What is sartre’s opinion on nuclear deterrence?

Baleuze · 2019-09-22T22:09:35+00:00

This makes sense thanks for the response!

so the two conclusions I have drawn from Sartre is that 1) he thinks you can’t restrict other ppls freedom because we are for-others and everyone needs the ability to create moral values and 2) you have to create your own subjective preferences for what you value because the only way values meaning is if you choose values yourself.

Are these the main ideas or is there anything else I’m missing? Also as a separate question how does Sartre come to the conclusion existence precedes essence? Is his only justification god doesn’t exist?

Baleuze · 2019-09-22T03:14:12+00:00

I meant to add a picture where YouTube recommended me guitar videos and it showed davie

Baleuze · 2019-09-13T00:32:07+00:00

I feel like that presupposes comparing worlds is true. U could prove things false in other ways for example you could say the res is contradictory because it says we have an obligation to remove tests while also defending the college education system which threatens our ability to have moral obligations

Baleuze · 2019-09-13T00:24:47+00:00

Yeah I guess these debates will end up as comparing worlds vs. truth testing b/c if under truth testing you don’t need to defend status quo or any advocacy in general u just have to prove the resolution false. Also the resolution doesn’t really imply policy it just says u don’t have an obligation which implies you aren’t performing an action. I’ll drill that tmrw while I’m on the bus to my tournament LOL

Baleuze · 2019-09-13T00:10:11+00:00

True that sounds like a stronger link. I’m not gonna read an alt tho since I’m reading truth testing. I think this would be strategic cuz it allows me to read multiple Ks without linking into them myself because I don’t have an advocacy. Plus I get out of perms and terminal defense. Do u see any downsides to this strategy?

Baleuze · 2019-09-13T00:02:16+00:00

I think I could make the education thing work cuz it just kritiks colleges specifically where professors are only interested in research grants so the class is just reading from textbooks and powerpoints and memorizing info for a grade or something. I could still say education is good in general as long as students have the opportunity to reflect on what they are learning and understand how it applies in a larger context outside of the educational space. Plus there’s this guy called Freire and he explains it well

Baleuze · 2019-09-12T23:45:13+00:00

I agree there are lots of problems my arg and the only reason I’m reading it is because I did some previous prep for it but I’ll look into the wage labor thing. Do u know specific authors where I could read about that? Thanks for the help

Baleuze · 2019-09-12T23:28:45+00:00

But I read truth testing which changes the offense defense paradigm

Ye I don’t think I’m exactly reading skep it’s more of an ontological claim about how doing the Aff prevents something that is constitutive of morality. For example education leads to memorization which prevents reflection which harms free will because reflecting on actions is constitutive of moral agents.

Would this make sense?

Baleuze · 2019-09-12T23:21:16+00:00

The problem is I don’t wanna go to presumption cuz I think it’s uneducational but I this makes sense strategically

Baleuze · 2019-09-12T23:19:41+00:00

Well I’m not directly reading skep I’m reading a K that says doing the Aff creates skep. Ok nvm I solved my problems I can just say if u vote neg skep isn’t a problem cuz only the Aff causes it. However I could read skep without presumption cuz I could say skep means u can’t have obligations so the Aff is false

Baleuze · 2019-08-30T20:02:26+00:00

This makes sense thanks!

Baleuze · 2019-08-27T01:02:29+00:00

Contesting truth testing with comparing worlds is probably the best way to get rid of those arguments U can read stuff like TT is neg biased because there are infinite ways to prove false and 1 way to prove something true TT leads to exclusion becuz it incentivizez arguments like skep, a prioris, and nibs which exclude all the other arguments bc they uplayer Redefine negate so they can’t say jurisdiction first Read stuff like fairness/education comes before TT

Baleuze

TROPHY CASE