value of causal thinking and ordering of the universe; these are key to defending policy debate, makes the k a gateway.

8. Intellect is meaningless – affirming life always comes firstNietzsche 1873 [“On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense”, pg 7]Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute . After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. _One might invent such a fable , and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened . For this intellect has no additional mission which would lead it beyond human life. Rather, it is human, and only its possessor and begetter takes it so solemnly-as though the world's axis turned within it. But if we could communicate with the gnat, we would learn that he likewise flies through the air with the same solemnity, that he feels the flying center of the universe within himself. There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing. And just as every porter wants to have an admirer, so even the proudest of men, the philosopher, supposes that he sees on all sides the eyes of the universe telescopically focused upon his action and thought.

9. New link – fairness is an implementation of a will, not a value, turns ressentimentNietzsche 1887 (“Thus Spake Zarathustra,” online at project gutenburg, “The Trantulas”)Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of EQUALITY! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones! But I will soon bring your hiding-places to the light: therefore do I laugh in your face my laughter of the height. Therefore do I tear at your web, that your rage may lure you out of your den of lies, and that your revenge may leap forth from behind your word "justice." Because, FOR MAN TO BE REDEEMED FROM REVENGE --that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms. Otherwise, however, would the tarantulas have it. "Let it be very justice for the world to become full of the storms of our vengeance"--thus do they talk to one another. "Vengeance will we use, and insult, against all who are not like us"—thus do the tarantula-hearts pledge themselves. "And 'Will to Equality'--that itself shall henceforth be the name of virtue; and against all that hath power will we raise an outcry!" Ye preachers of equality, the tyrant-frenzy of impotence crieth thus in you for "equality": your most secret tyrant-longings disguise themselves thus in virtue-words! Fretted conceit and suppressed envy--perhaps your fathers' conceit and envy: in you break they forth as flame and frenzy of vengeance. What the father hath hid cometh out in the son; and oft have I found in the son the father's revealed secret. Inspired ones they resemble: but it is not the heart that inspireth them-- but vengeance. And when they become subtle and cold, it is not spirit, but envy, that maketh them so. Their jealousy leadeth them also into thinkers' paths; and this is the sign of their jealousy--they always go too far: so that their fatigue hath at last to go to sleep on the snow. In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss. But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound. Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking. And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but-- power! My friends, I will not be mixed up and confounded with others. There are those who preach my doctrine of life, and are at the same time preachers of equality, and tarantulas. That they speak in favour of life, though they sit in their den, these poison-spiders, and withdrawn from life--is because they would thereby do injury. To those would they thereby do injury who have power at present: for with those the preaching of death is still most at home. Were it otherwise, then would the tarantulas teach otherwise: and they themselves were formerly the best world-maligners and heretic-burners. With these preachers of equality will I not be mixed up and confounded. For thus speaketh justice UNTO ME: " Men are not equal." And neither shall they become so! What would be my love to the Superman, if I spake otherwise?Perm is impossible – the alternative is literally to do nothing; no justification to perm, means any perm links or is severance, which makes the aff a moving target and steals ground, that’s a voter. At worst you vote neg on presumption because there’s no justification for an aff ballot.

3. Anti-topical – we’re a k of the resolution, that’s a voting issue, they steal neg ground which kills education.

4. The perm bankrupts the alt – there is no middle ground for their motivationsWrisley, ’10 (George, Prof of Philosophy @ U Iowa, 1 February 2010 “What Should Our Attitude Towards Suffering Be,” Nietzsche and Suffeirng- A Choice of Attitudes and Ideals, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ageorgewrisley.com+What+Should+Our+Attitude+Towards+Suffering+Be&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) ZanezorHow should we comport ourselves to the suffering we find in our lives? When touching a hot stove or confronted with danger, our natural reactions are to pull back , to flee, to find safety. In general it seems that we naturally shy away from discomfort and pain—suffering of all types. The child laments his boring afternoon and the adult fears the impending death of a parent and the subsequent anguish the loss will bring, hoping and wishing they will never come. Suffering, it seems, is quite rightly seen

