Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rambo

Animal Rights

Recommended Posts

Maybe you could claim that by stopping animal testing you would strengthen the morality of the society. I can't list any sources, but I'm sure they're out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humyn testing is allowed. We test all sorts of things on subject groups.

Topicality should be about "what the rez sez," but that's what interpretations are for. The only interpretation you're going to find about search + seizure laws is in the US constitution, which does not include animals in the Bill of Rights.

Further, in a game where we're arguing which interpretation limits better, an interpretation involving humyns and only humyns would win. If we can expand the topic to include other species, why not protect extraterrestrials against search without probable cause?

Additionally, this begs the question: at what point do you draw the line? If we expand the interpretation of the constitution to include animals, should we charge someone with murder for stepping on a bug? If a persyn hits a deer on the highway, have they committed vehicular manslaughter? Are fishers serial killers? Should you be charged with destruction of property for cutting down a tree to burn as firewood? Can animals older than 18 purchase tobacco products? That's a trick I'd teach to my pet. . .

This case, while having some advantages, is not feasible in the real world, aside from being outside the reasonable bounds of the resolution.

 

 

i think these cases would be less about search and seizure and more about detained without charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hang'in With Special Agent Dale Cooper
what word would animal testing violate?

 

probably "civil liberties"

 

animals might be considered to have rights but civil liberties is a term referring to protections retained by citizens under a government. non-humans aren't citizens.

 

i can't believe anyone is even considering this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the phrase "civil liberties" isn't in the resolution

 

the rez is:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

 

what words doesn't ban detention of animals meet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what words doesn't ban detention of animals meet?

 

This is a reason why literalist readings of the resolution are stupid.

 

Here's a pepsi challenge: instead of asking where the resolution says it isn't topical, how about where the resolution says it is topical?

 

I want anyone who has defended this case as topical in this thread to produce a single piece of evidence describing animal testing in the context of the USFG's authority to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this seems topical to me:

the united states federal government should terminate its detention of animals in (the) national zoo(s).

 

the united states federal government controls the US Park Police, which controls has jurisdiction over national zoo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_National_Zoological_Park>. There, the zoo detains animals. These animals have not been charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this seems topical to me:

the united states federal government should terminate its detention of animals in (the) national zoo(s).

 

the united states federal government controls the US Park Police, which controls has jurisdiction over national zoo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_National_Zoological_Park>. There, the zoo detains animals. These animals have not been charged.

 

wow. consider me utterly blown away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. This case is horrible. If you're not going to be topical, at least run a case with good advantages...

 

Yeah, i'm convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case, while having some advantages, is not feasible in the real world, aside from being outside the reasonable bounds of the resolution.

 

it is completly feasible in the real world... completely, and i beleive animal testing SHOULD be banned.

 

w/the testing on humyns, it is allowed only with CONSENT... lets do a little comparison, did the scientist in nazi germany have the right to do testing upon their subjects?? the nazis considered the jews to be less than humyn and less worthy of life such as ass hole animal testers consider animals to be less worthy of life. you might argue that animals are less competent than humyns, have less brain capacity(which is questionable), and arent able to speak w/us, but neither do mentaly retarted people, should we preform cruel expirements upon mentally retarted people?? i think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hang'in With Special Agent Dale Cooper

animals are not humans, it's pretty simple. anthopocentrism is a good thing, or at least not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is completly feasible in the real world... completely, and i beleive animal testing SHOULD be banned.

 

w/the testing on humyns, it is allowed only with CONSENT... lets do a little comparison, did the scientist in nazi germany have the right to do testing upon their subjects?? the nazis considered the jews to be less than humyn and less worthy of life such as ass hole animal testers consider animals to be less worthy of life. you might argue that animals are less competent than humyns, have less brain capacity(which is questionable), and arent able to speak w/us, but neither do mentaly retarted people, should we preform cruel expirements upon mentally retarted people?? i think not.

I'm not trying to start a moral discussion. It is not possible within the framework of our legal system to guarantee animals legal rights. As I've already stated, this would cause utter chaos. Is this unfortunate? Maybe. I'm undecided on the ethical side of this discussion.

However, this case remains completely unrealistic. It's a bad idea, so I advise reserving your animal rights activism for your personal life rather than your debate career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthopocentrism is a good thing, or at least not bad.

 

WRONG!! i beleive that you seriously need to re-evalute your view on things, or actualy evaluate it at all would be a good step.

 

However, this case remains completely unrealistic. It's a bad idea, so I advise reserving your animal rights activism for your personal life rather than your debate career.

 

look at any kritik alternative card... the philosophy in any of them that you chose to look at explains how in round kritik can solve real world problems. this case is completely realistic. you say that it would cause utter chaos on the system, but when slavery was abolished THAT caused utter chaos on the system, but was that bad? did it seem like a realistic and economically wise thing to do at the time? of course not, but it happened because they knew it was the right thing to do.

 

what if in the begining before human evolution occured there was a super species that liked to test things on inferior beings and they decided to test things on our ancestor, the cave man? what if we didnt evolve after that? what if our race was exterminated? and would you agree that because they weren't of equal inteligence as we are today that they had less of a right to live? would you say that they couldn't feel teh pain anyways? humans evolved from animals, the primates whom scientist spray perfume in their eyes just to see if it hurts, are our closest syblings. one might even say they are just at an earlier stage of evolution than us. its like vivisecting a little kid with downs syndrome.

