Jump to content
wayfreshnclean

Successful Affs

Recommended Posts

K sounds good, i will just slap you with a bible till you cant remember what you were opposed to begin with

 

And thus the spanish inquisition was born...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i skipped a bunch of this discussion, i just wanted to ask a question... how does the precautionary principle apply to abortions?

 

wiki:

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

 

 

someone claimed that since pp is accepted in common science, point that pp is used in pro life arguments prove its validity.

 

how does the generally accepted "precautionary princple" apply in this instance?

 

 

redefining pp as "Precautionary principle is talking about how when something may become full life, we should treat it as though it is life" seems arbitrary and self-serving.

 

am i missing the boat or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok i skipped a bunch of this discussion, i just wanted to ask a question... how does the precautionary principle apply to abortions?

 

wiki:

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

 

 

someone claimed that since pp is accepted in common science, point that pp is used in pro life arguments prove its validity.

 

how does the generally accepted "precautionary princple" apply in this instance?

 

 

redefining pp as "Precautionary principle is talking about how when something may become full life, we should treat it as though it is life" seems arbitrary and self-serving.

 

am i missing the boat or something?

 

The way i have interpreted it is that since the fetus will become a life, it will be born, it becomes part of the public, and therefore we should do what we can to save its life. Its up to those who are pro choice to prove that it will nto become a life... which good luck. The point i am trying to make is not redifining it, its a way of interpreting, since the fetus will becoem a life, it will be part of the public, and since its right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body, the fetus should not be killed and should be allowed to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way i have interpreted it is that since the fetus will become a life, it will be born, it becomes part of the public, and therefore we should do what we can to save its life. Its up to those who are pro choice to prove that it will nto become a life... which good luck. The point i am trying to make is not redifining it, its a way of interpreting, since the fetus will becoem a life, it will be part of the public, and since its right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body, the fetus should not be killed and should be allowed to live.

 

 

interpretation is the same as redefining. even if its an interpretation, it is one that is not used by the rest of the scientific community, which nullifies the credibility of your argument.

 

"its right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body, the fetus should not be killed and should be allowed to live"

 

how did you interpret the precautionary principle to say this? again, arbitrary and self-serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok i skipped a bunch of this discussion, i just wanted to ask a question... how does the precautionary principle apply to abortions?

 

wiki:

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

 

 

someone claimed that since pp is accepted in common science, point that pp is used in pro life arguments prove its validity.

 

how does the generally accepted "precautionary princple" apply in this instance?

 

 

redefining pp as "Precautionary principle is talking about how when something may become full life, we should treat it as though it is life" seems arbitrary and self-serving.

 

am i missing the boat or something?

 

go back and read my parts. you can be my first disciple.

Edited by highlandmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interpretation is the same as redefining. even if its an interpretation, it is one that is not used by the rest of the scientific community, which nullifies the credibility of your argument.

 

"its right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body, the fetus should not be killed and should be allowed to live"

 

how did you interpret the precautionary principle to say this? again, arbitrary and self-serving.

 

You misunderstand my interpretation

 

The precautionary principle states that if it will be dangerous for a community then it is up to the opposition to disprove it, I argue since the fetus will become a life it will become apart of the public, and therefore the act of abortion is bad because it is directly harming hte public.

 

The right to life debate is another one entirely, here i am arguing that since the mother only loses the right to control her body for nine months we should value the infants right to life before that. Simply because when you deny the right ot control her body it is for nine months then she gets it back, but when you deny a fetus the right to life there is literally no way to reverse that, it will never have a chance to live. Ever. A lifetime is a longer and bigger impact then nine months of supposed "lost freedom"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstand my interpretation

 

The precautionary principle states that if it will be dangerous for a community then it is up to the opposition to disprove it, I argue since the fetus will become a life it will become apart of the public, and therefore the act of abortion is bad because it is directly harming hte public.

 

The right to life debate is another one entirely, here i am arguing that since the mother only loses the right to control her body for nine months we should value the infants right to life before that. Simply because when you deny the right ot control her body it is for nine months then she gets it back, but when you deny a fetus the right to life there is literally no way to reverse that, it will never have a chance to live. Ever. A lifetime is a longer and bigger impact then nine months of supposed "lost freedom"

 

again, this completely misuses the pp. pp is used when there is lack of scientific consensus on objective harms, not subjective morality. its not whether you can prove its dangerous, but whether you can prove its life. that you can't do, nor can you ever, because its an opinion.

