Jump to content
germperm1

good aff...but risky

Recommended Posts

for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

 

malthus has been empirically disproven by years of scientific advances, and was also racist. nad, social services dont generally come to mind as killing people? unless it was an abortion case, or assisted suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is stupid. not only do the latest UN reports show that recent predictions of rapidly increasing populations are off (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/headed_toward_extinction_12048) due to lowering fertility rates across the world, especially sub-saharan africa

 

not only do malthusian authors write in the context of countries with growing, not stagnant birth rates (i.e. not america, where the primary population boost comes from immigrants)

 

not only is malthusian theory the most emperically denied theory in all of anthropology

 

not only is malthusian theory a morally reprehensible, thinly-veiled excuse to blame the poor for the world's problems

 

not only are even smaller impacts to overpopulation emperically denied in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Africa, The Philippines, Malaysia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria, China, and Korea (http://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml)

 

but running this as an aff makes little sense, due to the fact that killing people is not a social service, and euthanasia (which is not a social service, but MAYBE can be stretched as one) could not solve enough for malthus

Edited by kevinwy
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see a lot of ppl posting surprise/shock affs in this forum that attempt to help ppl in poverty, but a lot of them dont include social services...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

 

irony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

Yeah, this really isn't a great idea due to the reasons listed above and that you don't sound like a coach..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who believe Malthus is an argument in favor of killing people should be the first ones killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

 

plan text?

 

The USFG should increase social services by instituting a Malthusian-population check?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could use Malthus as an advantage to a free abortion/birth control aff. The problem being, to make sense you need global enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for this comming year im trying to get my team that i coach, or at least one pair to run malthus on the aff. i know its risky and some judges might just drop there jaw and there pen. but i feel if took down the right road could be quite good and unexecpeted. good ideas anyone??

 

haha your vocabulary/spelling/grammar says it all. whats your purpose in posing?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I agree that Malthus is outdated, irrelevant and no longer true.

2. This wouldn't come as a surprise, only crudy debaters don't have some kind of Malthus block, no matter how dusty.

3. There's much sketchier aff's if your going for a jaw-dropper.

4. Its an uphill battle from the get go with this debate, not only because of #1 but also because of judge predispositions.

5. Not topical, not a social service.

6. Either your blatantly extra topical or you only check back the population of those in poverty, basically giving the round to anyone that runs any k with a kierarchy or otherization impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this basically is Eugenics, assuming you're going the route of death better than poor life like the other guy on this board. Excellent idea in theory, but many judges will simply see this as horribly offensive and write you off as a Nazi. I would suggest trying another approach, no offense. I'm all for critical AFF's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by risky you mean you'll lose every round then yes, it is risky.

if you want to read disads as advs then read some critical take on it, like fear of death or misinterpreted Nietzsche. Malthus=empirically denied like a mofo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
Are there links between Malthus and U.S. poverty?

 

 

probably not u.s. poverty, but i don't predict that u.s. poverty will be the sole aff advantage claimed next year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
probably not u.s. poverty, but i don't predict that u.s. poverty will be the sole aff advantage claimed next year...

 

Really? Are you thinking of modeling advantages or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - Living.

 

I would be concerned that a good negative would argue that living denotes existing in the present. Malthus, or at least how I assume you'd run him, deals with inconvenient sacrifices now to help humanity later on down the line (before the supposed "crunch"). If you're ultimately preventing/aiding persons who may or may not still exist in a state of poverty down the line, you would not be meeting an active interpretation of 'living'.

 

amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amirite?

No. The intention is to provide social services that kill poor people. The proposed aff is functionally bidirectional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T - Living.

 

I would be concerned that a good negative would argue that living denotes existing in the present. Malthus, or at least how I assume you'd run him, deals with inconvenient sacrifices now to help humanity later on down the line (before the supposed "crunch"). If you're ultimately preventing/aiding persons who may or may not still exist in a state of poverty down the line, you would not be meeting an active interpretation of 'living'.

 

amirite?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
Really? Are you thinking of modeling advantages or something else?

 

 

what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to do this is to run a normal topical aff that they will inevitably read a nuclear war impact to.

 

Then run nuclear malthus.

 

This is more unpredictable for the negative team. You are making a niche argument. It has the potential to collapse a lot of the debate in the 1ar + 2ar to this one argument. It makes the topicality argument far less of a stretch--calling pop. control a social service is guaranteeing losing half of your debates.

 

Perhaps if you extend abortion services or real family planning services to those who don't have them....you could be more topical.

 

Finally, its possible that you could improve the delivery (ie to solve for rural families/women or to solve for those who can't afford transportation) of an existing service. (ie telemedicine).

 

How this effects the criticism debate is a whole other story.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what?

 

You say that you don't think U.S. poverty will be the only advantage run next year. If you are suggesting that non-U.S. poverty will also be an advantage, I'm asking what the link is.

 

If you're just saying that there will be nuclear war impacts, or whatever, then there is nothing different about next year's topic from any other topic. And the Malthus advantage would be even weaker than it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
You say that you don't think U.S. poverty will be the only advantage run next year. If you are suggesting that non-U.S. poverty will also be an advantage, I'm asking what the link is.

 

If you're just saying that there will be nuclear war impacts, or whatever, then there is nothing different about next year's topic from any other topic. And the Malthus advantage would be even weaker than it seems.

 

 

 

I meant that there will be advantages other than "u.s. poverty".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...