Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for an impact card for antibiotic resistance. I'm trying to say that antibiotic resistance leads to human extinction. I will trade for it. If you have anything on antibiotic resistance, please message me. I will trade for cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bad impact. IMO.

Why? Our teams found it very effective--huge, realistic, and likely. Solvency's the hard part, but most neg teams do a lousy job of attacking solvency with analyticals.

 

There's a bunch in our TPP Aff file, on this post: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/56955-season-over-partial-file-dump/?do=findComment&comment=893205

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Our teams found it very effective--huge, realistic, and likely. Solvency's the hard part, but most neg teams do a lousy job of attacking solvency with analyticals.

There's a bunch in our TPP Aff file, on this post: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/56955-season-over-partial-file-dump/?do=findComment&comment=893205

The likely part is scary. I started researching this and became very depressed.

 

Antibiotic resistant Ebola is gonna kill us all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Our teams found it very effective--huge, realistic, and likely. Solvency's the hard part, but most neg teams do a lousy job of attacking solvency with analyticals.

 

There's a bunch in our TPP Aff file, on this post: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/56955-season-over-partial-file-dump/?do=findComment&comment=893205

 

In addition to the TPP Aff file, the A2 Security K file has some cards justifying our representations on antibiotic resistance specifically. I think those are the only places where antibiotic resistance specific cards are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The likely part is scary. I started researching this and became very depressed.

Antibiotic resistant Ebola is gonna kill us all

Don't worry about resistant Ebola--ebola's already an uncurable virus! It doesn't spread because it's not easily communicable and kills too fast. Compare to AIDS (until recently killed 100% of patients, but because of long HIV latency period was transmitted a lot) or the Spanish Flu (kills quickly but transmitted by air).

 

The issue with antibiotic resistance isn't dramatic diseases like Ebola, it's ordinary diseases like staph and strep (MRSA, the dread of American hospitals, is an antibiotic resistant strain of staph). General antibiotic resistance means people die of infected ordinary cuts that are treatable today. Death in childhood and childbirth would skyrocket. It also leads to food shortages, as much of our livestock industry relies on effective antibiotics. If you argue this impact, emphasize that it's not about pandemics--that's the terminal impact takeout most teams talk about. It's about people dying en masse from the tiny diseases that we treat today with cheap generic antibiotics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think EXTINCTION from antibiotic resistant disease is unrealistic. Most diseases that aren't susceptible to antibiotics kill too fast or don't spread fast enough to cause extinction. I mean, I believe that it could cause mass die offs, but extinction is doubtful in my mind. 

Edited by TimeCube4Lyfe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think EXTINCTION from antibiotic resistant disease is unrealistic. Most diseases that aren't susceptible to antibiotics kill too fast or don't spread fast enough to cause extinction. I mean, I believe that it could cause mass die offs, but extinction is doubtful in my mind.

 

That's fair--but then, pretty much all "extinction" impacts except nuclear war are terrible (and nuclear war impacts are also pretty awful if they aren't directly based on nuclear aggression). In magnitude, antibiotic resistance < nuclear war, but is greater than almost everything else. That's why our Aff says it would cause "the end of the modern world as we know it - an extinction level impact," not "extinction." A billion deaths are bad enough; you don't need to claim 7 billion to win.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair--but then, pretty much all "extinction" impacts except nuclear war are terrible (and nuclear war impacts are also pretty awful if they aren't directly based on nuclear aggression). In magnitude, antibiotic resistance < nuclear war, but is greater than almost everything else. That's why our Aff says it would cause "the end of the modern world as we know it - an extinction level impact," not "extinction." A billion deaths are bad enough; you don't need to claim 7 billion to win.

Climate change is a pretty fair extinction scenario IMO. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...if we had people around before antibiotics I don't think anything close to extinction is likely.

Also keep in mind that there's currently little financial motive to making AB's for pharma corps. If we faced a dire situation then it seems pretty likely there would be massive government subsidies-even solar panels have them. The thing is that currently /in America/ there isn't a huge problem with AB resistance--its a looming threat for us and the gov is reactionary not proactive. That's why there's nothing now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...if we had people around before antibiotics I don't think anything close to extinction is likely.

Diseases spread waaay easier in the modern world though. 

 

Edit: I still agree diseases tend to be pretty dumb impacts but still

Edited by Trollanator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...if we had people around before antibiotics I don't think anything close to extinction is likely.

There were about 2 billion people in 1928, when Fleming discovered penicillin. There are about 5 billion more people today. Unless you're arguing dedev, a billion or so deaths is a gigantic impact.

 

Also keep in mind that there's currently little financial motive to making AB's for pharma corps. If we faced a dire situation then it seems pretty likely there would be massive government subsidies-even solar panels have them. The thing is that currently /in America/ there isn't a huge problem with AB resistance--its a looming threat for us and the gov is reactionary not proactive. That's why there's nothing now.

Our TPP file actually specifically addresses this point by focusing on the need to develop a pharma industry in Mexico where they have more of a need for treating infectious disease. Now, if you want to make an alt solvency argument...it's pretty speculative that the USFG could succeed with such an initiative when it's already too late. At most, it's a slight decrease in probability for a huge impact.

 

This also can be where you pull out your "focus on real suffering" cards--the increased death in childbirth and from minor infections stuff is very strong--it's what the world was like before antibiotics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is a pretty fair extinction scenario IMO.

 

Nah, it's much worse. The timeframe is extremely long under any credible claim of extinction, meaning that tech advances by then are unknowable. The changes are also so gradual that humans can adapt. And there's just a ton of mitigating evidence. Plus, you have no hope of solving with any domestic plan, and as a DA, the brink is impossible to prove.

 

Plus, strategically, everyone has a "warming good/warming not a problem" file; not so much for antibiotics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A billion deaths are bad enough; you don't need to claim 7 billion to win.

This was excellently said. Sums up the problem with modern policy debate. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what kind of philosophical ideas can be used in debates to back up the idea of "1 billion is enough"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edgehopper, on 07 May 2014 - 2:44 PM, said:snapback.png

A billion deaths are bad enough; you don't need to claim 7 billion to win.

That depends on the circuit. You /shouldn't/ need to, but some judges...

 

Also, don't confuse what I was saying for a statement that it's not bad-I said it wouldn't cause extinction. Even with more travel there will statistically be a portion of the population immune to almost any disease (but that's what bioterror is feared for right?)

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...

×
×
  • Create New...