Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
osaki2

Case NEG for Animal Soldiers AFF?

Recommended Posts

JDI put out a camp AFF solving for animal rights/ethics but no NEG file. T's always an option.

Does anyone have anything on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals k2 detterance shouldn't be hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasch/Schmit might apply as an impact turn to anthro.

 

edit:

 

actually, no probably not.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest to just look through the cards a lot of them are pretty bad. A lot of the cards are from a guy who's qualifications are "animal rights activist. Later on in one of the cards it says and this is a quote, "Let me qualify that I am not an animal rights activist. I do not belong to an animal rights organization." I mean if you cut like two turns to the aff you can beat it fairly easily on their cards are pretty bad. Also, only like five of these animals actually died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP: Consult the animals

 

or

 

CP: Allow animals to join the military. Aka: dont kick all dolphins/landmine dogs out, let them choose if they want to stay or not. All volunterer force.. Cut some card from a hippie saying we can communicate with animals if we just 'listen' to them.

 

Aff can't say you can't consult or whatever because that just links back their anthro args.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw consult the animals work well on another topic.

 

On the other side of the spectrum: iimpact turn anthro or animal rights (or K it). Absolutism of animal rights doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought consult the animals might not be effective these days as when I initially saw it:

1) more reasons why consult is illegit or why the perm solves

2) lack of communication = 100% takeout

 

Animal life trumps animal choice, but I don't think there are authors that make this argument. Also the status quo is slavery. I'm not sure why consulting the slaves before we release them was important. If they really wanted to be slaves--they could have decided to be via sharecropping or leaving the country to a place slavery was legal.

 

The reasons for some of these arguments may be in the euthanasia debate.

 

You could probably find links that this aff would increase softpower (ie just a simple--our compliance with statutes about international animal rights makes us look good internationally.). Then its all about imperialism is the root cause of domination & war.

(Just a warning...they will probably read hard power link turns they can read back at you can answer this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone ran animal rights and the plan was withdraw dog from Afghan, Iraq and Kuwait and replace with robots. my strat was

T Presens

T Reduce (The aff wasnt a net reduction)

CP: Kill all dogs in Afghan Kuwait and Iraq

Politics NB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but that CP doesn't seem to make sense with a politics net-benefit. First of all if the politics argument was plan is unpopular, then your CP wouldn't solve because killing all the dogs would be hugely unpopular. Also I don't think it solves the case, so there doesn't seem to be any point in running the CP in the first place considering all the offense a competent anthro aff team could generate against that CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CP: Kill all dogs in Afghan Kuwait and Iraq

Politics NB

 

Seems like it would be a whole lot easier just to say disad turns the case & that rights conflicts justify utilitarianism (and that the underlying reasons for animal rights can only be utilitarian in the first place--ie due to "suffering").

 

I assume this was bipart bad or winners win politics story for this to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm missing something, but that CP doesn't seem to make sense with a politics net-benefit. First of all if the politics argument was plan is unpopular, then your CP wouldn't solve because killing all the dogs would be hugely unpopular. Also I don't think it solves the case, so there doesn't seem to be any point in running the CP in the first place considering all the offense a competent anthro aff team could generate against that CP.

Politics link was plan/withdrawal unpopular. The CP didnt involve withdrawal so it didnt link. Their case was like, dogs using dogs in the military bad. I had case args like, cant solve all instances, killing them does. I had never heard of this aff b4 i made everything up on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm missing something, but that CP doesn't seem to make sense with a politics net-benefit. First of all if the politics argument was plan is unpopular, then your CP wouldn't solve because killing all the dogs would be hugely unpopular. Also I don't think it solves the case, so there doesn't seem to be any point in running the CP in the first place considering all the offense a competent anthro aff team could generate against that CP.

 

this

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...