Jump to content

Recommended Posts

then you don't get your biotech good link unless the cards specifically mention zoos and research by those developing medicines etc.

 

To jump back a bit, no, you don't. I wasn't defending either poor internal link. But if someone can, props to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone knew how many national zoos there are in the US and if this is substantial enough to claim any true animal rights advatanges/advocacy planks. If people are still allowed to have pets, and if the states and private companies are still able to have zoos, is plan really doing all that much? I suppose it depends on how many nat'l zoos there are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering if anyone knew how many national zoos there are in the US and if this is substantial enough to claim any true animal rights advatanges/advocacy planks. If people are still allowed to have pets, and if the states and private companies are still able to have zoos, is plan really doing all that much? I suppose it depends on how many nat'l zoos there are...

is plane even a good idea?? most experts say no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is only 1 National Zoo, located in Washington, D.C. Whether closing the National Zoo is significant enough depends on your point of view. I'm sure those involved in the Zoo and its oversight would think it was significant. In a discussion about searching without probable cause or detaining without charge, the National Zoo seems pretty small.

 

If anyone can find a solvency card saying we should close the National Zoo because the animals would be better off, I'll help write the case.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is the problem with this plan. doesnt everything fit perfectly

 

Your name is mispelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is the problem with this plan. doesnt everything fit perfectly

Whats wrong with plan?!?!?!? you will lose on anything, this case holds no weight, assuming you can make it T. If you go with national zoo you essentially do nothing b/c of all the state zoos (opening yourself up to the states c/p) furhtermore show me in the constitution where it says animals have certain inalienable rights, i would like to see this (without taking anything out of context), furthermore i don't think anyones even come up with a solvency advocate yer at all (excluding PETA and all those other wag job org.), so if a plan doesn't have solvency you have a slight problem, at least thats my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Austin:

Solely for purposes of letting you know that I am familiar with 14th Amendment issues, I should tell you that I have been practicing law for more than 20 years.

 

The only way the Supreme Court could rule that the Federal Government doesn't have the right to detain animals would be to confer Constitutional rights upon animals. The Supreme Court can't just say "we think it would be good to stop the Federal Government from detaining animals." It's role is more limited than that.

 

If the plan were "have the United States Supreme Court rule that animals have Constitutional rights and that they are Constitutionally entitled to protection against being detained without charge," the 14th Amendment would apply to the states.

 

There are some problems with that approach.

 

1. It would be extra-topical. Giving animals Constitutional rights goes well beyond closing zoos or detaining them without charge.

 

2. It would be open to some very nice counterplans:

 

A. States with Federalism and politics. Unless you want to claim animal rights outside of zoos (which advantages would be extratopical), the counterplan picks up all significance except the National Zoo, while avoiding Federalism and politics.

 

B. Plan minus counterplans. Give animals many rights, but not all rights. Reserve out something like war dolphins and run war dolphins good.

 

3. Do you really propose that the Supreme Court should give Constitutional rights to animals? This would be radical, and lead to some interesting disadvantages:

 

A. If you kill a chicken for dinner and the chicken is entitled to Constitutional rights, you will have committed a felony. Similarly, if you have eggs for breakfast. Unless everybody embraces veganism overnight (a difficult proposition at best), the justice system will be very crowded. On the plus side, it would be fat times for lawyers.

 

B. If you run over a chipmunk with your car, and the chipmunk is entitled to constitutional rights, the chipmunk's estate could sue you for wrongful death, I guess.

 

Maybe there are advocates for giving animals constitutional rights, but I am not familiar with them.

 

The literature I have read from the animal rights people relating to zoos says we should close them. Closing zoos would be a legislative function, not a judicial one. It would not confer rights upon animals (and thus would not be binding upon the states under the 14th Amendment). I guess Congress could pass a law saying "close all zoos in the United States". But again, I think a states counterplan would suck up all significance except the National Zoo. If the debate is just going to be reduced to the states counterplan, I would choose a case that has better answers to it than I think ban zoos has.

 

 

I guess you could have a plan that says "Congress shall pass a law saying that the USFG cannot detain the following animals without probable cause." The Supreme Court could affirm the ability of Congress to make such a law, but by its terms it is limited to the Federal Government, and thus does not impact the states.

 

The principal problem I see with such a plan is that I don't think there is a solvency advocate.

 

The closest I came when I was researching this related to animal testing. There are good advocates for banning animal testing, and I think it could be a good case with huge impacts. The problem is that the advantages stem from banning animal testing, not from banning detention. I think the negative could run a counterplan saying, "we'll continue to detain the animals, we just won't use them for testing." The affirmative then has no significance except "detaining animals is bad." It wouldn't take much of a disadvantage to beat that.

 

 

Sorry I haven't checked this thread in a long time. You made my argument better than I could. The only way the FG could ban zoos would be to give animal rights. As an attorney you probablly know that the court traditionally decides these types of things gradually and over time. Interpreting things narrowly and leaving bigger questions for later. Although, affirmatives will be hard pressed to find a test case, the court could simply rule that animals detainment in zoos violates the first amendment. The key here is finding a sufienctly narrow enough test case to be topical (this is espec. less problematic in HS b/c these debates dont happen as often). The effect of the plan is the precedent stuff that you think is extra topical. Plan: court will rule animals have const. protection against federal detain. w/o arrest (I think this is probablly topical). Effect of plan: Federal circuit courts deduce a wide range of animal rights based on this precedent, slowly and narrowly as these cases arise.