 

 

you can't use the pp to prove the validity of the pp. thats circular. pp requires existence of life, there is only potential life.

"since the fetus will become a life it will become apart of the public, and therefore the act of abortion is bad because it is directly harming hte public."

that just roundabout way of saying we should protect potential life. where does the "opposition to disprove it" come in? through the abortion debate. thats completely circular. by this definition, since women are already part of the public, the act of abortion is good, because it is already helping the public. what public is more valuable? [reinsert rest of abortion debate]

 

 

 

also, the precautionary principle is a guide for policymakers, not the scientific community. it is a widely known scientific principle, but not one that is widely applied. look it up, we barely use a strong precautionary principle.

Edited by jz01
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to life debate is another one entirely, here i am arguing that since the mother only loses the right to control her body for nine months we should value the infants right to life before that. Simply because when you deny the right ot control her body it is for nine months then she gets it back, but when you deny a fetus the right to life there is literally no way to reverse that, it will never have a chance to live. Ever. A lifetime is a longer and bigger impact then nine months of supposed "lost freedom"

 

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

 

Also, I don't know why I bothered to read through the end of this thread, but I agree with John Zhao about the precautionary principle 100%. You are butchering scientific principles about objective facts in order to create arbitrary moral codes for your opinions.

Edited by Hong Kong Phooey
Please make productive posts without hints of flaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education is pretty good. Just don't---WHATEVER YOU DO run either reparations or assisted suicide. They are terrible.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Educations got a bad timeframe. No solvency for about 10 years.

 

Yes and no.

 

First, which level of education are you acting at? (pre-K, elem, middle school, or high school

 

What are you solving for? (poverty, hege, etc..) This case has multiple ways of solving--each of which has a different timeframe.

 

I think most teams would argue perception on this argument to get a quick economy/hegemony timeframe. Also you still get stimulus good for the economy.

 

This, however, does seem to be one weakness of this aff. Generally this is mostly a problem if they run a counterplan + disad strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Educations got a bad timeframe. No solvency for about 10 years.

 

I have to agree with you there. The only thing that education really has going for it is that it's a solid internal link to a lot of fairly decent advantages. Racism, democracy, hege, poverty, just to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think most teams would argue perception on this argument to get a quick economy/hegemony timeframe. Also you still get stimulus good for the economy.

 

 

The only problem with this strategy is that usually the internal link to a Disad will be stronger than the perception internal link in the aff, and sometimes be even quicker (Ex: Troop drop now comparatively worse for Heg) - meaning an easy case turn.

And as for the economy, the stimulus v. spending debate seems to get muddled in a lot of rounds, as well as the fact that many of the past stimulus projects haven't shown a big economic effect yet, so aff's would have a hard time claiming a solid timeframe for solving the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mr. Patel

 

Troop drop now comparatively worse for Heg

 

That seems true. Although that link debate seems to ignore qualitative issues--particularly in areas of military technolgy and leadership--as well as an overall increase in the rate of HS graduation. Overall, however, you seem to be right about the direction of the link--especially in the short run.

 

In the real world, 5k less recuits won't stop Obamas deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, or North Korea. Also I think our hege is more of a game of linear inches--the real threat beyond Iran...is probably Russia and China. The later two seem to be long range scenarios which the aff would likely solve--not sure about Iran, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Education is pretty good. Just don't---WHATEVER YOU DO run either reparations or assisted suicide. They are terrible.

 

Assisted suicide+best K evar=win aff.

Edited by bleachedneon367
Making the link work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K, jk mike i thought of what i want to say, when i said i agreed i only took the time to read the first one that says God understands himself, and i didnt bother to read the rest.

 

this doesn't answer what I'm saying, and if anything your point of God not being understandable by our logic fits within my framework of point of view. From our point of view, God is not understandable and is infinite. From his point of view, God probably understands himself and his own limitations.