as undesirable. However: When a misfortune strikes us, we can overcome it either by removing its cause or else by changing the effect it has on our feelings , that is, by reinterpreting the misfortune as a good, whose benefit may only later become clear. So, should we seek to abolish suffering as far as we can by removing its cause, or should we attempt to change our attitude toward suffering such that it is no longer seen as (always) undesirable? Taking Nietzsche seriously when he says that it is the meaning of our suffering that has been the problem, I will attempt to indirectly answer this question by looking at two possibilities found in Nietzsche for giving meaning to our suffering. The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that, according to Nietzsche, views suffering as undesirable, but which ultimately uses mendacious and deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns the extent to which we can say Nietzsche endorse d the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided (being itself the paradigmatic means for easing suffering), and the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, I will argue that if Nietzsche is significantly correct in both his attack on religious morality and his alternative ideal, we can take this as evidence that the avoidance of suffering is not the proper attitude . Unfortunately, I will not be able to address the question of whether Nietzsche is significantly correct in this paper. Secondly, given Nietzsche’s positive alternative —one that embraces the necessary role suffering has for the enhancement of human life—I will argue that we can take this as evidence that it is our attitude toward suffering that needs to be modified , i.e., we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided . Because of this, the middle position of avoiding suffering when possible and then seeing its positive attributes when it does occur does not recommend itself. That is, since it will be argued that suffering has a positive and necessary role to play, to seek to avoid it as far as possible and then to acknowledge its positive aspects when it does occur, is not really to acknowledge and accept suffering’s positive and necessary role. However, as we will see, all of this is complicated by the issue of the order of rank as found in Nietzsche’s writings.

2NC Perm (0:40)

1. No net benefit – the aff isn’t an impact, means the perm doesn’t have a net benefit; there’s only a risk of a negative impact, means you default neg.

2. Perm is impossible – the alternative is literally to do nothing; no justification to perm, means any perm links or is severance, which makes the aff a moving target and steals ground, that’s a voter. At worst you vote neg on presumption because there’s no justification for an aff ballot.

3. Anti-topical – we’re a k of the resolution, that’s a voting issue, they steal neg ground which kills education.

4. The perm bankrupts the alt – there is no middle ground for their motivationsWrisley, ’10 (George, Prof of Philosophy @ U Iowa, 1 February 2010 “What Should Our Attitude Towards Suffering Be,” Nietzsche and Suffeirng- A Choice of Attitudes and Ideals, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ageorgewrisley.com+What+Should+Our+Attitude+Towards+Suffering+Be&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) ZanezorHow should we comport ourselves to the suffering we find in our lives? When touching a hot stove or confronted with danger, our natural reactions are to pull back , to flee, to find safety. In general it seems that we naturally shy away from discomfort and pain—suffering of all types. The child laments his boring afternoon and the adult fears the impending death of a parent and the subsequent anguish the loss will bring, hoping and wishing they will never come. Suffering, it seems, is quite rightly seen as undesirable. However: When a misfortune strikes us, we can overcome it either by removing its cause or else by changing the effect it has on our feelings , that is, by reinterpreting the misfortune as a good, whose benefit may only later become clear. So, should we seek to abolish suffering as far as we can by removing its cause, or should we attempt to change our attitude toward suffering such that it is no longer seen as (always) undesirable? Taking Nietzsche seriously when he says that it is the meaning of our suffering that has been the problem, I will attempt to indirectly answer this question by looking at two possibilities found in Nietzsche for giving meaning to our suffering. The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that, according to Nietzsche, views suffering as undesirable, but which ultimately uses mendacious and deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns the extent to which we can say Nietzsche endorse d the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided (being itself the paradigmatic means for easing suffering), and the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, I will argue that if Nietzsche is significantly correct in both his attack on religious morality and his alternative ideal, we can take this as evidence that the avoidance of suffering is not the proper attitude . Unfortunately, I will not be able to address the question of whether Nietzsche is significantly correct in this paper. Secondly, given Nietzsche’s positive alternative —one that embraces the necessary role suffering has for the enhancement of human life—I will argue that we can take this as evidence that it is our attitude toward suffering that needs to be modified , i.e., we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided . Because of this, the middle position of avoiding suffering when possible and then seeing its positive attributes when it does occur does not recommend itself. That is, since it will be argued that suffering has a positive and necessary role to play, to seek to avoid it as far as possible and then to acknowledge its positive aspects when it does occur, is not really to acknowledge and accept suffering’s positive and necessary

