Jump to content
Zuul

Big affs

Recommended Posts

but doesn't the BioD advantage solve for anthro?

 

 

Their forum of environmentalism only preserves non-human life so that it can continue to be exploited by humans. This fails to change the anthropocentric roots of environmental destruction.

Richard Sivil, 2000,Lecturer at the University of Durban Westville, and at the University of Natal, Durban. “WHY WE NEED A NEW ETHIC FOR THE ENVIRONMENTâ€, 2000, http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htm)

Denying the non-human world ethical consideration, it is evident that anthropocentric assumptions provide a rationale for the exploitation of the natural world and, therefore, have been largely responsible for the present environmental crisis (Des Jardins 1997: 93). Fox identifies three broad approaches to the environment informed by anthropocentric assumptions, which in reality are not distinct and separate, but occur in a variety of combinations. The "expansionist" approach is characterised by the recognition that nature has a purely instrumental value to humans. This value is accessed through the physical transformation of the non-human natural world, by farming, mining, damming etc. Such practices create an economic value, which tends to "equate the physical transformation of ‘resources’ with economic growth" (Fox 1990: 152). Legitimising continuous expansion and exploitation, this approach relies on the idea that there is an unending supply of resources. The "conservationist" approach, like the first, recognises the economic value of natural resources through their physical transformation, while at the same time accepting the fact that there are limits to these resources. It therefore emphasises the importance of conserving natural resources, while prioritising the importance of developing the non-human natural world in the quest for financial gain. The "preservationist" approach differs from the first two in that it recognises the enjoyment and aesthetic enrichment human beings receive from an undisturbed natural world. Focusing on the psychical nourishment value of the non-human natural world for humans, this approach stresses the importance of preserving resources in their natural states. All three approaches are informed by anthropocentric assumptions. This results in a one-sided understanding of the human-nature relationship. Nature is understood to have a singular role of serving humanity, while humanity is understood to have no obligations toward nature. Such a perception represents "not only a deluded but also a very dangerous orientation to the world" (Fox 1990: 13), as only the lives of human beings are recognised to have direct moral worth, while the moral consideration of non-human entities is entirely contingent upon the interests of human beings (Pierce & Van De Veer 1995: 9). Humanity is favoured as inherently valuable, while the non-human natural world counts only in terms of its use value to human beings. The "expansionist" and "conservationist" approaches recognise an economic value, while the "preservationist" approach recognises a hedonistic, aesthetic or spiritual value. They accept, without challenge, the assumption that the value of the non-human natural world is entirely dependent on human needs and interests. None attempt to move beyond the assumption that nature has any worth other than the value humans can derive from it, let alone search for a deeper value in nature. This ensures that human duties retain a purely human focus, thereby avoiding the possibility that humans may have duties that extend to non-humans. This can lead to viewing the non-human world, devoid of direct moral consideration, as a mere resource with a purely instrumental value of servitude. This gives rise to a principle of ‘total use’, whereby every natural area is seen for its potential cultivation value, to be used for human ends (Zimmerman 1998: 19). This provides limited means to criticise the behaviour of those who use nature purely as a warehouse of resources (Pierce & Van De Veer 1995: 184). It is clear that humanity has the capacity to transform and degrade the environment. Given the consequences inherent in having such capacities, "the need for a coherent, comprehensive, rationally persuasive environmental ethic is imperative"

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but doesn't the BioD advantage solve for anthro?

No, i wouldn't say 1 plan can "solve" for anthro

 

As for links

A) the one posted above about perserving

B] econ adv would link

C) i assume the "education" adv would be made in terms of human-centric education

D) by deciding what nature is and isnt "perservable"

E) impact scenarios are prolly framed in a human centered way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i wouldn't say 1 plan can "solve" for anthro

 

As for links

A) the one posted above about perserving

B] econ adv would link

C) i assume the "education" adv would be made in terms of human-centric education

D) by deciding what nature is and isnt "perservable"

E) impact scenarios are prolly framed in a human centered way

 

well usually the preservation of nature is the same as preserving biodiversity... idk. closest link card i could find in a pinch

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i wouldn't say 1 plan can "solve" for anthro

 

As for links

A) the one posted above about perserving

B] econ adv would link

C) i assume the "education" adv would be made in terms of human-centric education

D) by deciding what nature is and isnt "perservable"

E) impact scenarios are prolly framed in a human centered way

One plan can't solve for racism-I'm on my phone now so I can't bring up the cite, but I know there are cards out there similar to the "brick by brick" ones used in race ks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking of aquaculture or ballast water treatment (something along the lines of that) 

Edited by obamabanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking of aquaculture or ballast water treatment (something along the lines of that)

 

What is this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this?

