Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:34

From version < 20.1 >
edited by Kavin Kumaravel
on 2017/01/14 20:47
To version < 14.1 >
edited by Kavin Kumaravel
on 2017/01/14 20:36
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@
1 -Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now.
2 -Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full //LADI
3 -A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
4 -Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
5 -Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There’s No “hate Speech” Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 //LADI
6 -I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
7 -Hate speech will be amplified in the face of powerless minorities—it instills terror and destroys education—turns the 1ac because free speech becomes exclusionary
8 -SCU, S. (2016). Campus Hate Speech Codes - Resources - Character Education - Santa Clara University. Scu.edu. Retrieved 11 December 2016, from https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes/ AS
9 -Those who advocate hate speech codes believe that the harm codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict. When hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University's code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights. In addition to minimizing harm, hate speech codes result in other benefits. The university is ideally a forum where views are debated using rational argumentation; part of a student's education is learning how to derive and rationally defend an opinion. The hate speech that codes target, in contrast, is not presented rationally or used to provoke debate. In fact, hate speech often intends to provoke violence. Hate speech codes emphasize the need to support convictions with facts and reasoning while protecting the rights of potential victims. As a society we reason that it is in the best interest of the greatest number of citizens to sometimes restrict speech when it conflicts with the primary purpose of an event. A theater owner, for example, has a right to remove a heckler when the heckler's behavior conflicts with the primary purpose of staging a play - to entertain an audience. Therefore, if the primary purpose of an academic institution is to educate students, and hate speech obstructs the educational process by reducing students' abilities to learn, then it is permissible to extend protection from hate speech to students on college or university campuses. Hate speech codes also solve the conflict between the right to freely speak and the right to an education. A student attending a college or university clearly has such a right. But students exercising their "free speech" right may espouse hateful or intimidating words that impede other students abilities to learn and thereby destroy their chances to earn an education. Finally, proponents of hate speech codes see them as morally essential to a just resolution of the conflict between civil rights (e.g., freedom from harmful stigma and humiliation) and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech). At the heart of the conflict is the fact that under-represented students cannot claim fair and equal access to freedom of speech and other rights when there is an imbalance of power between them and students in the majority. If a black student, for example, shouts an epithet at a white student, the white student may become upset or feel enraged, but he or she has little reason to feel terror or intimidation. Yet when a white student directs an epithet toward a black student or a Jewish student, an overt history of subjugation intensifies the verbal attack that humiliates and strikes institutional fear in the victim. History shows that words of hatred are amplified when they come from those in power and abridged when spoken by the powerless. Discrimination on college and university campuses is a growing problem with an uncertain future. Whether hate speech codes are morally just responses to campus intolerance depends on how society interprets the harms of discriminatory harassment, the benefits and costs of restricting free speech, and the just balance between individual rights and group rights.