This works pretty well until you place limitations upon God. See one of the major points of God is his 1. Omnipotence 2. Omnipresence 3. Omniscient. All of these show us that God has no limitations, that he is not constrained by anything, since he is the creator, the one who thought it all up, he is not constrained by this at all. So God does understand himself, but he doesnt expect us too, he understands his omnipotence, that he has literally unlimited power, his Omnipresence, that he is at all places at all times, and his Omniscience, that he has all knowledge and knows everything, but in no way does he expect us too understand him, in fact he states repeatedly throughout the bible that we cannot every begin to understand him

 

I think a more important question towards my theory of "point of view" is if we cannot understand or comprehend beings who don't fit within our own understanding of things, can those of the "infinite" understand those beneath their understanding ?

Yes, quite easily, its not just that we are below this infinite being, but that we are his children, his creation, and because of his Omniscience he knows everything about us, everything we think everything we feel. In all reality he understands us better then we could ever understand ourselves, there is no one who could understand us better.

 

What I know you will argue Hempkid is that God can do this, as evidenced by the bible; being his direct testament for humanity. To still fit within my framework, somehow this difference in understanding and comparative norms would have to reach some sort of balance. A medium between being different enough for the "lesser" beings to consider the "greater" beings as "gods", while still similar enough for some sort of interaction to be possible.

Explain a little bit, i am not sure if i get what your sayin here mike

 

A few imagined examples of this gap between comparative norms being too great for a recognition between greater and lesser:

 

- To return to my earlier analogy: To imagine that each cell in our bodies is a universe, how would we ever be able to communicate with the sentient beings within, or them with us? Would we even know of their existence, them of ours?

God communicates via prayer and through direct revelations, this isnt a concept that is just the old testement, revelations and speaking with God still happens, it might not be like God jumping down from the clowds, but through his word and through the people God puts us into contact with he still communicates with us. And we can communicate with him via our usage of prayer, a always direct line to God.

 

- Now, imagine perhaps God has his own deity who he prays too, who is "infinite" to his point of view. The concept of infinity cannot be made larger, it is a set idea of absolute maximum. If we can't even comprehend God, and can we comprehend what the infinite considers infinite.

First Off No. That might work if we ignore the Bible and start creating random theories trying to make ourselves level with God. This idealogy is flawed in two major ways 1. We dont ignore the Bible, it is God's direct words to us and a way for us to understand him and a way for us to base our lives, you cant just ignore that 2. An attempt to make ourselves level with God inevitably fails, man cannot ever hope to attain the level of God, or to bring God down to our level, the fundemental idealism to God's basic concepts is the three Omni's, and these show that he is above everything, not constrained to anything, and not lower then anything.

 

hell, there could be an entire hierarchy of beings above and below humanity in the food-chain of existence. and frankly, it fucking creeps me out.

Uh.... Again No. The bible directly says that God is at the top, now your argument of point of view could work here saying that it is mans point of view that he is at the top, but at the point that the Bible is God's direct word, his own words, shows that he is the top of the top. The God above all else. There is no hierarchy, there is no structure of some God's above ours, there is our God who is above all things, and then there is us, his people and creation.

 

 

God is infinite, we are finite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God.Is.Dead.

 

 

Right i forgot that man can define and describe God, we totally can put the God who made everything into our little box and say he is dead. Oh wait....

 

 

 

PO Boxes has been doing well, as has Head Start.

 

PO boxes is alright, but it way effects T

 

Head start is alright its just a matter of timeframe, most of your advantages take along time to come into play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right i forgot that man can define and describe God, we totally can put the God who made everything into our little box and say he is dead. Oh wait....

 

Fail-christian can't recognize a nietzsche quote...

 

could it be, that this sage had not heard the news, that God is dead?

You probably also don't get the context of this quote, or what it meant to nietzsche, so your answer makes no sense.

also, in nietzsches context you killed God.

 

EDIT: also, prove God or gtfo

EDITEDIT: anon neg repper, do your research. I am on the wiki. fail.

http://debatecoaches.org/wiki/index.php?title=2009-2010_Smithville_(TX)_-_Kyle_Lostovica_and_Chris_Leonardi

Edited by X Spike
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...