Jump to content
demonlampshade

Interesting case idea

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Wait...what's your timeframe arguement again?

 

I'm saying nuclear war is going to destroy the ecosystem faster than your scientists can work. What's the evidence saying that they'll manage to do this before the midterms, for example? (For _example_, not seriously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if this germ is so strong, can't it mutate and maybe spread to other animals, killing biodiverstiy anyways? in theory,isn't that possibility cuase other other viruses have done that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is possible, but again the timeframe would be huge for this to happen, so it shouldnt be much of a problem for the aff to answer (assuming the aff would be made)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS CASE THIS MUCH?

 

first, it's completely non topical because its entire advantage structure relies on there being less people in the armed forces.

 

second, i already mentioned *THE* counterplan to run against this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, Sevs is right on this one. at least to the point that the counter plan is a s logical as the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a case similar to this one on the worldwide pollution topic in 1992-3. The resolution mandated that the affirmative decrease worldwide pollution through trade and/or aid policies. This case had the US engage in a nuclear first strike against Russia. The ensuing escalation would, they contended, kill all human life. Therefore, they reduced the anthropogenic polluction output rate to zero. The team running the aff (they were from Utah, if memory serves) made it to very deep elims at NFLs with it that year.

 

But the case in question here would not illicit the same results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only advantage this case is going for (that I can find) is human extinction good. To access that impact it would be much easier to have a normal type case and have some cards from DAs to the case inbedded in it instead of other advantages, that end in extinction. For example:

 

USFG should do the draft.

Inher: They won't now.

Advantage1: Extinction

1. US is overstretched now

2. Military is key to hedge

3. Draft solves overstretch

4. US hedge causes counterbalences and proliferation

5. Prolif causes nuclear war and extinction.

6. Extinction Good

A. Reason

B. Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Subs ?

 

You are not going to make more than like 90 scientists work on it.

 

and

 

90/1.4 million is quite small like .0006 percent increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have made some good points, but missed the main strength of the case (it really catches the neg off guard). Not sure if I will make this case, could be fun.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which causes a 30 second time trade off....after that, the recover adnd you're dead.

 

Yeah, i mean a .0006% increase is sooo easy to defend, i mean its obviously substantial.

 

 

Find one definition talking about substantial, not even in the context of the military, that says substantial is = .0006%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys have made some good points, but missed the main strength of the case (it really catches the neg off guard). Not sure if I will make this case, could be fun.....

 

Yeah, unfortunately, most Neg teams have enough experience not to get caught off guard, and even amongst those without it, they'll reflexively run T, which is the case's main weakness anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, i mean a .0006% increase is sooo easy to defend, i mean its obviously substantial.

 

 

Find one definition talking about substantial, not even in the context of the military, that says substantial is = .0006%

 

what are you even talking about. the qoute system only works if you can string together coherent sentences pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to lose on substantially if you're competent. The abuse stems from having unpredictable advantages that the negative can't answer because they're tiny. It's not hard to answer extinction good.

 

All you need to do is define substantial as "real" or something. Other words in the resolution limit.

 

Though I think a much better argument is extratopicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or fiat abuse. or the previously discussed cp. or extinction bad.

 

all strats any competent negs will win. and if they can't beat this case, then you should be beating them anyways.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almost completely off subject but this aff links more to nietzche or however you spell it than most.

 

enjoy shitty life, dont literally try to destroy it because we're so shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
almost completely off subject but this aff links more to nietzche or however you spell it than most.

 

enjoy shitty life, dont literally try to destroy it because we're so shitty.

 

Wow, please don't think I ACTUALLY believe this. It is a 1/2 serious case idea that I may run for shits and giggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't the extinction of such a dominant species hurt all levels of the biosphere? animals have evolved to adapt to the abusive acts of humans, and with no humans those adaptations are useless, and therefor they couldn't function and would die, and with no animals at all almost every other living thing would die...

 

 

 

which is a good thing if you save the universe in the long run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I would roll with 8 minutes of Nietzsche in the 1NC

but who knows,

maybe some Chalupka as well?

this aff would be a funny as hell debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
almost completely off subject but this aff links more to nietzche or however you spell it than most.

 

enjoy shitty life, dont literally try to destroy it because we're so shitty.

 

neitzche Ks are terrible ideas with even worse alterntives...even against this case.

 

aside from Sevs c/p, no great strat has been presented.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
neitzche Ks are terrible ideas with even worse alterntives...even against this case.

 

aside from Sevs c/p, no great strat has been presented.

 

you don't think extinction good is good enough, especially with sevs cp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldn't the extinction of such a dominant species hurt all levels of the biosphere? animals have evolved to adapt to the abusive acts of humans, and with no humans those adaptations are useless, and therefor they couldn't function and would die, and with no animals at all almost every other living thing would die...

 

 

 

which is a good thing if you save the universe in the long run

 

 

Actually, humanity has not been around anywhere near long enough to have animals evolve around interacting w/ humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...