10 -Hate speech definitively incites violence – empirics prove
11 -Joyce Arthur 11 (Joyce Arthur, Founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national political pro-choice group.) The Limits of Free Speech, Rewire 9-21-2011 AT
12 -Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by hate speech that is expressed publicly and repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activists, and even the state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011), the assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and other abortion providers in the 1990’s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), and the Nazi Holocaust. Courts of law should be able to look at broader patterns of hate speech in the culture to determine whether a hateful atmosphere inspired or contributed to violence, or would likely lead to future violence. When hate speech is relatively widespread and acceptable (such as against Muslims or abortion providers), it’s not difficult to see the main precursor to violence—an escalation of negative behaviour or rhetoric against the person or group. Dr. George Tiller endured a previous assassination attempt and a decades-long campaign of persecution waged by the anti-abortion movement, which worsened over time, especially in the last year or two of the doctor’s life. Anders Behring Breivik had actively opposed multiculturalism for years and had immersed himself in Christian Right propaganda about the supposed threat of Muslim immigration to Europe, a view popularized only in recent years by a growing army of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing journalists. As these examples illustrate, we can often pinpoint the main purveyors of hate speech that lead to violent crimes. In the Norway shootings, the killer Breivik relied heavily on writings from Peder Jensen (“Fjordman”), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, Front Page Magazine, and others. Such individuals and groups should be charged with incitement to hatred and violence. Similar culpability for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller should rest on the shoulders of the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly. In general, anyone spewing hate to an audience, especially on a repeated basis, could be held criminally responsible. This would include politicians, journalists, organizational leaders and speakers, celebrities, bloggers and hosts of online forums, and radical groups that target certain categories of people. We also need to hold people in accountable positions to a higher standard, such as government employees and contractors, ordained religious leaders, CEOs, and the like. Criteria by which to assign culpability could include a speaker’s past record of prior hate speech against a particular person or group, how widely and frequently the views were disseminated, and the specific content and framing of their views. In cases where violence has already occurred, judges could determine how likely it was that the violent perpetrators had been exposed to someone’s specific hate speech, and hand down harsher sentences accordingly. The Harms of Hate Speech The apparent assumption of free speech defenders is that offensive speech is essentially harmless—that is, just words with no demonstrable link to consequences. But questioning whether speech can really incite someone to bad behaviour seems irresponsibly obtuse. Obviously, words have consequences and frequently inspire actions. A primary purpose of language is to communicate with others in order to influence them. If that weren’t so, there would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for political office, no motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements, and no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others to act. The majority of hate speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. It’s no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it’s very easy to defend hate speech when it doesn’t hurt you personally. But hate speech is destructive to the community at large because it is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those who take the speaker’s message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceived acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and genocide, especially when the state engages in hate speech, such as in Nazi Germany. Hate speech also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many years or a lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportunities, push them into poverty, isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflict with authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court stated that hate speech can cause “loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct.” The court agreed that “hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners…that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior,” which can increase “acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.” In democratic societies that stand for equality and freedom—often with taxpayer-funded programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups—it makes no sense to tolerate hate speech that actively works to oppose those values. Further, hate speech violates the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect. A society that allows hate speech is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level—politically, economically, and socially—and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-14 20:42:57.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Kumar, Paras
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Beckman KM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Dougherty Valley Kumaravel Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2-Hate Speech DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -HW
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-14 20:42:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Kumar, Paras
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Beckman KM
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 --
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -HW
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,16 @@
