Jump to content
LSK

"People" T - monkeys are people too, plan must benefit monkeys

Recommended Posts

I love your posts, but I would probably strike you on the pref sheet.

 

Barring a stern and lengthy pre-debate lecture, nobody can possibly understand and take into account your sensibilities about policymaking before running a position. I don't find this definition any more convincing on-face than, say, 'T-Should is the past tense of shall' or another absurd specification argument, but I don't find it any more offensive for changing the focus of the debate, either. Why are you taking out your grudge against vegetarians on negative debaters?

I'm not actually serious about intervening. I would vote for the argument that denying health care to poor, pregnant women on the grounds that we didn't consult bobo the chimp, is immoral. This is true even if it's just done by reading this post back to me in round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLANS DON'T HAVE TO DO THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION running this definition makes topical plans that help humans monkeys or both but it doesn't exclude humans

 

yo what no one has pointed out, and this is the biggest flaw with your interpretation, is that granting that monkeys are people, the violation makes absolutely no sense. All your interp grants is that you can run a plan that gives social services to monkeys and still be topical, it doesn't establish that a necessary condition to be topical is that your plan provides social services to monkeys.

 

Why is there still discussion??? K or no K, abusrd or not, there is not violation in any why shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there still discussion??? K or no K, abusrd or not, there is not violation in any why shape or form.

While I agree that it's not a topicality violation per se, it's still a workable kritik of anthrocentrism. Really, the T argument is only to show that the aff COULD HAVE included chimpanzees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it's not a topicality violation per se, it's still a workable kritik of anthrocentrism. Really, the T argument is only to show that the aff COULD HAVE included chimpanzees.

So now the aff is responsible for defending all things that they did, all things the resolution implies they deal with, as well as all things they could have done? Ridiculous. If there is no exclusion of monkeys, there isn't a link. Reading it as a T violation doesn't prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So now the aff is responsible for defending all things that they did, all things the resolution implies they deal with, as well as all things they could have done? Ridiculous. If there is no exclusion of monkeys, there isn't a link. Reading it as a T violation doesn't prove anything.

Think of it this way: The aff can increase social services for persons in poverty excluding black people. While this is entirely topical, their omission of a group legal under the topic proves racism. Does the chimpanzee-omission violation make more sense now?

Edited by LSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not actually serious about intervening. I would vote for the argument that denying health care to poor, pregnant women on the grounds that we didn't consult bobo the chimp, is immoral. This is true even if it's just done by reading this post back to me in round.

Against a health care aff, the alt definitely wouldn't be to reject the aff; that'd be pointless. If anything, the alt would say do the plan + give chimpanzees some level of health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way: The aff can increase social services for persons in poverty excluding black people. While this is entirely topical, their omission of a group legal under the topic proves racism. Does the chimpanzee-omission violation make more sense now?

 

No, not really. Unless the plan text was "give social services to white people living in poverty" or something of that nature (and even then it depends on the exact nature of the plan text).

 

Plus, link of omissions are pretty shitty. THis is actually a pretty sweet example why as well.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this isn't really a link of omission. If they win that chimps = persons under law and that you don't give ss to chimps and only to humans then they a (granted shitty) link to the k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLANS DON'T HAVE TO DO THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION running this definition makes topical plans that help humans monkeys or both but it doesn't exclude humans ALSO YOU ARE MONKEY

THIS. Hence, why we have advocacies in Policy Debate. You don't have to effect ALL people. Even if you ran some weird PETA K, the team can concede that Monkeys are people, but they don't have to provide social services to them. Although some form of this could work as a K, running it as a T violation would not be very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't you all seen Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the first sequel to Planet of the Apes? "Monkey" is an offensive term to apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way: The aff can increase social services for persons in poverty excluding black people. While this is entirely topical, their omission of a group legal under the topic proves racism. Does the chimpanzee-omission violation make more sense now?

 

Racial categories are nothing like species. You have to go out of your way to restrict a social service to only specific racial groups, so the "link of omission" is really an active link in this case.

 

However, you would have to go far out of your way to actually give social services to chimpanzees. And then you would either have to deal with the implications of excluding humans or come up with a social service that affects both humans and chimps. In the first case, you are complicit in speciesism. In the second case, your interpretation limits affs to ONLY defending the entire resolution (all possible interpretations of "persons"), which allows an infinitesimal number of (or zero) cases (because there are few, if any, social services that can be applied to both humans and chimps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Racial categories are nothing like species. You have to go out of your way to restrict a social service to only specific racial groups, so the "link of omission" is really an active link in this case.

 

However, you would have to go far out of your way to actually give social services to chimpanzees. And then you would either have to deal with the implications of excluding humans or come up with a social service that affects both humans and chimps. In the first case, you are complicit in speciesism. In the second case, your interpretation limits affs to ONLY defending the entire resolution (all possible interpretations of "persons"), which allows an infinitesimal number of (or zero) cases (because there are few, if any, social services that can be applied to both humans and chimps).

