Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
loofus

T- on animal rights cases

Recommended Posts

I don't think you really understand what's going on. Not very many teams claim to start a 'movement.' At least we don't. For us, it's less of a K of T and more of a education counterstandard for our counter interpretation. Arguments about why we shouldn't exclude the discussions of non humans aren't a reason why topicality itself is bad but rather why a specific interpretation would be bad. That argument doesn't seem to be predicated on starting a movement, rather it's a question of whether or not we should have space to discuss animals.

abers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never read or seen this case run, but...

 

I'd go T-authority, and it would have to be researched, but I'm fairly certain that the United States Federal Government doesn't have zoos. I've been to the Philadelphia zoo, San Francisco zoo, San Diego Zoo, whatever that other zoo was called... I've been to petting zoos down at the park, tons of places... none of which were owned or operated by the United States Federal Government, and even if the Federal govt DOES grant the authority of whatever place to detain animals, it's not the USFG's own authority to do so.

 

If the aff doesn't deal with zoo's and just animal detainment, I think the neg should pressure the aff to show what and how animals are actually being detained. A lot of the definitions of detain have to do with like holding in custody... and that's not really happening.

 

Next I think would be T-substantially. Even if there is a United States Federal Government Zoo, decreasing the authority in that instance isn't a substantial limitation on the government's authority to detain without charge. Oh no! We can't detain zebras, but the government still has the authority to detain thousands of people for whatever reason.

 

Topicality-or ...has already been explained.

 

Topicality-detain... the animals aren't being detained. (sorta weak, but with the right definition it shouldn't be too hard to prove, Just win the standards debate)

 

Topicality-decrease... a topical affirmative would have to decrease the USFG to detain without charge, not just the authority to detain. The resolution implies that the government is doing something opposed to its authority to detain with a charge. Because animals are and won't be charged, the plan does nothing to affect the government's authority to detain without a charge, albeit they may affect the government's authority to detain.

 

I'd also think it would be important to attack solvency... if it's just USFG authority to do whatever, then that doesn't solve for anything that happens outside the USFG's control that causes their harms. Post plan the harms will still occur, whatever the harms may be. I'd attack significance and harms too. 5 off and case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not serious about their movement to help animals. They're simply exploiting the animals' plight to win debate rounds.

How about....no. Alot of the teams that are running these types of aff's (with maybe the exception of great apes) actually belive in the aff. That is why i cut it at camp. That is why it is one of the better affs on the topic in my opinion, becuase people are willing to defend what they said. It truely is more topical than half the cases you'll run. It has actual impacts. What more can you ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, don't run T's that link to anthro - you'd have to win anthro, and if you win anthro good you might as well debate them substantively. Instead, try a different T and see if you can pick up the judge if they don't like the aff. Or, run T substantially because there is only one federal zoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, don't run T's that link to anthro - you'd have to win anthro, and if you win anthro good you might as well debate them substantively. Instead, try a different T and see if you can pick up the judge if they don't like the aff. Or, run T substantially because there is only one federal zoo.

JUST DONT ARGUE T. IT IS NOT STRATEGIC AND/OR GOOD AGAINST THIS CASE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are the 'actual impacts' of the case?

 

there are about as many reasons why federally-owned animal testing labs are bad as there are for guantanamo bay. then if you win spillover arguments, you've got access to impacts based on the use of any (nonhuman) animal for any purpose ever. those are pretty big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We hit this last weekend and ran 3 T violations, a quick CP, and about 6 minutes of anthro/speciesm good. It was pretty fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality probably wouldnt be your best choice of argumentation against Animal Rights, usually because they are topical. If you really need to go for the topicality, i would say detain, the USFG doesnt detain animals, find a definition that talks about how detainment means jails like Alkatrask. Although I suppose any good Aff. would already have this blocked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this thing called genocide. I hear that it is bad....

 

Genocide as an actual impact to an animal rights case? I fail to see how genocide is any more of an actual impact to this case than the supposed impacts of other cases. I just need more explanation on that one?

 

there are about as many reasons why federally-owned animal testing labs are bad as there are for guantanamo bay. then if you win spillover arguments, you've got access to impacts based on the use of any (nonhuman) animal for any purpose ever. those are pretty big.

 

I agree with that, but the post I was responding to seemed to imply that this particular case had more actual impacts than other cases. I thought that meant like actual tangible impacts. I can understand like an ethics argument being made, but I don't see like genocide as an actual impact to animal-testing.

 

what are the 'actual impacts' of the case?

 

Maybe that was a bad question to ask. The underlying implication of the question was more or less that any huge advantages that might be claimed are probably not real world. The reason the question might be bad is because... the majority of impacts/advantages aren't 'actual' either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about....no. Alot of the teams that are running these types of aff's (with maybe the exception of great apes) actually belive in the aff. That is why i cut it at camp. That is why it is one of the better affs on the topic in my opinion, becuase people are willing to defend what they said. It truely is more topical than half the cases you'll run. It has actual impacts. What more can you ask for?

