Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see it playing a huge role in this year's poverty topic. The Malthus DA has the potential to kill any poverty case that doesn't reduce the number of people in the United States, which of course many cases do not meet. Unless you're running a medicaid abortion aff. or placing child number restrictions on the poor, my advice would be to research answers to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see it playing a huge role in this year's poverty topic. The Malthus DA has the potential to kill any poverty case that doesn't reduce the number of people in the United States, which of course many cases do not meet. Unless you're running a medicaid abortion aff. or placing child number restrictions on the poor, my advice would be to research answers to it.

 

Too bad the development of synthetic foods and a couple centuries of population growth have shown Malthus to be an embarassingly innacurate theory ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see it playing a huge role in this year's poverty topic. The Malthus DA has the potential to kill any poverty case that doesn't reduce the number of people in the United States, which of course many cases do not meet. Unless you're running a medicaid abortion aff. or placing child number restrictions on the poor, my advice would be to research answers to it.

 

That's not a link to Malthus. The plan needs to have a positive (or negative, from Malthus's point of view?) effect on population growth; otherwise, you're saying that their case is bad because it doesn't solve something it doesn't try to.

 

I think the DA makes sense for cases that claim something like starvation harms, but it's not as good as the SSA topic. You'd probably have to read an internal link saying that case -> population growth, seeing how "quality of life" impacts make more sense for U.S. poverty than "loss of life" impacts.

 

All the same, it's definitely worth prepping answers for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>preparing my generic da's bad theory as we speak.

 

this seems like an absurd argument to me....

 

• generic advantages are pretty lame too--we don't get any research or clash or education from them

• that begs the question of what is a generic disad (is a "topic" generic....a generic?)

• lets make an active effort NOT to debate what people have entire expandos on + make an effort to debate things people have just 20 or 30 pages on. that makes for "better" debate.

• you kill hege, economy

 

"generic disads bad" is quite possibly worse than ANY spec. argument I've ever heard in my life. And making bad/filler arguments to attempt to spread the other team out just proves a desire to avoid anything resembling real argument. these are the highest form of whining...not legitimate or coherant argument.

 

likely these arguments will be made in conjunction with your specific counterplan I couldn't have predicted hurts my ground. sounds real consistent.

 

• the only disad arguments that make sense: spending tradeoff disads/process disads/rider bills/specific politics disads

 

Anyone disagree??????

 

(and ps. I bet malthus will link to 40% to 60% of affirmatives next year. Also people can use malthus to turn disads--theoretically at least)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(and ps. I bet malthus will link to 40% to 60% of affirmatives next year. Also people can use malthus to turn disads--theoretically at least)

 

exactly my point, its so generic it links to pretty much anything. how educational is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering a generic DA w/ generic DA bad theory is using a generic argument to say generic arguments are bad; absolutely absurd. Since when is "generic DAs bad" theory a good response to... well... anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly my point, its so generic it links to pretty much anything. how educational is that?

 

Define education. And how is it gained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Answering a generic DA w/ generic DA bad theory is using a generic argument to say generic arguments are bad; absolutely absurd. Since when is "generic DAs bad" theory a good response to... well... anything?

Haha this. If you can't argue a Generic DA then you should probably learn to instead of making a *generic* theory argument to block it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Generic disads bad" theory is not a fun way to go if you have any problems arguing topicality.

 

QFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>exactly my point, its so generic it links to pretty much anything. how educational is that?

 

You have to win that breadth beats depth....

 

If its so generic...you should have an impact turn (and a bunch of other arguments)

 

Clash...which generics tend to help...is the basis of debate.

 

Also generics tend to be the ones that provide education that you use later in college and that come up again and again in the literature (hegemony, economy, democratic peace, malthus/overpopulation, and ethnic conflict)

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...