role. However, as we will see, all of this is complicated by the issue of the order of rank as found in Nietzsche’s writings.

--Turns Environment

Ecological interventionism turns the impactsMcWhorter 92 [Ladelle, “guilt as management technology”, pg. 1-4]Thinking today must concern itself with the earth. Wherever we turn — on newsstands, on the airwaves, and in even the most casual of conversations everywhere — we are inundated by predictions of ecological catastrophe and omnicidal doom. And many of these predictions bear themselves out in our own experience. We now live with the ugly painful, and impoverishing consequences of decades of technological innovation and expansion without restraint, of at least a century of disastrous “natural resource management” policies, and of more than two centuries of virtually unchecked industrial pollution — consequences that include the fact that millions of us on any given us dying of diseases and malnutrition that are the results of humanly produced ecological devastation; the fact that thousands of species now in existence will no longer, exist on this planet by the turn of the century; the fact that our planet’s climate has been altered, probably irreversibly by the carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons we have heedlessly poured into our atmosphere; and the mind-boggling fact that it may now be within humanity’s power to destroy all life on this globe . Our usual response to such prophecies of doom is to ignore them or when we cannot do that, to scramble to find some way to manage our problems , some quick solution, some technological fix. But over and over again new resource management techniques new solutions, new technologies disrupt delicate systems even further; doing still more damage to a planet already dangerously out of ecological balance Our ceaseless interventions seem only to make things worse , to perpetuate a cycle of cycle of human activity, followed by a new ecological disaster followed by human intervention, followed by a new disaster of another kind. In fact, it would appear that our trying to do things, change things, fix things cannot be the solution because it a part of the problem itself.

2NC Inevitability

Extinction’s inevitable – no, really, check our physicsBrassier, ‘7 Research Fellow at the Centre for Research for Modern European Philosophy (Ray Brassier, 26 December 2007, “Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction,” 227-228)Thus, like the dialectical eschatology which is its principal rival (even if the latter codes its horizon of ultimate reconciliation as ‘negative’, and hence as a necessarily unattainable, perpetually deferred ‘hope’ – cf. Chapter 2), vitalist eschatology continues to evade the levelling force of extinction . For if the latter implies that ‘everything is dead already’, this is not only because extinction obliterates the earth construed as an inexhaustible reservoir of becoming, but also because, as Nietzsche provocatively suggested, the will to know , in its antagonism with the so-called will to live, is driven by the will to nothingness, understood as the compunction to become equal to the in-itself. Vitalism wants to have done with the will to nothingness , but believes it can do so by placing its faith in creative evolution, and by insisting that solar extinction is merely a local and temporary setback , which life will overcome by transforming its conditions of embodiment, whether by shifting from a carbon to a silicon-based substrate, or through some other, as yet unenvisaged strategy. But this is only to postpone the day of reckoning , because sooner or later both life and mind will have to reckon with the disintegration of the ultimate horizon, when , roughly one trillion, trillion, trillion (10 1728 ) years from now, the accelerating expansion of the universe will have disintegrated the fabric of matter itself, terminating the possibility of embodiment . Every star in the universe will have burnt out, plunging the cosmos into a state of absolute darkness and leaving behind nothing but spent husks of collapsed matter. All free matter, whether on planetary surfaces or in interstellar space, will have decayed, eradicating any remnants of life based in protons and chemistry, and erasing every vestige of sentience – irrespective of its physical basis. Finally, in a state cosmologists call ‘asymptopia’, the stellar corpses littering the empty universe will evaporate into a brief hailstorm of elementary particles. Atoms themselves will cease to exist. Only the implacable gravitational expansion will continue , driven by the currently inexplicable force called ‘dark energy’, which will keep pushing the extinguished universe deeper and deeper into an eternal and unfathomable blackness. 38