1 +Free Speech encourages weak slavish resistance as a conduit for the slave morality. Its transition in the past 50 years puts the modern academy at a dangerous delusion: that a call for increased agonism a viable strategy for any resistance
2 +Libertas 17 David, Liberty.me, https://libertas.liberty.me/free-speech-nietzsche-and-the-morality-of-the-left/, accessed 1/11/17CS
3 +As the story of ancient Israel progresses, their kingdom fractures and loses power, culminating in the obliteration of the northern tribes with the remnants of the southern half being subjugated by various foreign powers, from Babylon to Rome. No longer a conquering people, the moral tone of the Old Testament shifts: power is denounced as a moral evil, weakness and humility are celebrated as virtues, the exact opposite tone of the earlier stories. This culminates with the Christian New Testament that exalts poverty, meekness, mercy, and the persecuted as morally good and denounces wealth and power as morally evil. Up to the 1950s, the cultural left had been very much out of power. Conservative white Protestant identity was ascendant, and the master morality imposed on society reflected the values and identity of conservative white Protestants: racism, heterosexual puritanism, traditional gender roles, etc. The 1960s marked the beginning of a transition for the cultural left to take power. Their message was that of fairness, equality, and free speech. While many on the left believed that rhetoric, not all did. Imagine a 1950s leftist arguing that white Protestant values should be censored or shouted down for being immoral and having no place in American discourse. That would have had no sway on the dominant power structure of America. On the other hand, guilt-tripping his opponents into supporting free speech was the only path open to reach a point where they could advocate their ideas without fear of persecution, not because they had any sympathy for letting their opponents speak. 1960s cultural leftism was still a servile morality. Fast forward to today and cultural leftism has completely taken over all our social institutions, most especially universities, media, and also the executive teams of many powerful corporations. The opposition to free speech and the rise of racism on the left reflect its transition to power as a master morality. Many of the free speech advocates of the 1960s would have advocated censoring their opponents if they had the power to do so. Lacking that power, they settled on advocating for free speech as means to an end. And in this sense the left is totally consistent as the champion free speech in the 1960s while being its chief opponent today. Looping back to the other example of racial segregation, one has to wonder how many 1960s social justice activists would have turned out to oppose Jim Crow if its racism had been reversed and reserved the higher quality facilities to blacks instead of to whites. Probably not many. This explains why the left enthusiastically embraces Jim Crow university “safe spaces” today and why this, again, is not inconsistent: it just reflects the transition of leftist morality from servile to master modes. In sum, the Trigglypuff phenomenon is the natural and wholly expected culmination of the 1960s leftist morality’s ascent into power. This provides a caution for libertarians. As opponents to power, no matter what the prevailing power structure of our culture or time may be, we will always attract people who are not really on our side. A distinguishing difference Nietzsche found between the two is that the servile modes tend to mask real motives. Their intention is to trick or shame the powerful into doing something against their own interests, which means someone claiming to support your libertarian opposition to the prevailing power of the day might not be entirely trustworthy. Pick any issue. Some who pay lip service to small government only do so because they oppose the current government but would be more than happy to have a large overbearing government for some other issue. Think “small government conservatives” who want to escalate the war on drugs and militarize the police. Libertarians oppose war, but many who will claim to oppose war would be more than happy to support a war if the missiles were used for advancing communism instead of advancing American imperialism. Libertarians oppose the use of state violence as a means to integrate communities. Unfortunately, many who will claim to support that cause would be more than happy to use state violence to segregate communities. Finally, a clarification: my picking on the left here is no meant to single them out. It’s because the left is currently the dominant force in American culture that they provide a good example. The above behaviors can be found in people of all stripes.
4 +Protests cement the link—they serve to only codify the position of the protester as grounded in slave morality by grounding a human other as an evaluative mechanism and legitimizing the state as a neutral arbiter of injury
5 +Brown 95, Wendy, Professor of Women’s Studies @ UC Santa Cruz, 1995, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity pg. 26-27 CS
6 +in the ensuing reflections on contemporary forms of political life. His thought is useful in understanding the source and consequences of a contemporary tendency to moralize in the place of political argument, and to understand the codification of injury and powerlessness ~-~-the marked turn away from freedom's pursuit~-~- that this kind of moralizing politics entails. Examples of this tendency abound, but it is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the contemporary proliferation of efforts to pursue legal redress for injuries related to social subordination by marked attributes or behaviors: race, sexuality, and so forth.' This effort, which strives to establish racism, sexism, and homophobia as morally heinous in the law, and to prosecute its individual perpetrators there, has many of the attributes of what Nietzsche named the politics of ressentiment: Developing a righteous critique of power from the perspective of the injured, it delimits a specific site of blame for suffering by constituting sovereign subjects and events as responsible for the "injury" of social subordination. It fixes the identities of the injured and the injuring as social positions, and codifies as well the meanings of their actions against all possibilities of