Some people on my team are thinking of running aquaculture and basically you cultivate a controlled enviornment for the sealife to breed them etc. and it helps improve water quality, create a more sustainable supply to the demand of seafood, there's an economic advantage providing jobs and helping fisheries get more revenue. 

 

For ballast water (the inherency is really shaky) but every ship has a ballast tank where they fill it up with water and this tank with water helps the ship not fall over from tides. But with the water being put into the tank there are also organisms and fish in it. When the ship gets so many miles from shore of the country it is arriving to, it has to dump the tank which brings the fish into the new enviornment making them an invasive species. The solvency includes UV radiation killing the fish, switching out the water (I am not really sure on that option), or using biocides. I am not sure about this case though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people on my team are thinking of running aquaculture and basically you cultivate a controlled enviornment for the sealife to breed them etc. and it helps improve water quality, create a more sustainable supply to the demand of seafood, there's an economic advantage providing jobs and helping fisheries get more revenue. 

 

For ballast water (the inherency is really shaky) but every ship has a ballast tank where they fill it up with water and this tank with water helps the ship not fall over from tides. But with the water being put into the tank there are also organisms and fish in it. When the ship gets so many miles from shore of the country it is arriving to, it has to dump the tank which brings the fish into the new enviornment making them an invasive species. The solvency includes UV radiation killing the fish, switching out the water (I am not really sure on that option), or using biocides. I am not sure about this case though. 

The second thing seems terminally non-unique

 

Like, we've been sailing boats for god knows how long, and modern boats for at least a few decades.

Also, I'm not sure how the aff would solve invasive species-whether or not we bring new species in, there will still be invasive species there, and stoppint this type of ballast won't kill any invasive species.

 

EDIT:

Just noticed this post

 

 

but doesn't the BioD advantage solve for anthro?

You only care about biodiversity so long as it effects humans, as long as humans do not die you do not care about animals, and so on and so on.

Edited by Zuul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r3oqRuP.gif

Hah! Every attempt to negotiate only raises the price-38%.

 

Don't think you can go somewhere else either--I'm the only bookie in town with the funding necessary.

 

 

Oh, and I'll need your firstborn as collateral.

Do you run my school's financial aid department?

 

re: space elevators

not sure what it has to do with exploring the oceans, why the oceans are even a good place to put a launch system, and whether people have even found more than one card making any sort of topic-spec arg with this aff

 

re: "non-military"

biggest buzzkill ever

 

re: icebreakers

"substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans"

that means the e/d can't be military in nature. icebreakers were topical on the TI topic because people said TI includes the military, not because icebreakers were non-military. they are under the actual jurisdiction of the coast guard. that's like saying you should do scientific research with an aircraft carrier

 

re: affs i would have actually liked to see

someone said that ecological niche affs would be good. aggreeeeeeeed. using biol/chem/physx in debate should be done more. people did it a lil bit on the TI topic with economics stuff for stim debates, but it's always good when we bring in these technical topics like biodiversity and discuss them within the debate format. vastly improves the quality of education when we broaden our horizons from purely IR impact debates. the only issue is that the structure of debate (and policy-making, generally) prioritizes impact calculus - so those affs probably wouldn't win a lot of rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently writing an affirmative that uses the powers of smart growth planning to solve for Ocean acidification problems. Just tossing it out there it seems pretty viable.

 

Edit: The advantages are HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMY, and ENVIRONMENT

Edited by ultrapanda7
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently writing an affirmative that uses the powers of smart growth planning to solve for Ocean acidification problems. Just tossing it out there it seems pretty viable.

 

Edit: The advantages are HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMY, and ENVIRONMENT

Have fun running that, every one of those Adv links hard to Anthro.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have fun running that, every one of those Adv links hard to Anthro.

And links to politics and security!!!

I wouldnt run that aff if i were you....

Edited by idahopotatoe
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

re: icebreakers

"substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans"

that means the e/d can't be military in nature. icebreakers were topical on the TI topic because people said TI includes the military, not because icebreakers were non-military. they are under the actual jurisdiction of the coast guard. that's like saying you should do scientific research with an aircraft carrier

 

that and because boats are used for transportation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Earth's Oceans

 

Interp- Oceans are the oceans yo

 

Violation- Extra T- They develop in the oceans and in space

 

Justifies explore deep seas and nuke china.

 

Voter for fairness- Explodes limits we can't be prepared to debate any extra-t plank

 

Voter for Education- We already learned about this on the space topic, vote them down to set a precedence that space elevators are overused and stupid

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTricksfordays

 

The problem is there's no separable extra-T plank.  They build space elevators, period.  That happens in the oceans, so its ocean development.  That it also happens in space, and has space advantages, is just spill-over, not extra-topicality.  And we do that sort of thing all the time.

 

Its not like explore deep sea + nuke china (those are two separate actions), Its like having a Heg advantage off ocean oil development - advantages don't have to be topical, only plan action.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...