That inevitability means we should throw away the notion of “playing for time” and reshape our orientation toward death (HOLY CRAP INDICTS COLONIZATION AND TRANSHUMANISM)Brassier, ‘7 Research Fellow at the Centre for Research for Modern European Philosophy (Ray Brassier, 26 December 2007, “Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction,” 228-229)Vitalism would restrict the scope of extinction by relocating the infinite horizonal reserve that fuels philosophical questioning from the local, terrestrial scale, to the global, cosmic scale. But given the aforementioned prospect of universal annihilation, this attempt to evade the levelling power of extinction – understood as the corollary of the claim that ‘everything is dead already’ – by expanding the horizon of creative becoming from a terrestrial to a cosmic habitat, reveals the spiritualist rationale behind the vitalist’s denial of the possibility of physical annihilation – for what else is the assertion that the termination of physical existence as such presents no obstacle to the continuing evolution of life, if not a spiritualist declaration ? Since cosmic extinction is just as much of an irrecusable factum for philosophy as biological death – although curiously, philosophers seem to assume that the latter is somehow more relevant than the former, as though familiarity were a criterion of philosophical relevance – every horizonal reserve upon which embodied thought draws to

fuel its quest will be necessarily finite. Why then should thought continue investing in an account whose dwindling reserves are circumscribed by the temporary parameters of embodiment? Why keep playing for time? A change of body is just a way of postponing thought’s inevitable encounter with the death that drives it in the form of the will to know. And a change of horizon is just a means of occluding the transcendental scope of extinction , precisely insofar as it levels the difference between life and death, time and space, revoking the ontological potency attributed to temporalizing thought in its alleged invulnerability to physical death.

2NC Link/Impact

We should view extinction as something that has already happened, or somethingBrassier, ‘7 Research Fellow at the Centre for Research for Modern European Philosophy (Ray Brassier, 26 December 2007, “Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction,” 230)Consequently, there is a basic asymmetry in the relation between anteriority and posteriority: whereas the disjunction between ancestral time and anthropomorphic time was construed as a function of chronology – on the basis of the empirical assumption that the former preceded and will succeed the latter – there is an absolute disjunction between correlational time and the time of extinction , precisely insofar as the latter is not just a localizable spatiotemporal occurrence, and hence something that could be chronologically manipulated (although it is certainly also this), but rather the extinction of space-time . Thus, it is not so much that extinction will terminate the correlation, but that it has already retroactively terminated it. Extinction seizes the present of the correlation between the double pincers of a future that has always already been, and a past that is perpetually yet to be. Accordingly, there can be no ‘afterwards’ of extinction, since it already corrodes the efficacy of the projection through which correlational synthesis would assimilate its reality to that of a phenomenon dependent upon conditions of manifestation. Extinction has a transcendental efficacy precisely insofar as it tokens an annihilation which is neither a possibility towards which actual existence could orient itself, nor a given datum from which future existence could proceed . It retroactively disables projection, just as it pre-emptively abolishes retention. In this regard, extinction unfolds in an ‘anterior posteriority’ which usurps the ‘future anteriority’ of human existence.

