Jump to content
Tomak

Disad Impact Cards

Recommended Posts

Guest chuck97
i think the better, more warranted argument is to say 'landfills => global warming'.

 

 

 

uuhhhhmm.... i dont think that's how it works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uuhhhhmm.... i dont think that's how it works...

 

how doesn't that work? it's not an internal link to biodiversity, it's an internal link to a warming impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow i fail at researching. i knew how it was bad, but i couldn't find factual evidence.

 

i feel stupid. again. Thanks though.

 

EDIT: and to the guy who suggested landfills -> global warming, cars/deforestation emits much higher lv's of green house gases. while methane is 20x more potent then carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is much more plentful.

 

i think u were trying to go at landfills release methane -> global warming. but if anyone has warming stuff left over, that arguement would get slaughtered

 

EDIT2: the wikipedia section had a landfills -> methane thing. i might actually try it. as an adv, i could make an ice age adv (we prevent ice age, i used it alot last year). But i already have a ice age adv with another link.

Edited by ChetanFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and when i said 'biodiversity bad' i meant 'loss of biodiversity bad'

 

i rly need to re-read things before i post.

 

is there 'biodiversity bad' stuff? this would be a killer adv. since most of the tournies i go to have pretty bad schools.

 

EDIT: i found this card, but was unsure about using it. would it be enough to use a water wars impact afterwards?

 

Scientific evidence supports EPA's current view that land fills can be unsafe repositories for liquid and solid hazardous wastes. 2 program, for instance, conducted a study in 1982 on four New Jersey landfills that employed "state of the art' techniques to prevent leakage. Based on the study, the program administrator declared that 'the conclusion is inescapable that all landfills with today's technology will ultimately leak and fail The Princeton University hazardous waste research There are alternatives to landfill. Private sector hazardous waste management techniques have progressed at a remarkable rate in recent years. They could soon replace government-funded cleanup projects and landfills. Not only do alternatives exist, but they are applicable to almost every form of hazardous waste. The sooner EPA bans the use of landfills for hazardous waste, the sooner the risk of groundwater contamination and carcinogenic exposure will be reduced.

 

The card is from 1983, though. Too old?

Edited by ChetanFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and when i said 'biodiversity bad' i meant 'loss of biodiversity bad'

 

i rly need to re-read things before i post.

 

is there 'biodiversity bad' stuff? this would be a killer adv. since most of the tournies i go to have pretty bad schools.

 

EDIT: i found this card, but was unsure about using it. would it be enough to use a water wars impact afterwards?

 

Scientific evidence supports EPA's current view that land fills can be unsafe repositories for liquid and solid hazardous wastes. 2 program, for instance, conducted a study in 1982 on four New Jersey landfills that employed "state of the art' techniques to prevent leakage. Based on the study, the program administrator declared that 'the conclusion is inescapable that all landfills with today's technology will ultimately leak and fail The Princeton University hazardous waste research There are alternatives to landfill. Private sector hazardous waste management techniques have progressed at a remarkable rate in recent years. They could soon replace government-funded cleanup projects and landfills. Not only do alternatives exist, but they are applicable to almost every form of hazardous waste. The sooner EPA bans the use of landfills for hazardous waste, the sooner the risk of groundwater contamination and carcinogenic exposure will be reduced.

 

The card is from 1983, though. Too old?

 

Citation, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg273.cfm

 

i didn't make the tag/author and stuff yet, since i wasn't sure if i was going to use it.

 

But i didn't think of it that way. I guess the card says all landfills are obsolete, so even if people rise from poverty, and emit more trash, the affluent already have the capabilities to cause said impact.

 

i found another card: http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/set/5/issue/72/index.php

 

The design of landfill facilities in response to site-specific hydrogeological characteristics determines the effects of waste disposal on groundwater quality. Pollution of groundwater resources is irreversible and has been recognised to be an issue of great concern. The study of the effects of waste disposal on groundwater quality identified groundwater contamination at 60% of the sites investigated. If this percentage is extrapolated to the 176 sites identified, potentially up to 100 waste disposal sites may have contaminated groundwater in Tasmania

 

but i guess that even this says the same thing. =/

 

is there a way to frame a DA or Adv around a card reading 'people in poverty have less amount of waste'?

 

unless you have every go to poverty, reduces water contamination.

 

~sigh. looks like ima just gonna be sticking with Ice Age Adv =/ (or a global warming DA, depending on which way you frame it).

Edited by ChetanFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
how doesn't that work? it's not an internal link to biodiversity, it's an internal link to a warming impact.

