Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Note: You might find it best to present this as an "observation" at the start of 1NC.

Dont label it a
"kritik," since some judges are afraid of that word. On the other hand, if the Affirmative presses
the point, admit it is one. No big deal.
"Causality" is the relationship of cause and effect. Dont confuse this with the word "casualty."
"Determinism" is the idea that what will happen in the future is precisely and predictably a result
of what has happened in the past. A deterministic view of the world suggests that the universe
acts like a clockwork, and that all future history is already decided. This kritik challenges that
viewpoint.
Adapt this brief to the time limits you face. In addition to the A, E, and F points. You will need to
present at least one of points B, C, and D in the 1NC. The points you omit may be useful as
extensions in later speeches. Of course, if you have time, read the entire brief.

1C
[EXPLAIN HOW THERE CASE
APPLIES]
Observation: Deterministic causality
should be rejected
A. A deterministic world-view is a
hidden assumption of the
Affirmative case.
Analysis: Determinism sees the universe as a
clockwork mechanism of cause and effect. By
presenting arguments based on causality, the
Affirmative tacitly endorses this world-view. The
Negative sees this viewpoint as fundamentally flawed,
and we are clashing with the Affirmative on the basis of

this unstated assumption.

B. Deterministic causality is an
unproven assumption.
Determinism is unproven
Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader
in Philosophy, Cambridge Univ.), The Fundamental
Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 216: "Yet we must
emphasize that the principle that every event is
completely determined by causes has not been
proved, and is not clearly self-evident. We cannot
even conceive a way in which determinism could be
plausibly worked out in detail for the mind, and
even if true of the material world, doubtful as this
may be nowadays, mind and matter are sufficiently
different for us to have no good ground for
concluding by analogy that it is true of mind."

Causal reasoning is circular reasoning


John Passmore (prof. of philosophy, Australian National
Univ.) in The Great Philosophers, edited by Bryan
Magee, 1987, p. 149: "To say that the same causes
must always have the same effects because nature
is uniform is just to say, or so Hume argues, that
they must have the same effects because they must
have the same effects. This gets us absolutely
nowhere."

A simple sequence in time does not establish causality


Bryan Magee (senior research fellow in the history of
ideas, Kings College, Univ. of London), The Great
Philosophers, 1987, p. 149: "It does not save the
situation to say: We know that Event A is the cause
of Event B because B always and invariably follows
A. Day always and invariably follows night, but
neither is the cause of the other. Invariant
conjunction, though it is all we observe, is not the
same thing as causal connection. It could be the
case, by sheer coincidence, that every time I cough
you sneeze, but my coughs would not then be the
cause of your sneezes."

C. Impact: Rejection of determinism


has implications for debate.
1. Implications for the Affirmative
Analysis: If deterministic causality is
untrue, then it becomes unprovable that
the Affirmative harms will persist,
regardless of any inherency evidence
presented. Likewise, it becomes
unprovable that the plan will act to abate
the harms, regardless of any solvency
evidence presented. The ability of the
Affirmative to win either of these stock
issues is contingent on the truth or
falsity of the hidden assumption of
determinism.

2. Implications for the Negative


Analysis: If determinism is proven
untrue, the Negative must win, because
inherency and solvency evaporate. If, on
the other hand, determinism is proven to
be true, then causal arguments become
viable, and the weight of Negative case
and disadvantage arguments will be
applied against the Affirmatives net
solved harms.

D. Decision rule: The status of


determinism becomes a voting issue
in the round.
1. This is an absolute issue. At the end of the
round, determinism will need to be evaluated as
either true or false, based on the preponderance
of evidence introduced. There is no leeway for a
weighed impact; an absolute, yes-or-no answer is
required.

2. This is an a priori issue. Because the


validity of inherency and solvency rests on the
issue of determinism, the judge will need to
evaluate determinism first, before stock issues
and substantive arguments are examined.
3. This becomes a voting issue for the
Affirmative. To win, the Affirmative must have
valid inherency and solvency at the end of the
round. That can only be accomplished by
defeating our objection to determinism.
Therefore the objection itself can be thought of
as a threshold position the Affirmative must pass
before they are allowed to proceed further.

EXTENDSIONS

Conflict with free will justifies rejecting


determinism.

eterminism conflicts with the concept of free will, for if determinism is


ue, then all our actions indeed, our thoughts and motives that give rise to
r actions are the effects of causes in the distant past. We would have no
oices. Given that free will exists, determinism must be false.

eterminism and free will are mutually incompatible


fred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy,
ambridge Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p.
7: [According to determinists:] "Every act of mine was determined by
evious causes and therefore, it may be argued, I can never be or
ave never been free at any given time, because, whatever time I take,
y actions then were determined by earlier ones which I could not
ter once they had been performed."

he conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism


fred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy,
ambridge Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p.
1: "On the one hand we have no right to expect that the commonnse conceptions of responsibility will be exactly right; on the other,
e should certainly be justified in rejecting determinism if it were
hown to be incompatible with any tolerable system of ethics.
eterminism after all cannot be proved, and we know some ethical
opositions, such as that it is wrong to ignore the interests of

hers, with almost as much certainty as we know anything."

onflict with recent scientific discoveries


justifies rejecting determinism.

nalysis: Last century, Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle became the


rnerstone of the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. A
mple implication of this science borne out in thousands of subsequent
periments is that on the atomic level events can and do occur without
ing caused, and equal causes do not necessarily lead to equal results.
ore recently, the development of chaos theory and complexity theory
ve proven that it is impossible to predict events on the macro-level, since
nute difference below any possible threshold of detection will drive the
stem to produce results other than predicted. Mechanistic determinism is
valid across the scale from the smallest to the largest events.

he principles of quantum mechanics prove that determinism is false


. Michio Kaku (prof. of theoretical physics, City Univ. of New York
aduate Center) and Jennifer Trainer (freelance science writer), Beyond
nstein, 1987, p. 50: "The French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace
ok this one step further and believed all future events (not just the return
Halleys Comet and future eclipses of the sun, but future wars and
ational human decisions) could be calculated in advance if the initial
otion of all the atoms from the beginning of time were known. For
ample, determinism in its most extreme form states that it is possible to
lculate in advance with mathematical precision which restaurant you will
eating in ten years from now, and what you will order. Moreover,
cording to this view, whether we wind up in heaven or hell is determined
ead of time. There is no free will."

ame source, pp. 50-51: "According to Heisenberg, however, all of this is


nsense. Our fate is not sealed in a quantum heaven or hell. The
certainty principle makes it impossible to predict the precise behavior of
oms, let alone the universe. Moreover, according to the theory, in the
batomic realm, only probabilities can be calculated. Since, for example, it
impossible to know the exact position and velocity of the electron, it is
possible to predict much about the electrons individual behavior."

he principles of chaos theory suggests that determinism is false


aul Davies (prof. of mathematical physics, Univ. of Adelaide, Australia)
d John Gribben (astrophysicist), The Matter Myth, 1992, p. 15: "It has
en discovered that so-called nonlinear effects can cause matter to
have in seemingly miraculous ways, such as becoming self-organizing
d developing patterns and structures spontaneously. Chaos is a special
se of this: it occurs in nonlinear systems which become unstable and
ange in random and totally unpredictable ways. Thus the rigid
terminism of Newtons clockwork universe evaporates, to be replaced by
world in which the future is open, in which matter escapes its lumpen
mitations and acquires an element of creativity."