Jump to content
jbh428

Extinction good

Recommended Posts

What do i do when i hit a team that is only running case and the argument is extinction good i won the round but it was a struggle and i was hoping someone could tell me some good arguments to make against it

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but human extinction is the only way to solve for the extinction of aliens

Ayyy Lmao Wipeout my dude

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but human extinction is the only way to solve for the extinction of aliens

To them, we're the aliens. So both would self-destruct to protect the other.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do i do when i hit a team that is only running case and the argument is extinction good i won the round but it was a struggle and i was hoping someone could tell me some good arguments to make against it

wait isnt crossing christian the team that runs jesus stuff?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's just an impact turn to death, read choice theory that says even if death is good, people should get to choose if they die or not. The extinction scenario in the 1ac would take the choice away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read a disad to your aff in the 2ac with an extinction impact that happens faster than the aff's

but not at the same time as extinction bad since that would be the strangest double turn ever

Edited by Rnivium
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait isnt crossing christian the team that runs jesus stuff?

Yah and we win with that and if you think it isn't meant to be in the debate space that is your oppinion.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but not at the same time as extinction bad since that would be the strangest double turn ever

 

nah like

1ac - do our plan! solves warming - extinction in 50 years

1nc - extinction good

2ac - concede extinction good, plan causes china rise, causes scs war - goes nuclear - extinction in 5 years

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah like

1ac - do our plan! solves warming - extinction in 50 years

1nc - extinction good

2ac - concede extinction good, plan causes china rise, causes scs war - goes nuclear - extinction in 5 years

how does that work when you concede it and then you say it will happen in 5 years

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want real answers to give, you should tell us why extinction is bad in their case and what it's caused by.

it was anthro extinction

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often the key argument is something about overpopulation and/or the environment.

 

If its overpopulation, you probably have stuff about that.

 

Also, you can make long term versus short term distinctions.  Their cards are probably predicting decades and decades down the line.

 

They are functionally advocating suicide.  You could make the argument that thats bad. (I would be wary on this one)

 

Also, its coercive, which is ethically problematic for other reasons.  The other people would likely vote to continue their lives, because they've done so every day of their lives for the past 0 to 100 years.  History is on our side.

 

You probably want to talk about how:

1) Economic growth is key to saving the environment.

2) Technology is key to saving the environment.

3) Malthusian arguments are always wrong.  Find methodological critiques of Malthusian/overpopulation logic.

 

Your argument is that economic growth and technology ultimately decrease scarcity rather than increase it.

 

You can also make the argument that the environment is resilient.  That is, it will bounce back.

 

There's a dude, called Simon who has critiqued the Malthusians again and again.  Also, libertarian authors often critique malthusians.

 

So, if you have tech good and econ growth good (or answers to de-dev, capitalism, malthus, overpopulation, or ted trainer, you should have answers to this argument).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

You might check out the wiki pages to help understand it.  Its three arguments arguably together:

  • Population good vs. population bad
  • Technology good versus technology bad
  • Economic growth good versus economic growth bad

Really the technology and economic growth part.  

 

The argument is that their models don't assume the historical record of technology.  It helps if you have examples of how technology has helped save the environment in the past or will do so in the future.

 

So if you google "critique of overpopulation theory" or "critique of malthusian theory" you can find lots of answers.

 

I would also check out a couple wikipedia pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon

 

And I'm sure more recent folks have taken up Julian Simons arguments.

 

Oh, and I'm sure there are eco critiques you can run against this.  

 

You probably have some environmental generics that you could run against this.

 

Not to mention you have other impacts or cultural forces solve the environment.

 

You can also run non-intrinsic arguments (basically like counterplans on the aff as tests to test the link.  Its like perming the disad).  These are theoretically risky, so I would focus on carded answers.

 

Oh...you could also win that your short term nuclear war, if you have one of those impacts in your aff, gets to extinction--and increases scarcity of resources in the short run.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go

 

Extinction comes first – Humanity is the source of all values and rights, justifying extinction is the death of not just our biological entities but of everything we have ever hoped to achieve and must be stopped whatever the cost.

Schell 82 (Jonathan Schell, Scholar and Visiting Fellow at Yale University. “The Fate of the Earth” page 136)

Implicit in everything that I have said so far about the nuclear predicament there has been a perplexity that I would now like to take up explicitly, for it leads, I believe, into the very heart of our response-or, rather, our lack of response-to the predicament. I have pointed out that our species is the most important of all the things that, as inhabitants of a common world, we inherit from the past generationsbut it does not go far enough to point out this superior importance, as though in making our decision about extinction we were being asked to choose between, say, liberty, on the one hand, and the survival of the species, on the otherFor the species not only overarches but contains all the benefits of life in the common world, and to speak of sacrificing the species for the sake of one of these benefits involves one in the absurdity of wanting to destroy something in order to preserve one of its partsas if one were to burn down a house in an attempt to redecorate the living room, or to kill someone to improve his character, but even to point out this absurdity fails to take the full measure of the peril of extinctionfor mankind is not some invaluable object that lies outside us and that we must protect so that we can go on benefiting from it; rather, it is we ourselves, without whom everything there is loses its value. To say this is another way of saying that extinction is unique not because it destroys mankind as an object but because it destroys mankind as the source of all possible human subjects, and this, in turn, is another way of saying that extinction is a second death, for one’s own individual death is the end not of any object in life but of the subject that experiences all objects. Death, however, places the mind in a quandary. One of-the confounding characteristics of death-“tomorrow’s zero,” in Dostoevski’s phrase-is that, precisely because it removes the person himself rather than something in his life, it seems to offer the mind nothing to take hold of. One even feels it inappropriate, in a way, to try to speak “about” death at all, as though death were a thing situated somewhere outside us and available for objective inspection, when the  fact is that it is within us is, indeed, an essential part of what we are. It would be more appropriate, perhaps, to say that death, as a fundamental element of our being, “thinks” in us and through us about whatever we think about, coloring our thoughts and moods with its presence throughout our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest:

 

https://www.masterresource.org/malthusianism/population-consumption-carbon-emissions-and-human-well-being-in-the-age-of-industrialization-part-iv-there-are-no-pat-answers-or-why-neo-malthusians-get-it-wrong/

 

This is part of a series--this includes 4 articles--at the bottom of the list:

https://www.masterresource.org/malthusianism/

 

I highly recommend people learning this debate and actually cutting cards.  Its a great way to grow your skills in that department.

Edited by nathan_debate

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...