 

I impact turn fism. and states doesent solve future precedent

 

plan minuse cp is not minus- plan text can be narrow and solve

 

radical yes- this is a criticle aff. Your talking to a vegitarian. Im sure you know there is a body of animal rights law (and animal rights attorneys) that advocate this type of thing. Most of which is for monkey and not chickens though.

 

Nazis hated chipmunks too... (i dont think your a nazi)

 

in the 2 dollar file i have since taken down by popular demand. There was a solvency card for Animal zoo rights spill over into ban on animals testing. Read through my previous post on the topic.

 

Im really board and its pathetic tonight is friday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I just don't see how that plan can work. I suppose if the Supreme Court were faced with a narrow test case, it could hold that animals held in zoos are entitled to Fifth Amendment protections. But I don't think a case could possibly arise. Animals have no standing to assert Constitutional rights.

 

This from the National Association of Biomedical Research Animal Law Section:

 

"In general, lawsuits brought by individuals who claim federal statutes are being violated, can only be brought against the agency that administers those laws. Individuals cannot bring suits directly against regulated entities unless the statute at issue grants individuals a private right of action. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not do so and consequently, many animal rights advocates would like to see the Animal Welfare Act amended to specifically authorize a private right of action.

 

Standing - Standing is a threshold issue that determines whether a person is entitled to bring a complaint before the courts. Several lawsuits alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act have been filed and rejected on standing grounds prior to consideration of the actual issue in the case. Therefore, many animal rights advocates have called for the AWA to be amended to ease the standing requirements, and/or to specifically grant animals standing to sue under the Act."

 

I think what would be required is a statute saying that animals have a right not to be detained in zoos. A zoo could then challenge the statute, and the courts could uphold it based on animal rights. But there is no statute now; so plan would have to require it, making this a Congressional action case, not a court case."

 

If this problem could be overcome, and the Supreme Court did grant rights to animals, I think the plan would get all of the disadvantages I outlined before. If the Supreme Court says that animals have rights (even if it is limited to the right to be free of detention), the lower courts will be hard pressed to say animals have no rights in other cases. How can they have a constitutional right not to be detained in zoos but no constitutional right not to be detained in laboratories? Or in stockyards? Or on dairy farms?

 

The kind of scenario you envision could apply with Congressional action. Congress could pass a law saying animals cannot be detained in zoos. The Supremes could find it Constitutional without extending that right to other spheres. Those rights would then be based on statutory action, not a finding that animals have constitutional rights.

 

I agree that you can impact turn federalism. But if the round is going to be states counterplan anyway, why not choose a case better suited to help you with the impact turns? I also agree that a states counterplan wouldn't get future precedent impact. I would say that's a good thing, but it would be debatable. Unfortunately, for the reasons outlined above, the plan doesn't get future precedent impacts, either.

 

For the same reason, plan minus counterplans would still work. If your plan is to have the Court give rights to animals not to be in zoos, counterplan could be to have Congress abolish zoos and claim wide-ranging animal rights bad.

 

I applaud you for being a vegetarian. This is heartfelt, not sarcastic.

 

I have read extensively in the animal rights literature. We ran ban dissection on the education topic and veganism as a kritik on the oceans topic. I have looked(albeit not exhaustivelly) for good solvency evidence for banning the National Zoo, because I still think it would be a good case. I can't find any.

 

I don't hate chipmunks. Some people say I look like a chipmunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that a "Ban Zoos" aff. of some sort was written (or at least started) at the Mercer University Institute. I have no idea what plan text is. If anybody does know I would be awfully curious to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nah? really? damn. you shut your fucking mouth boy. i'm not mean to no bitches. that's what they like to be called.

 

 

stop the hate. you may not realize it but you ARE being sexist and at the same going off topic by bringing in your original "bitches and hoes" statement, now what did you gain by bringing this out?

 

 

if this were a real round, i would kick your ass with a sexist lang. K.

 

got it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Have a Moral obligation to not treat animals cruelly

 

NatureWatch, non-profit animal welfare campaigning organization

http://www.naturewatch.org/foundation/lithuania/News/Autumn02.asp

Autumn 2002

 

On this special day we want all Lithuanians to reflect on the importance of animals and the economic and social benefits that they bring to the people, reminding all to follow St. Francis’ example. We want to highlight the moral obligation that we all have to ensure that animals are not treated cruelly. How different our country would be if we did not have our cows to produce milk, our cattle to produce food, our horses to undertake farm work, our hens to provide eggs, our cats for companionship, our dogs for police and army work, our wild animals to provide biodiversity and the animals that we use for education and increased knowledge at our national zoo. These are just a few examples and there are many more ways in which we use animals for our benefit and pleasure.

I think it is funny that u site this card...this is one of the worst cards I've ever read, if anything it is hinting at how we NEED animals to produce milk, food, and the like. It never states different is good, or at least it doesnt explain why we have a moral obligation or why this is cruel.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...