![][image17]
Figure 18: This prism diagram illustrates how pluralist society engages diverse views over single ideologies.
-
The Perspective Synergy is this paper's lens that calls for a rainbow coalition formed when competing mindsets do not diametrically oppose each other but stand at angles to refract enlightenment on all society by seeing the intersections of individuals as shaped by a polyvocality of identities, situational contexts, fields of thought, and mindsets to appeal through. We have many perspectives to appeal to in society and we should not present them as having to decide who is ultimately right because that is just appealing to the judge's preferred “-isms.” Pluralism means a peaceful society of differing views, so to argue in a debate that pluralism is bad violates our debate's ontology. Pluralist society should protect against war so that individuals can choose which philosophy gives their life value. Power-tagging quotes that something dehumanizes life's quality to claim it outweighs war risk twists ethical authors to misappropriation that those lives were as good as dead anyway. Szacki explains projecting the correct value-to-life mindset on to society leads to the mentality of a dictator imprisoning the unethical, since this is “attainable only by a totalitarian enslavement of society in the name of some one conception,” but modern “society is characterized […] by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines […] '[P]olitical decisions must be as far as possible independent of conceptions of the good life, or what gives value to life'” (Szacki, 1995). Even if past governments reached the point of seeing some lives as of no value, that is all the more reason to construct social systems to reduce the harm of flaws of human nature. “All we have to win is the system is flawed, then it's try or die to reject capitalism” inculcates conspiracy logic that anything related to money, resources, or interstate competition taints any plan. Marxists do not blame the workers stuck in the system as those are the very victims they try to liberate, so too the affirmative just happens to need the tools of society to alleviate a harm, yet they try to blame us by strawpersoning the case advocates as the system's architects to prejudice their followers that purity requires seeing news discourse as inadequate. Instead, teams boycott themselves from applying those articles to issues of the day, which closes teaching all groups to adopt and apply their theory. Modern debate seems like a broken telephone game to hear decades of confusion as to what affirmatives must also defend.
- If everything around society is to be rejected, that inspires justification for doing nothing to test changes or symbolic terror, like Stalin's later willingness to treat purity of doctrine as more important than the human cost of enforcing it. The Soviet experiment on citizens as lab rats taught us the cruelty of thinking one can just “fiat” supposing people reject their natural mindset. Misteaching “fiat” to confuse personal mindsets projected onto society risks solipsism as a critic debaters may walk away with quotes they later use to ignore details and prejudice others on mindsets resulting in totalitarian atrocity justified in secrecy. Even if revolutionary violence that cannot be avoided may be justified, the critique starting their revolution later can easily avoid them foreclosing a debate on a specific issue. Ross (2000) furthers, "It is an evil principle to think that we can tell other people what they mean by what they say, because of some […] Marxist theory of 'false consciousness' […] The implications of these principles are dehumanizing and totalitarian: what individual people think and want is irrelevant and to be disregarded, even by laws and political authorities forcing them to behave, and speak, in certain ways. But they are principles that make it possible to dismiss the common sense view.” The critic teaches a prejudice that when one hears an issue related to economy or medicine, reject it so they do not walk away without problematizing biopolitical health management. But these critiques are already considered in relevant policies and we already knew the critical theory so it is the negative's burden to show what will go wrong in this specific case. When the critic forces an individual action to “defend the assumptions” of the larger associated mindset – that is similar to Stalin's punishment of dissidents.