indeterminacy, ambiguity, and struggle for resignification or repositioning. This effort also casts the law in particular and the state more generally as neutral arbiters of injury rather than as themselves invested with the power to injure. Thus, the effort to "outlaw" social injury powerfully legitimizes law and the state as appropriate protectors against injury and casts injured individuals as needing such protection by such protectors. Finally, in its economy of perpetrator and victim, this project seeks not power or emancipation for the injured or the subordinated, but the revenge of punishment, making the perpetrator hurt as the sufferer does. It is important to be clear here. I am not impugning antidiscrimination law concerned with eliminating barriers to equal access to education, employment, and so forth. Nor am I suggesting that what currently travels under the sign of "harassment" is not hurtful, that "hate speech" is not hateful, or that harassment and hate speech are inappropriate for political contestation. Rather, precisely because they are hurtful, hateful, and political, because these phenomena are complex sites of political and historical deposits of discursive power, attempts to address them litigiously are worrisome. When social "hurt" is conveyed to the law for resolution, political ground is ceded to moral and juridical ground. Social injury such as that conveyed through derogatory speech becomes that which is "unacceptable" and "individually culpable" rather than that which symptomizes deep political distress in a culture; injury is thereby rendered intentional and individual, politics is reduced to punishment, and justice is equated with such punishment on the one hand and with protection by the courts on the other. It is in this vein that, throughout the ensuing chapters, I question the political meaning and implications of the turn toward law and other elements of the state for resolution of antidemocratic injury. In the course of such questioning, I worry about the transformation of the instrumental function of law into a political end, and about bartering political freedom for legal protection. I worry, too, about the recuperation of an anachronistic discourse of universal and particular that this turn seems to entail: if the range of political possibility today traffics between proliferating highly specified (identitybased) rights and entitlements and protecting general or universal rights, it is little wonder that tiresome debates about censorship, and about "identity politics" versus "universal justice," so preoccupy North American progressives in the late twentieth century. When contemporary anxieties about the difficult imperatives of freedom are installed in the regulatory forces of the state in the form of increasingly specified codes of injury and protection, do we unwittingly increase the power of the state and its various regulatory discourses at the expense of political freedom'? Are we fabricating something like a plastic cage that reproduces and further regulates the injured subjects it would protect? Unlike the "iron cage" of Weber's ascetics under capitalism, this cage would be quite transparent to the ordinary eye.47 Yet it would be distressingly durable on the face of the earth: law and other state institutions are not known for their capacity to historicize themselves nor for their adaptation to cultural particulars. Nor is this cage fabricated only by those invested in social justice: Foucault's characterization of contemporary state power as a "tricky combination in the same political structures of individualization techniques, and of totalization procedures" suggests that progressive efforts to pursue justice a long lines of legal recognition of identity corroborate and abet rather than contest the "political shape" of domination in our time.48 The danger here is that in the name of equality or justice for those historically excluded even from liberal forms of these goods, we may be erecting intricate ensembles of definitions and procedures that cast in the antihistorical rhetoric of the law and the positivist rhetoric of bureaucratic discourse highly specified identities and the injuries contingently
7 +
8 +This sets up the 1ac as a framework for how to best capitulate to the master—we always orient our strategies to create the best way to persuade the dominant ideology to make concessions to us. This engenders ressentiment and makes their framework devoid from any possibility life affirming codes
9 +Newman 2K Saul, “Anarchism and the politics of ressentiment”, p: Muse, accessed: March 16 06 CS
10 + In this way the slave revolt in morality inverted the noble system of values and began to equate good with the lowly, the powerless ~-~- the slave. This inversion introduced the pernicious spirit of revenge and hatred into the creation of values. Therefore morality, as we understand it, had its roots in this vengeful will to power of the powerless over the powerful ~-~- the revolt of the slave against the master. It was from this imperceptible, subterranean hatred that grew the values subsequently associated with the good ~-~- pity, altruism, meekness, etc. Political values also grew from this poisonous root. For Nietzsche, values of equality and democracy, which form the cornerstone of radical political theory, arose out of the slave revolt in morality. They are generated by the same spirit of revenge and hatred of the powerful. Nietzsche therefore condemns political movements like liberal democracy, socialism, and indeed anarchism. He sees the democratic movement as an expression of the herd-animal morality derived from the Judeo-Christian revaluation of values.6 Anarchism is for Nietzsche the most extreme heir to democratic values ~-~- the most rabid expression of the herd instinct. It seeks to level the differences between individuals, to abolish class distinctions, to raze hierarchies to the ground, and to equalize the powerful and the powerless, the rich and the poor, the master and the slave. To Nietzsche this is bringing everything down to level of the lowest common denominator ~-~- to erase the pathos of distance between the master and slave, the sense of difference and superiority through which great values are created. Nietzsche sees this as the worst excess of European nihilism ~-~- the death of values and creativity.