 

 

 

I just feel like you're going to have a hard time winning a unique internal link to world wide global warming with your "U.S. land fills advantage". That's the kind of shit that makes policy debate so shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is there a way to frame a DA or Adv around a card reading 'people in poverty have less amount of waste'?

 

That would be your link. . .

link says poor people produce lower amounts of waste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be your link. . .

 

i know. i have a link down, i just need a valid impact.

 

i can't think of any types of impacts that wouldn't happen even if those in poverty didn't escape poverty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know. i have a link down, i just need a valid impact.

 

i can't think of any types of impacts that wouldn't happen even if those in poverty didn't escape poverty

 

That would be uniqueness (or lack thereof). As stated previously, the disadvantage has massive uniqueness issues because the difference between the waste production of affluent and impoverished people is negligible, they're both outweighed by industrial waste output, world population and net waste production have been increasing exponentially for hundreds of years, and the majority of people are currently NOT living in poverty. And assuming a brink where none exists makes debate stupid (as pointed out by chuck97).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be uniqueness (or lack thereof). As stated previously, the disadvantage has massive uniqueness issues because the difference between the waste production of affluent and impoverished people is negligible, they're both outweighed by industrial waste output, world population and net waste production have been increasing exponentially for hundreds of years, and the majority of people are currently NOT living in poverty. And assuming a brink where none exists makes debate stupid (as pointed out by chuck97).

 

k ill answer in bullet points

 

-i don't get what your saying by uniqueness. the link card i have is both a link and a uniqueness, 'those in poverty have low levels of waste' is both a uniqueness AND link. the later reasons is why i gave it up (along w/ the ice age DA). And the waste output by world population, did you know 87% of the population of the is under the "US Poverty Level". So, more key to the impact is what the rest of the planet does.

 

the last 2 sentences is why i trashed the idea (along w/ a ice age Adv i had)

Edited by ChetanFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've created a wiki page with Big debate impacts (given it doesn't have disease...and space or china) but it does have some big impacts--and I plan to increase the size later

 

Including...

 

F. Continued economic decline causes global war

Mead 2009, Walter Russell Mead, HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Kissinger"Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._foreign_policy"U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009, The New Republic, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't in here but does anyone know of any impact cards that say Democracy is good because of political freedom (Demo without a Diamond like impact.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone had any luck tracking down this NASCA in 2006 article?

I've been searching for a while, and thus far had no luck whatsoever.

 

WATER SHORTAGES IN AFRICA WILL SPARK NUCLEAR WAR
NASCA 2k6 (National Association for Scientific and Cultural Appreciation, �Water Shortages � Only A Matter of Time�, http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html)
Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life! This becomes all the more worrying when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst droughts on record. These conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy answer. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in future years countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In the long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no obvious answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone had any luck tracking down this NASCA in 2006 article?

 

I've been searching for a while, and thus far had no luck whatsoever.

 

My guess the article is no longer on the internet.  Have you tried the wayback machine?  Try: https://web.archive.org/web/20060425095727/http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html

 

But please, for the love of god, retag that so it isn't ridiculously powertagged.  The card doesn't even *mention* nuclear war, nor does the webpage it's from.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess the article is no longer on the internet.  Have you tried the wayback machine?  Try: https://web.archive.org/web/20060425095727/http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html

 

But please, for the love of god, retag that so it isn't ridiculously powertagged.  The card doesn't even *mention* nuclear war, nor does the webpage it's from.

 

Not defending it, but the card literally does mention nuclear war. In bold, even.

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not defending it, but the card literally does mention nuclear war. In bold, even.

 

Wow, my eyes glazed right over that.  

 

Still, it has zero warrants.  (Not that the card is particularly well warranted on anything else, but that claim in particular is just thrown out there with no evidence at all).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always NASCA 4 if nothing else, gotta love backfiles.

NASCA 2004 (National Association for Scientific and Cultural Appreciation, 2004, “Water shortages - Only a matter of time,†http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html)

Water Shortage According to the latest estimates nearly 70% of the Earth’s population will struggle to find an adequate water supply by the year 2025. Many authorities now believe that tension over water consumption will be the major catalyst for the wars of the future. Water shortage. It’s just around the corner. Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life! This becomes all the more worrying when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. Incalculable damage. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. Bleak future The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. Drought conditions. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst droughts on record. These conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy answer. Dangers. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! Power shift. It seems clear then that in future years countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. Nightmare situation. In the long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no obvious answer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...