 

This case is only as topical as the opposing team wants it to be. Granted, by reading the resolution you textually have an argument, but most teams will claim it sets a bad precedent for limits (obviously).

 

That's the case with topicality lately anyway - it seems to be more of a neg's way to just exclude the aff than give reasons why debate should only allow certain arguments. Sort of like politics DA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Genocide as an actual impact to an animal rights case? I fail to see how genocide is any more of an actual impact to this case than the supposed impacts of other cases. I just need more explanation on that one?

 

technically, we slaughter billions of nonhumans in the united states alone, though the vast majority is not the government. but, again, if the aff wins spillover, and they win the framework of nonhuman animal lives = worth something, then they're in pretty good shape on the genocide debate. so, if the aff controls the direction of these arguments, they are winning more of an impact than any other case could claim.

 

also, taken literally from its roots, genocide is extermination of a class, i.e. genocide = genus cide = killing off a genus, like nonhumans. that's another reason why technically some could classify animal slaughter as a genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
technically, we slaughter billions of nonhumans in the united states alone, though the vast majority is not the government. but, again, if the aff wins spillover, and they win the framework of nonhuman animal lives = worth something, then they're in pretty good shape on the genocide debate. so, if the aff controls the direction of these arguments, they are winning more of an impact than any other case could claim.

 

also, taken literally from its roots, genocide is extermination of a class, i.e. genocide = genus cide = killing off a genus, like nonhumans. that's another reason why technically some could classify animal slaughter as a genocide.

 

That makes sense, but I don't know if I'd consider that genocide or genus-cide. What exactly is the framework argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes sense, but I don't know if I'd consider that genocide or genus-cide. What exactly is the framework argument?

as far as magnitude of impacts goes...

1 nonhuman life = 1 human life. human torture = nonhuman torture. under that framework, the "genus-cide" impacts get way bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as magnitude of impacts goes...

1 nonhuman life = 1 human life. human torture = nonhuman torture. under that framework, the "genus-cide" impacts get way bigger.

 

I still have a problem calling it genocide or "genus-cide". If they want to call it a lot of death then that's cool, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're exterminating a genus of organisms. And so the framework argument just says that life is equal to life and torture is equal to torture? Would they framework argument extend the equality to insects? Somebody should run a bee hive aff... where all these bees are being detained without charge in our little fake hives so we can steal their honey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still have a problem calling it genocide or "genus-cide". If they want to call it a lot of death then that's cool, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're exterminating a genus of organisms. And so the framework argument just says that life is equal to life and torture is equal to torture? Would they framework argument extend the equality to insects? Somebody should run a bee hive aff... where all these bees are being detained without charge in our little fake hives so we can steal their honey.

 

the problem with the way you are viewing genocide is that you see it too scientifically.

 

Main Entry: geno·cide audio.gif

Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId

Function: noun

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

 

thats merriam-websters definition of genocide. the deliberate systematic extermination of nonhuman animals for the purpose of medical experimentation is definitionally genocide. as for the framework idea, you have it right, making jokes about it just proves why the aff is probably a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"charge" is a pretty weak T in this case, given that the resolution provides for "without."

 

Whether or not animals can be charged is largely irrelevant.

 

Realistically you have to run T on "detain" and win framer's intent. These rounds are very tough because a solid AFF is very, very ready for the T. You have to really be on your game to win it. Or you can develop a good case block and use the T as a time skew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem with the way you are viewing genocide is that you see it too scientifically.

 

Main Entry: geno·cide audio.gif

Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId

Function: noun

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

 

thats merriam-websters definition of genocide. the deliberate systematic extermination of nonhuman animals for the purpose of medical experimentation is definitionally genocide. as for the framework idea, you have it right, making jokes about it just proves why the aff is probably a good idea.

 

Ehh, I just have a problem with calling it genocide because it isn't like the elimination/extermination of a group of animals. Nazi germany was in the process of a genocide because it was deliberately and systematically eliminating groups of people from the earth. I'm not familiar with the harms, but I wouldn't agree that's what's happening. I think a person could call it genocide in round, I think that they would be able to support it, and I think it would fly. If I were to run the case, however, I wouldn't agree with the wording.

 

My point on the beehive aff was that if the framework argument truly extends to insects, I don't think that's such a bad idea. If the lives of insects are equivalent, then there's some serious outweighing going on. I'm not an advocate of human superiority, in terms of evolution, but I'm trying to find out how far this framework goes. If given a choice, do you kill two ants to save one child? Do you kill a child to save two ants? Aside from that, should we have relief programs for animals and stuff too? Like we send food to africa, medical aid, what have you... humanitarian aid... would the next step be like providing food for starving animals, to strike down the view that it is a reserved right to humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...