11 +The impact is mastery, control, and violence as a justification for achieving the end goal of the “Real World”
12 +Saurette, 96 – PhD in Political Theory at John Hopkins University – 1996(Paul, “’I Mistrust all Systematizers and Avoid them’: Nietzsche, Arendt and the Crisis of the Will to Order in International Relations Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, Page 1-28)
13 +The dichotomisation of the ideal and apparent worlds results in a second inversion. The notion of politician as craftsman undermines the possibility of action in the political sphere by attempting to deny the very condition of plurality and natality. The prerequisite qualities of equality and persuasion are replaced by the precepts of fabrication: mastery and violence. Plural political action is renounced in favour of the unquestioned order of rulership and mastery (which destroys the potential for natality and plurality), or by the coercion of violence (which simply overwhelms any possibility of action through sheer strength.) This consequence is then circularly justified by the belief that the end of action can be noting more than the realization of the Real World in the Apparent World. The conception of community through equality and difference is inexorably replaced by the understanding of political community constructed through mastery, control, and rule. The dual inversion of politics-as-making explicitly reveals the profound impact of the philosophical foundation of the Will to Order/Truth on the modern conception of politics. Within this philosophical order, politics must be understood as a process of fabrication in which the end utopian goal justifies and underpins rulership, control, and domination. From this perspective, the development of a variety of Real World ideals (Platonic justice, Christian salvation, or vulgar Marxist Utopianism) which guide political action have disguised the entrenched consistency of the understanding of politics-as-making. It is precisely this ‘definition’ of politics that must be exposed and problematised. For politics-as-making is neither a ‘natural’ nor ‘realistic’ conception of politics, but rather a historical consequence of a specific philosophical foundation. As such, it is neither factual nor beyond critique.
14 +And, the alternative is to affirm the will to power through the diceroll. You should take the risk of exposing yourself to violent impacts, abandon the desire for mastery, and embrace the unknown and unfamiliar aspects of life by refusing to engage the 1ac. This risks danger but your mortality is something that is certain anyway. The alternative is the only way to live life eventfully and adventurously, through a rolling of the dice.
15 +Deleuze 83 Gilles, “Nietzsche and Philosophy”, pg. 25-27 CS
16 +The game has two moments which are those of a dicethrow — the dice that is thrown and the dice that falls back. Nietzsche presents the dicethrow as taking place on two distinct tables, the earth and the sky. The earth where the dice are thrown and the sky where the dice fall back: “if ever I have played dice with the gods at their table, the earth, so that the earth trembled and broke open and streams of fire snorted forth; for the earth is a table of the gods, and trembling with creative new words and the dice throws of the gods” (Z III “The Seven Seals” 3 p. 245). “O sky above me, you pure and lofty sky! This is now your purity to me, that there is no eternal reason-spider and spider’s web in you; that you are to me a dance floor for divine chances, that you are to me a god’s table for divine dice and dicers” (Z III “Before Sunrise” p. 186). But these two tables are not two worlds. They are the two hours of a single world, the two moments of a single world, midnight and midday3 the hour when the dice are thrown, the hour when the dice fall back. Nietzsche insists on the two tables of life which are also the two moments of the player or the artist; “We temporarily abandon life, in order to then temporarily fix our gaze upon it.” The dicethrow affirms becoming and it affirms the being of becoming. It is not a matter of several dicethrows which, because of their number, finally reproduce the same combination. On the contrary, it is a matter of a single dicethrow which, due to the number of the combination produced, comes to reproduce itself as such. It is not that a large number of throws produce the repetition of a combination but rather the number of the combination which produces the repetition of the dicethrow. The dice which are thrown once are the affirmation of chance, the combination which they form on falling is the affirmation of necessity. Necessity is affirmed of chance in that being is affirmed of becoming and unity is affirmed of multiplicity. It will be replied, in vain, that thrown to chance, the dice do not necessarily produce the winning combination, the double six which brings back the dicethrow. This is true, but only