 

Sorry for going of the subject of the intention of this thread, but yeah, i still think there i totally ground for a case like this and props to anyone that writes one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its the idiotic alternative to Gendered language. Instead of saying huMAN or woMAN, they mark over the MAN part of it by trading the A for a Y.
You should choose your adjectives more wisely in order to avoid looking like a moron.
look at any kritik alternative card... the philosophy in any of them that you chose to look at explains how in round kritik can solve real world problems. this case is completely realistic. you say that it would cause utter chaos on the system, but when slavery was abolished THAT caused utter chaos on the system, but was that bad? did it seem like a realistic and economically wise thing to do at the time? of course not, but it happened because they knew it was the right thing to do.
Your first mistake is assuming that a K alternative solvency card would somehow justify this case's real world effects. However, all a K solvency card would do is legitimate your philosophical, not practical stance.

On the slavery issue: this is apples and oranges. However, you do give a great example where ethically-controversial issues in a policy context have caused huge problems. However, slavery was an issue of humyn rights. We, as people, have something drastically in common that separates us from other beings. We're capable of speech, communication, and a much higher level of decisionmaking than other animals. This, at the very least, gives a justification in our legal system for giving people of different ethnicities equal rights. Hell, there's even a constitutional reason for it: the US Constitution repeatedly enumerates rights available to PEOPLE.

What you're proposing would rewrite the US Constitution and leave our legal system in an operational shambles. Much different from slavery.

what if in the begining before human evolution occured there was a super species that liked to test things on inferior beings and they decided to test things on our ancestor, the cave man? what if we didnt evolve after that? what if our race was exterminated? and would you agree that because they weren't of equal inteligence as we are today that they had less of a right to live? would you say that they couldn't feel teh pain anyways? humans evolved from animals, the primates whom scientist spray perfume in their eyes just to see if it hurts, are our closest syblings. one might even say they are just at an earlier stage of evolution than us. its like vivisecting a little kid with downs syndrome.
I'm not arguing an animal's right to life, and I'm not saying everything has a right to life. But I do maintain that the practical application of such a philosophy on a broad scale, and enforced in all areas of life, would utterly DESTROY the fabric of society.

 

As much as animals may deserve rights, our system isn't designed to handle such a drastic revision of our views. There would probably be open rebellion on the part of hunters and those of us that eat meat. Sorry, kiddo, this just isn't workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much different from slavery.

 

How so? We currently treat a group of lifeforms in a grossly exploitative and unfair manner. Just as we now look back on the notion a black inferiority as rediculous (as it is), we will one day look back on the notion of animal inferiority as similar lunacy.

 

I'm not arguing an animal's right to life, and I'm not saying everything has a right to life. But I do maintain that the practical application of such a philosophy on a broad scale, and enforced in all areas of life, would utterly DESTROY the fabric of society.

 

As much as animals may deserve rights, our system isn't designed to handle such a drastic revision of our views. There would probably be open rebellion on the part of hunters and those of us that eat meat. Sorry, kiddo, this just isn't workable.

 

Our society was capable of sustaining the abolishion of slavery despite half the nation's cries that it would destabilize our economy and ruin our country. With the attitude you present, we can justify any injustice or pardon any refusal to change the status quo for the better by claiming that "it would utterly DESTROY the fabric of society." Bullshit. Society has been reformed throughout history and this mindset is one of speciest laziness and apathy. Besides, it would be morally wrong regardless to not try to adress the issues of specism regardless of the circumstances.

 

Despite all of this, however, this affirmative blows harder than a lab rodent with an adrenaline overdose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How so? We currently treat a group of lifeforms in a grossly exploitative and unfair manner. Just as we now look back on the notion a black inferiority as rediculous (as it is), we will one day look back on the notion of animal inferiority as similar lunacy.
Look, I'm going to make myself perfectly clear: I'M NOT SAYING ANIMALS DON'T DESERVE RIGHTS. I will probably concede that animals are horribly mistreated and it's not right that we regard them like this.

HOWEVER, fluffy_commie, you need to fucking read my post, rather than editing my words out of context. The reasons I gave for slavery being different were entirely based upon workability, not ethicality. So don't address them as if I were ethically supporting the mistreatment of animals.

Our society was capable of sustaining the abolishion of slavery despite half the nation's cries that it would destabilize our economy and ruin our country.
Except that half of the nation was right, as far as they were concerned. Southern states, for the most part, have THE WORST economies in the US, both per capita and on the gross level. This is today.
With the attitude you present, we can justify any injustice or pardon any refusal to change the status quo for the better by claiming that "it would utterly DESTROY the fabric of society."
Wrong. There are plenty of humyn problems we can solve without destroying our society. However, animals are outside our means at this point.
Society has been reformed throughout history and this mindset is one of speciest laziness and apathy. Besides, it would be morally wrong regardless to not try to adress the issues of specism regardless of the circumstances.
Alright, it's morally wrong. Go lobby congress for reform. Don't run this as a debate case, though. You'll get the same response in both forums. And in debate, you'll just be throwing away your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumption of animals is a requirement for the survival of humanity.

 

Tara: As an advocate of Malthus you should recognize that at one point the planet would cease to be capable of producing sufficient green stuff to be eaten. Producing enough beans and whatnot to provide the population with protien is hardly possible now. The rise of farming caused large ammounts of deforestation and habitat destruction. Essentially, for the alternative to the consumption of animals to take place, either more habitat for the animals would have to be destroied or urban human habitat would have to be destroied. Either way down the road, you end up killing off somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...