Fastflamingo 1ar

Will Malson

FastFlamingo 1AR

Page 1 of 5

First off is Framework. 1) Neither competition nor cooperation is superior always. But, when we evaluate which one is superior most of the time, we need to look at general application and everyday use. Specifically, the round. 2) He contends that my framework is false because the resolution is not constant. However, if we were to treat it as an undeniable fact, then we would never compete or we would never cooperate. That's not real-world. We should look to the real-world to weigh arguments. 3) He claims that because I have no value, you have no way to determine whether cooperation or competition is better. I direct you to my original framework statement - the resolution should be upheld because "it is true in opposition to the false negative position." If I can show you that the negative position is false or hypocritical, I should win the round. Additionally, he says I need to present "good" that will come through upholding competition. Again, no, I don't. I just need to show you something bad that won't happen, or prove that something is true, or that it has to be used.

Will Malson

FastFlamingo 1AR

Page 2 of 5

Second is Aff Contentions. Aff Contention 1: Natural Life is dependent upon competition for survival. Survival hinges upon competition, bro. Small adaptations and food prices were examples. Let's put on some additional defense: Five responses. First, animals survive by competing with one another. Kangas 2k Steve Kangas [Areas of study include economics, sociology, religion, evolution, game theory, chaos theory, meritocracy theory, environmentalism, women's studies, American and European history, crime, media studies, race, nature vs. nurture and welfare issues. Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies], "Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation", © Copyright by Steve Kangas, editor, 2000, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumfive.htm The interplay between competition and cooperation Nature has divided all life into natural alliances that compete for survival: namely, species. Members of the same species generally do not kill each other in their fight for limited resources, but instead work together to kill members of other species. Second, even if animals cooperate to compete, they compete to cooperate. Kangas 2k Steve Kangas [Areas of study include economics, sociology, religion, evolution, game theory, chaos theory, meritocracy theory, environmentalism, women's studies, American and European history, crime, media studies, race, nature vs. nurture and welfare issues. Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies], "Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation", © Copyright by Steve Kangas, editor, 2000, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumfive.htm However, cooperation within species is not as perfect as it would seem. Even in normal times, there is subdued competition within the group, as members vie for positions of power and status. One famous example is primates, who divide themselves into alpha apes, beta apes, etc. It is interesting to note that among primates, male status is acquired through conflict. Among females, however, the opposite occurs: conflicts are resolved by the female's status. Hierarchies are found in countless species, but they are especially extreme in humans. Competition within the group becomes more severe as resources become scarcer. When the situation becomes desperate enough, members of the same species are perfectly capable of turning on each other and killing each other. Just one example is the preying mantis, a specie which solves the problem of scarcity by allowing the female to eat the male after mating. Another is the chimpanzee, the closest human relative. From her long-term studies in Africa, Jane Goodall has reported that chimps sometimes divide into tribes, whereupon the larger kills the smaller. Third, competition is necessary to play the game. Kangas 2k Steve Kangas [Areas of study include economics, sociology, religion, evolution, game theory, chaos theory, meritocracy theory, environmentalism, women's studies, American and European history, crime, media studies, race, nature vs. nurture and welfare issues. Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies], "Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation", © Copyright by Steve Kangas, editor, 2000, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumfive.htm

Will Malson

FastFlamingo 1AR

Page 3 of 5

Humans are no different. War is an obvious example of deadly competition within the human species, but most people don't realize that the same continues even during times of "peace." In our competitive economy, those who lack the skills, education, talent or opportunity to compete well become poor. And the poor suffer from death rates that are at least six times higher than the rich. (5) This higher death rate is due to a lack of resources: namely, health care, nutritious food, toxic-free environments, winter heating, information and education, and countless other means and devices that would protect and prolong their lives. Fourth, societal flux matches the patterns inherent in competition. Spencer 2k Analysts: Tom Seidenberger, Mary Weiss, "The Educational Theory of Herbert Spencer", Herbert Spencer [an English philosopher and sociological theorist of the Victorian era], ©2000 NewFoundations, 2k, http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Spencer.html 6. Theory of Society: What is society? What instruments are involved in the educational process? Society evolves from relatively simple and homogeneous entities into complex and heterogeneous ones; should include unbridled competition; progress of all kinds should be maximized by societies and governments that allow free competition to reign in all spheres of activity; unregulated free enterprise; survival of the fittest; right of the individual and non-interference; society as an individual organism (Eiseman, p. 153); competition in harmony with nature and in interest of general welfare and progress, Social Darwinism (Spencerism): total view of life which justified opposition to social reform on the basis that reform interfered with the operation of natural law of survival of the fittest; narrow view of role of state; society as an organism (Magill); objection to constant exercise of authority and compulsion in schools, families, and the state; survival of the fittest dependent upon group life, society is essential -each individual restricted by rights of others; danger of complete state control-- suppression of individual (Frost, p. 204); natural selection process guiding force of social development; in society consciousness exists only in each member (Osborne, p. 137) Fifth, without society, we are no better than animals. "Man is a social animal. Without society he is nothing but animal. Yet many consider themselves 'self made'." - B. J. Gupta

Will Malson

FastFlamingo 1AR

Page 4 of 5

Aff Contention 2: The negative speaker's arguments are hypocritical A) Cross-apply my AC: If he convinces you that he's right, then I should win because he used competition to show that. Three responses. First, debate hinges upon competition. Without competition, debate is of no educational value. Not only is it of no educational value, but it is without purpose, having no point of existence. We might as well read some philosophy books and discuss them. It's an end-game we don't want. Second, cooperation plays a minimal role in debate. All we've agreed to is what existed before - speech and skirt length are the only things we're cooperating with. Everything else is up for grabs - any case, value, criterion, quote, response to an argument, CX question, etc. Third, mix and match - cooperation plays a minimal role, and debate hinges upon competition. Without cooperation, the activity would be less desirable. But without competition, the activity could not exist. It's the difference between a bad economy and extinction. B) His actions speak louder than words - look at all of the competition he's engaging in. He clearly supports competition as a means of achieving excellence. However, notice the lack of cooperation - all we've agreed to is a judge and pre-existing rules. Debate hinges upon competition, and his entire negative case hinges upon debate existing. Therefore, his entire role in this debate hinges upon competition, and thus you should affirm the resolution because it cannot be false here.

Aff Contention 3: Alternatives He doesn't address this. He could've based his negative strategy off of what was in this paragraph, but doesn't and accesses my hypocrisy point.

Will Malson

FastFlamingo 1AR

Page 5 of 5

Third off is Negative Value. First, that's utilitarianism. Averdeen U. 07 Philosophy, School of Philosophy, Divinity and Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen, “Glossary Of Technical Terms”, January 30, 2007, http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml (HEG) UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximise the general happiness (in some versions: maximise the general pleasure; in some versions: maximise the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority. That justifies unchecked violations of human rights. Armstrong 03 Copyright © 2006 by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong [Professor of PhilosophyHardy Professor of Legal StudiesCo-Director, MacArthur Law and Neuroscience ProjectPh.D., Yale University, 1982], “Consequentialism”, First published Tue May 20, 2003; substantive revision Thu Feb 9, 2006 by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/, brackets not in original (HEG) 5. Consequences of What? Rights, Relativity, and Rules Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook[s] justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the "donor". There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965). We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the "donor", and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the "donor" will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life. If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. Most people find this result abominable. They take this example to show how bad it can be when utilitarians overlook individual rights, such as the unwilling donor's right to life. Reject the negative case because it upholds a morally detrimental value.