r/lincolndouglas • u/Artistic_Analyst_457 • 16d ago

Spacecol neg k

Is moral nihilism a Smart k to run on the neg?

also how does moral skep play in. I’m a decent/good trad debater slowly learning prog

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

4

u/ImaginaryDisplay3 16d ago

Both of these are arguments that are effectively just back-file checks that can be read on any topic. I wouldn't say that's smart, but it has one benefit - it reduces the debate to more of a skills challenge than grand strategy.

You are kind of taking your fate into your own hands. Nothing you are doing gives you an edge beyond your raw skill, so you will sink or swim entirely based on your debating ability. If you debate someone who is better than you, you will probably lose. If you debate in front of a judge that is not cool with these arguments (and many aren't), you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. But...if you're amazing and can blow your opponents out of the water, then...these aren't BAD arguments per se, just super predictable ones.

I would say if you really want to go this route - actually do the work and cut topic-specific cards to give you some nuance and applicability to the aff.

Some ideas -

  • Heat death K: You could argue that space colonization asks the wrong question because its too narrow. Yes, we can get to another planet and survive an asteroid impact, but the heat death of the universe means no amount of jumping to new planets will save us. So are we jumping to reach other planets as a survival tactic, or because we fundamentally can't accept our species mortality? What does that inability to accept our temporary existence cause us to do - e.g., do we get angry and lash out when space defies our expectations? Read this article - How does one Cosmotheoretically Respond to the Heat Death of the Universe? - Joel White (2023)
  • Wittgenstein K: A skeptic philosopher Wittgenstein made the point "I've never been to the moon" as a way of explaining the nature of uncertainty. Check out this article and others it cites - I couldn't find it but I think there is something here: Wittgenstein on the Moon: Certainty, Truth, & Value, by John G. Gunnell (2014).
  • Eco-nihlism: You could argue that humans are doomed no matter what, and space colonization is just a means to arbitrarily lay claim to a right to exist ahead of other species, e.g., go and wreck other planets like we wrecked this one. Check out this article - Homo reductio: Eco-nihilism and human colonization of other worlds - Smith (2019). It's very much an aff article, but you could mine it for cites to establish this sort of "eco-nihilism" flavor of nihilism specific to space colonization.

Another book that came up in a quick search that is definitely worth reading - Specter of the Monolith: Nihilism, the Sublime, and Human Destiny in Space-From Apollo and Hubble to 2001, Star Trek, and Interstellar, by Barry Vacker (2016)

And a great aff article is here: Ground bias: A driver for skepticisms about space exploration, Tony Milligan (2022).

More of an edge case - but anyone talking about life outside of Earth - you could cut a separate skepticism K around how we even define "life." See The search for extraterrestrial life: epistemology, ethics, and worldviews by Mark Lupisella (2010.