insofar as the player did not know how to affirm chance from the outset. For, just as unity does not suppress or deny multiplicity, necessity does not suppress or abolish chance. Nietzsche identifies chance with multiplicity, with fragments, with parts, with chaos: the chaos of the dice that are shaken and then thrown. Nietzsche turns chance into an affirmation. The sky itself is called “chance-sky”, “innocence-sky” (Z III “Before Sunrise”); the reign of Zarathustra is called “great chance” (Z IV “The Honey Offering” and III “Of Old and New Law Tables”; Zarathustra calls himself the “redeemer of chance”). “By chance, he is the world’s oldest nobility, which I have given back to all things; I have released them from their servitude under purpose . . . I have found this happy certainty in all things: that they prefer to dance on the feet of chance” (Z III “Before Sunrise” p. 186); “My doctrine is ‘Let chance come to me: it is as innocent as a little child!’ “(Z III “On the Mount of Olives” p. 194). What Nietzsche calls necessity (destiny) is thus never the abolition but rather the combination of chance itself. Necessity is affirmed of chance in as much as chance itself affirmed. For there is only a single combination of chance as such, a single way of combining all the parts of chance, a way which is like the unity of multiplicity, that is to say number or necessity. There are many numbers with increasing or decreasing probabilities, but only one number of chance as such, one fatal number which reunites all the fragments of chance, like midday gathers together the scattered parts of midnight. This is why it is sufficient for the player to affirm chance once in order to produce the number which brings back the dice- throw.22 To know how to affirm chance is to know how to play. But we do not know how to play, “Timid, ashamed, awkward, like a tiger whose leap has failed. But what of that you dicethrowers! You have not learned to play and mock as a man ought to play and mock!” (Z IV “Of the Higher Man” 14 p. 303). The bad player counts on several throws of the dice, on a great number of throws. In this way he makes use of causality and probability to produce a combination that he sees as desirable. He posits this combination itself as an end to be obtained, hidden behind causality. This is what Nietzsche means when he speaks of the eternal spider, of the spider’s web of reason, “A kind of spider of imperative and formality hidden behind the great web, the great net of causality — we could say, with Charles the Bold when he opposed Louis XI, “I fight the universal spider” (GM III 9). To abolish chance by holding it in the grip of causality and finality, to count on the repetition of throws rather than affirming chance, to anticipate a result instead of affirming necessity — these are all the operations of a bad player. They have their root in reason, but what is the root of reason? The spirit of revenge, nothing but the spirit of revenge, the spider (Z II “Of the Tarantulas”). Ressentiment in the repetition of throws; bad conscience in the belief in a purpose. But, in this way, all that will ever be obtained are more or less probable relative numbers. That the universe has no purpose, that it has no end to hope for any more than it has causes to be known — this is the certainty necessary to play well (VP Ill 465). The dicethrow fails because chance has not been affirmed enough in one throw. It has not been affirmed enough in order to produce the fatal number which necessarily reunites all the fragments and brings back the dicethrow. We must therefore attach the greatest importance to the following conclusion: for the couple causality-finality, probability-finality, for the opposition and the synthesis of these terms, for the web of these terms, Nietzsche substitutes the Dionysian correlation of chance-necessity, the Dionysian couple chance-destiny. Not a probability distributed over several throws but all chance at one not a final, willed combination, but the fatal combination, fatal and loved, amor fati; not the return of a combination by the number of throws, but the repetition of a dicethrow by the nature of the fatally obtained number.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 20:36:05.312
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kumar, Paras
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Beckman KM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Dougherty Valley Kumaravel Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1-Nietzsche K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +HW
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 20:36:02.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kumar, Paras
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Beckman KM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +-
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +HW

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)