Jump to content
demonlampshade

Interesting case idea

Recommended Posts

Ok, so my brother (former debator) came up with a kinda fun case idea. Basiclly the armed services should higher some scientists to design super germ to kill all of humanity in order to save mother earth. Is this a good case idea or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

There is no way we will ever have a significant impact on earth. Any card that says otherwise is merely speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so my brother (former debator) came up with a kinda fun case idea. Basiclly the armed services should higher some scientists to design super germ to kill all of humanity in order to save mother earth. Is this a good case idea or not?

 

EDIT: You actually have evidence on this stuff?

 

I'd start off with Extra Topicality, but that's a little bit needless to say. You're claming all your advantages off something not really in the resolution.

 

CP: Have scientists outside the armed forces do it.

CP: Consult the UN before we wipe out humanity.

CP: Have Japan do it.

CP: Do it and blame Canada. ;)

 

Wow, I hope you're a good morality/critical debater. Most judges on the less than progressive/tabula rasa side will refuse to buy this arguement. I think I said this in your Spark thread, but defending extinction is just as difficult, if not worse, than rape, genocide, or racism. Good luck, chap, you'll need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it mite work as a cp- theres no way its topical. u would have to object fiat that the armed forces would actually create a super germ, which i highly doubt it would...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think solvency on whether or not the super germ could be created or work would be hard, also i think it would be hard to defend that mother earth is more important than a human life i mean we can always move to outer space so who cares about mother earth, why wipe out all of humanity to save a planet that will eventually be engulfed by the sun anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some fair points, but that is simply the thesis of the case. The way I see it's topical (increase military), and you can fiat the super germ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

topical? yes

good advanages? yes

solvency? probably?

timeframe? no.

 

thats the problem, tf is waay way to long. any d/a will beat this case based on the t/f. i would run spending personally and kick your ass. this shit is going to take a lot of money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, because spending is an awesome argument. It wins a lot of rounds, especially when combined with F-Spec.

 

It's still a shit case, there are no advantages at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topical? yes

good advanages? yes

solvency? probably?

timeframe? no.

 

thats the problem, tf is waay way to long. any d/a will beat this case based on the t/f. i would run spending personally and kick your ass. this shit is going to take a lot of money

 

how is it topical? Are the armed forces going to make people work there, or are we just assuming people will join just to make a super germ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real T issue is net increase - post-plan there will be 0 people in the armed forces.

 

:)

 

The solvency for this case is also kinda off-kilter. I mean, you're essentially fiating that scientists will see everything the way you do and want to destroy humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is it topical? Are the armed forces going to make people work there, or are we just assuming people will join just to make a super germ....

the way i would interpret the plan, and the way that it should be ran, is that these scientists are becoming part of the armed forces and being put on a special project. Not everyone in the military has to be a fighter ya know.

 

neurotic mastermind,

that claim is neither here nor there. so what? you could say that about all cases (in respects to their solvency.) its just a simple mitigation argument and shouldn't be hard to disprove with specific solvency.

 

 

***i'm not defending this case; in fact think its a pathetic attempt at being funny and squirlley, i'm just calling things as i see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah okay, so they would just put some scientists in the armed forces.

well, where would these people come from? would we just integrate research companies into a new department of the armed forces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ah okay, so they would just put some scientists in the armed forces.

well, where would these people come from? would we just integrate research companies into a new department of the armed forces?

 

well i would think that owuld be obvious, we would just straigh up hire them yo.

 

we'll tell them that they're researching something grand, that will make life easier for the rest of the world, claim the opportunity to make a real change in the world through their research, i mean we're talkig old fashioned propoganda (i.e. lie to them) and ofcouse we'll pay them like kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neurotic mastermind,

that claim is neither here nor there. so what? you could say that about all cases (in respects to their solvency.) its just a simple mitigation argument and shouldn't be hard to disprove with specific solvency.

 

Oh, yeah, if you _had_ specific solvency evidence. But I'd like to see any evidence at all on this case, no offense.

 

I was merely throwing another idea on the table, so as to help our friend here construct a defense against all arguements that would come up.

 

And what's wrong with mitigation arguements? Granted, you don't often win rounds on defensive or minimalist args, but it beats going up with nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we'll pay them like kings.

 

Not that that's relevant when they're going to die anyway.

 

I am not so sure the army could find scientists willing to develop the germ - it's essentially suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, yeah, if you _had_ specific solvency evidence. But I'd like to see any evidence at all on this case, no offense.

 

I was merely throwing another idea on the table, so as to help our friend here construct a defense against all arguements that would come up.

 

And what's wrong with mitigation arguements? Granted, you don't often win rounds on defensive or minimalist args, but it beats going up with nothing.

 

out of all the arguments you could run, you choose a half hearted mitigation argument?

 

and why the hell wouldn't you have specific solvency? its easy to find specific solvency out there on anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that that's relevant when they're going to die anyway.

 

I am not so sure the army could find scientists willing to develop the germ - it's essentially suicide.

 

Yeah, pay is kinda irrelevant.

 

But isn't the whole plan a mass suicide? I think he's fiating that he could debate them into submission, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that that's relevant when they're going to die anyway.

 

I am not so sure the army could find scientists willing to develop the germ - it's essentially suicide.

 

so what? proganda checks this. they thik they're doing something meaningful...and safe.

 

your poitn about the money is exactly on, the USFG doesn't lose a dime on the operation bc we take the money back.

 

we'll of course cover everything up so that, at worst, there are "sily" consperaccy theories out there on what "actually" happened.

 

by the time everyone figures it out, it'll be too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I love where this is going, but as I see it you can't really claim many D/A's against it; nuke war-faster; spending- it doesn't matter, we will all be dead; civil liberties-so? we will all be dead

 

And an advantage could be increased biodiversity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, I love where this is going, but as I see it you can't really claim many D/A's against it; nuke war-faster; spending- it doesn't matter, we will all be dead; civil liberties-so? we will all be dead

 

And an advantage could be increased biodiversity?

 

Who needs DAs anyway?

 

Actually, it would be quite devastating if they beat you on timeframe - a nukewar would mean the end of all life on earth, including animals. Good-bye, solvency.

 

Also, case evidence: Humans would eventually evolve again.

 

In addition, you kinda lose your biodiversity arguement in one fashion - if humans are one species, and you wipe out humans, you have less species than you began with. Hence, less diversity.

(Okay, yeah, I know, global warming, human industry, etc. I just wanted to throw a little math in your path).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that nuke war might not be so good... but humans probably would not evolve again, to assume they would suggests that humans are most effective lifeform and will come around again. You said yourself why biodiversity does work, and I finally came up with something for timeframe. Basiclly we are trying to save earth so what is 50 years in the picture of how long earth has been around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...