 

This is a rather exclusionary and speciest post...i expect James to pretty much call you out on this...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, essentially it could be a good link to a Kritik if you look at what is being said. The negative is stating that "monkeys are included in persons" and the issue is "the Aff does not increases social services for monkeys BECAUSE they inherently prioritize humans. This is reflective of the mindset of policymakers today and the egoist ideal that is perpetuated for the good of man and the demise of the animal in this case- the monkey. Rejecting the Aff is an attack on this negligence of the animals(Tie to the Earth as a whole, etc. Impacts w/e you want)" But the link can be made, as what is being critiqued is actually what they didn't do, and the reason behind why they didn't do it. That's kind of what Kritiks do (Scapegoat) in some cases, assume the Affs evil mentality based on some exclusion and BS all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way: The aff can increase social services for persons in poverty excluding black people. While this is entirely topical, their omission of a group legal under the topic proves racism. Does the chimpanzee-omission violation make more sense now?

All the interp says is that social services could be given to chimps. For instance, if plan is "USFG should provide health care to persons living in poverty" all the interp would do is prove that "persons" is not just humans, but also chimps.

There's no violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the interp says is that social services could be given to chimps. For instance, if plan is "USFG should provide health care to persons living in poverty" all the interp would do is prove that "persons" is not just humans, but also chimps.

There's no violation.

 

 

That's not what he's saying. Even if there is no violation, the K still has a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. so when the aff wins their interp, because it is not only more reasonable but logical and all you can do is k their methodology, you lose your link. this is a horrendous strat.

 

also if they win their interp is better for debate, then they win an impact turn to the anthro fw.

 

and it is still a weak link, as well as merely a drop in the bucket in comparison to the sqo. dont run this.

 

just a btw, would this be a two off 1nc? because i doubt your disads account for animal tolls in their impacts.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at definitions for both "persons" and "people", I think this T interpretation has some issues. I know they are pretty horrendous standards, but precision and framer's intent on the choice of persons over people takes care of some interpretations.

 

Interestingly enough, on T-People, American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Definition, has this to say:

 

9. Informal: Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a btw, would this be a two off 1nc? because i doubt your disads account for animal tolls in their impacts.

This would be maybe a 7 off, with 6 of those 7 being Ks or DAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be maybe a 7 off, with 6 of those 7 being Ks or DAs.

 

I don't know how fast you are, but in my opinion, running more than 1 or 2 Ks max is going to get you in some trouble. I really don't think most Ks are going to have alts that play well together. I mean, sure, conditionality, but I think the Aff's Conditionality Bad story is probably going to be pretty good, especially in conjunction with the fact that the Negative is arguing that you need to include animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name an action that meets the definitions of both "social services" AND "persons" when you include chimpanzees?

 

Although it may be possible to include chimpanzees in "persons," it would be an even bigger stretch to include chimpanzees in the definition of "society."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name an action that meets the definitions of both "social services" AND "persons" when you include chimpanzees?

 

Although it may be possible to include chimpanzees in "persons," it would be an even bigger stretch to include chimpanzees in the definition of "society."

 

"Society" doesn't appear in the resolution. I think you run into serious problems when you try to define a word that's a term of art by reverting back to its derivative.

 

I think you may be on to something, but I wouldn't argue it that way. However, most definitions of "social services" aren't specific. The best thing I could probably suggest is a definition that defines as "social services" being specific to a country's citizens and then argue that animals aren't citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how fast you are, but in my opinion, running more than 1 or 2 Ks max is going to get you in some trouble. I really don't think most Ks are going to have alts that play well together. I mean, sure, conditionality, but I think the Aff's Conditionality Bad story is probably going to be pretty good, especially in conjunction with the fact that the Negative is arguing that you need to include animals.

I've got a fully prepared set of 5 one- and two-page Ks that vary from attacks on anthrocentrism to attacks on fear of death that I ran last year with Mass Suicide that all have that as alt. This plays well with them - not that you should do something similiar, mind you, but it would be quite a nice combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Society" doesn't appear in the resolution. I think you run into serious problems when you try to define a word that's a term of art by reverting back to its derivative.

 

I think you may be on to something, but I wouldn't argue it that way. However, most definitions of "social services" aren't specific. The best thing I could probably suggest is a definition that defines as "social services" being specific to a country's citizens and then argue that animals aren't citizens.

 

What I meant to say was that although you could increase services for chimpanzees, they wouldn't be social services because chimps would never fall under any definition of "society" ("social" is the adjective form of "society," right?). But your "social services must be specific to a country's citizens" definition is good.

 

In any case, I think the entire idea of using this topicality violation to get a link to an anthropocentrism kritik is moronic. You have no idea what the assumptions of the aff are. They could have run a help-chimps aff all year and then run a help-humans aff this one round just to alleviate the boredom. This could be illustrated by keeping a help-chimps 1AC in your evidence tub, and then if any neg team says you should be rejected for never thinking about anything but humanity, show the judge that under their interpretation no one can EVER do anything but exclude humans. The point is that you have no idea why someone leaves something out. Links of omission are not links at all.

 

By the way, can anyone name five cases that meet that definition of "persons" AND any definition of "social services?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...