Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thumbtack0

Biodiversity Impact Turns?

Recommended Posts

Arguments similar to Malthus that there will be a really big increase soon that destroys the environment later or that it creates super diseases that are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
biodiversity is key to biotech and biotech is bad

 

this post exemplifies why there's no significant debate scene in the Coastal Bend....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguments similar to Malthus that there will be a really big increase soon that destroys the environment later or that it creates super diseases that are bad.

 

You do realize, of course, that speaking scientifically, that makes no sense whatsoever. Increasing biodiversity is always good because it provides defense against super diseases, environmental change, etc. However, too much niche specialization doesnt necessarily breed genetic strength. Pandas are in trouble because they are genetically weak because they overspecialized to a specific niche, which when destroyed, crushes the survivability of the species. But that isnt the same as 'biodiversity'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize, of course, that speaking scientifically, that makes no sense whatsoever. Increasing biodiversity is always good because it provides defense against super diseases, environmental change, etc. However, too much niche specialization doesnt necessarily breed genetic strength. Pandas are in trouble because they are genetically weak because they overspecialized to a specific niche, which when destroyed, crushes the survivability of the species. But that isnt the same as 'biodiversity'.

 

The most common arguments are from Michael Boulter's 2002 book "Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man". Cites are on GBS DT's wiki, as well as the wikis of a few other teams like McDonogh BR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this post exemplifies why there's no significant debate scene in the Coastal Bend....

 

i didn't say it was a good impact turn. i just remember it being commonly read on the ocean policy topic. are you from the coastal bend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i didn't say it was a good impact turn. i just remember it being commonly read on the ocean policy topic. are you from the coastal bend?

 

this post exemplifies why there's no significant debate scene in the Coastal Bend....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i didn't say it was a good impact turn. i just remember it being commonly read on the ocean policy topic. are you from the coastal bend?

 

I used to live in Corpus Christi when I was younger, and from what I've heard the schools aren't that good debate-wise. My previous post wasn't meant to offend you, it was merely an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize, of course, that speaking scientifically, that makes no sense whatsoever. Increasing biodiversity is always good because it provides defense against super diseases, environmental change, etc. However, too much niche specialization doesnt necessarily breed genetic strength. Pandas are in trouble because they are genetically weak because they overspecialized to a specific niche, which when destroyed, crushes the survivability of the species. But that isnt the same as 'biodiversity'.

 

this is probably the best biod impact turn you can read.

 

Biodiversity -> Panda extinction -> Pandas key to China Econ -> Econ Collapse -> Extinction.

 

gg, nubcakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to live in Corpus Christi when I was younger, and from what I've heard the schools aren't that good debate-wise. My previous post wasn't meant to offend you, it was merely an observation.

 

i wasn't offended, just confused. i am not sure how you inferred anything from my post about debate in the coastal bend (a community that i am not really a part of). there probably aren't a lot of reasons why biodiversity is bad, so i was throwing an option out there. i believe the story is that biotech is key to cbw's, which are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is probably the best biod impact turn you can read.

 

Biodiversity -> Panda extinction -> Pandas key to China Econ -> Econ Collapse -> Extinction.

 

gg, nubcakes.

 

please do run something like that. i implore you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Dude, I have a huge file on this. I'm willing to trade. Just PM me or email at schroederofjacob@gmail.com"

 

So many grammar noobs

 

I is sorry the english grammar language is so perfect that I must bows down before its awesomeness at alls times of the days. I wills try to be more awakes next times I is posting so as to follow each little rules our language throw at us. I wills be happy to fully expresses all meh knowledge abouts this language in all informal settingz like zis one. O waits, I forget. Dis aint no Hitler germany! This is MURRIKA!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most common arguments are from Michael Boulter's 2002 book "Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man". Cites are on GBS DT's wiki, as well as the wikis of a few other teams like McDonogh BR.

 

If we read any additional cards that aren't on the wiki I can gives cites out if you know the author.

 

-Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the GBS cites mentioned above....

 

Species loss good/SPECIES BAD 1NC

 

SPECIES LOSS IS GOOD— A) IT’S KEY TO EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE AND LONG-TERM BENEFIT

BOULTER 2002 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 170)

The same trend of …… selection of vulnerable organisms.

 

B) BIODIVERSITY IS BAD—COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE MORE PRONE TO TOTAL FAILURE—SIMPLE ONES ARE STABLE

HEATH 1999 (Jim, Orchids Australia, December, http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm)

Some people say we can’t ……biological world more stable.

 

C) THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION

BOULTER 2002 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 67)

If biological evolution really is……..to retain life on this planet.

 

MASS EXTINCTIONS ARE CRITICAL TO LIFE ON EARTH—EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN LIFE FORMS WOULD DESTROY EVERYTHING WITHOUT CULLING

BOULTER 2002 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, 183-184)

The system of life on Earth behaves ……… to start again from scratch.

 

NO IMPACT: RECOVERY

 

NO IMPACT—MASS EXTINCTIONS WILL BE FOLLOWED BY RECOVERY, NOT COLLAPSE

RUSE 2002 (Michael, Philosopher and Author, The Globe and Mail, August 24)

Let me say straight out that this is the most egregiously ….. of its own, apparently, and can continue despite disruptions..

 

The Boulter book is on Google books....but only the first 15 pages. The 2002 is selling for about $1 used on Amazon (which means about $4 or 4.50 with shipping and handling) And there is always inter-library loan or copying the specific pages/sections at the local college library.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planet Debate recently produced a decent environmental destruction good file. Its not free though.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...