If extinction is the cancellation of possibility, then everything is already extinctBrassier, ‘7 Research Fellow at the Centre for Research for Modern European Philosophy (Ray Brassier, 26 December 2007, “Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction,” 238-239)Extinction is real yet not empirical , since it is not of the order of experience . It is transcendental yet not ideal, since it coincides with the external objectification of thought unfolding at a specific historical juncture when the resources of intelligibility, and hence the lexicon of ideality, are being renegotiated. In this regard, it is precisely the extinction of meaning that clears the way for the intelligibility of extinction . Senselessness and purposelessness are not merely privative; they represent a gain in intelligibility. The cancellation of sense, purpose, and possibility marks the point at which the ‘horror’ concomitant with the impossibility of either being or not-being becomes intelligible. Thus , if everything is dead already , this is not only because extinction disables those possibilities which were taken to be constitutive of life and existence, but also because the will to know is driven by the traumatic reality of extinction, and strives to become equal to the trauma of the in-itself whose trace it bears. In becoming equal to it, philosophy achieves a binding of extinction, through which the will to know is finally rendered commensurate with the in-itself. This binding coincides with the objectification of thinking understood as the adequation without correspondence between the objective reality of extinction and the subjective knowledge of the trauma to which it gives rise. It is this adequation that constitutes the truth of extinction. But to acknowledge this truth, the subject of philosophy must also recognize that he or she is already dead, and that philosophy is neither a medium of affirmation nor a source of justification, but rather the organon of extinction.

Nihilism

The will to desire a better world free of suffering is nihilism – it rejects the ability to create valueWhite, ‘90 (Alan, Professor of Philosophy Williams College, “Delusion Frames, From Within Nietzsche’s Labyrinth,” http://www.williams.edu/philosophy/faculty/awhite/WNL%20web/Delusion%20frames.htm,) I take as my starting point Nietzsche's assertion that the emergence of nihilism as a "psychological state" is bound up with the failure of the attempt to endow the world with value by at - tributing to it an ultimate "purpose," "unity," or "truth " (N:11[99] / WP:12).  This failure leads to nihilism as "the radi cal rejection of value, meaning, and desirability " (N:2[127] / WP:1).  These descriptions suggest that nihilism has its origin in a negation, i.e., in the failure of an attempt, or in the rejection of a purported value.   Yet neither of these negations can be the first step towards nihilism, because neither is a first step at all.  The failure of an attempt presupposes that it has been made, and any rejection presupposes either prior acceptance or, at least, prior awareness of a question.I therefore suggest that the first step towards nihilism -- a step that, in Nietzsche's view, leads historically to the second -- is the step taken with the j udgment that the ex istence of our world of becoming would be justified only through a pur pose that guides it, through an "infinitely valuable" unity that underlies it, or through another world, a "true world" or "world of being" that is accessible through it (N:11[99] / WP:12).  This step, like the step to rejection, is a negation in that it contains, at least implicitly, the judgment that our "world of becoming" as it presents itself, in isolation from such purpose, unity, or truth, "ought not to exist" (N:9[60] / WP:585); the step presupposes the judgment that without some such source of worth, which cannot be contained within the flux of a "world of becoming," that world -- our world -- would be worthless. Is the person who has taken this first step -- who has judged that the world requires justification -- a nihilist?  Certainly not an avowed one:  this person will use the appellation "nihilist," if at all, only for others.  Nevertheless, this per son is "nihilistic" in a way that one who simply accepts the world of becoming is not .   From the Nietzschean perspective, those who posit the extraneous source of value are nihilists in that (1) they judge of our world that it ought not to be (on its own), and (2) they believe in a world that is, despite their beliefs to the contrary, "fabricated solely from psychological needs ," a world to which we have "absolutely no right" (N:11[99] / WP:12).  To be sure, they are not aware that the world of their belief is a mere fabrication; that is why they will deny being nihilists.  For this reason, if it is appropriate to term them "nihilists" at all, an essential qualification must be added:  their nihilism is unconscious.  Or, to adopt a more Nietzschean term, they are religious nihilists:  their affirmation of another world or source of value is a consequence of their denial of our world as bearer of its own value . Nihilism becomes conscious -- avowed or, in a Nietzschean term, "radical" -- with a second step, the step taken with the judgment that the sources of value are absent, that the three categories of value remain uninstantiated.  "Radical nihilism," in Nietzsche's explicit definition, is the conviction of an absolute untenability of existence when it is a matter of the highest values that one recognizes; plus the in sight that we have not the slightest right to posit a being or an in-itself of things that would be 'divine' or incarnate morality . (N:10[192] / WP:3)