Skip to content
December 29, 2016 / compassioninpolitics

Answering a Critical or Performance Affirmative based on Liberation Philosophy/Voices at the Bottom of the Well

The following are some ideas. I think some deserve to be developed into more robust analytical arguments. Others like #8 might deserve to be positions.

1) Modern ethics helps minorities. The Golden Rule is good for minorities.

2) And human interpretation, not the values is the root cause. Reading their evidence–doesn’t really address that. Its really a shell game or musical chairs.

3) Historically there are plenty of examples of minorities choosing an ethic of violence. This evidence is empirically wrong.

4) This throws the baby out with the water. This lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.

5) This argument is power structures bad, but this only serves to replicate power structures, but just reverse them.

6) Some kind of affirmative action of viewpoints is bad. We have to engage, dialog, and debate.

7) Everyone experiences oppression, pain, and suffering at some time in their lives. That means we all have an understanding of virtue. I shouldn’t do violence, I should be honest, (and I should respect the human dignity of others.)

8) Totalizing & essentializing narratives. Oppression is multi-dimension.

I seem to remember an other, other position thats based in Derrida. I seem to remember it being a kind of consequentialist response.

Also, K-ing the ethics or in general K-ing their aff might work too. Particularly if you are speaking to representations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: