Jump to content
darkhorsediablo

Rights Malthus

Recommended Posts

is it possible to counterplan for it - like take out the uniqueness of 'authoritarian comming now' and keep the 'giving rights stall the authoritarian government from comming' as an answer to the perm. but what woudl the text be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a kritik. but this is great argument. anything that credibly turns rights good is, in my opinion, an argument you ought to know fairly well. plus, the ophuls stuff is really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more or less a DA/K, it's the closest think to a mix of the two you can come up with, so I have no qualms as to the forum that it's in :) Anyways, I would definetly say you're going to want to get to know the file really well before you run it in a round, and you're also going to want to run the position in front of a judge that's more receptive to the argument. Malthus has been around since before I was debating (I'm since done debating and have moved onto judging), it's all about how you plan on applying the outlook to the round and you really have to prove that all of the impacts are going to happen/could happen if plan is enacted. Also, I agree with Haxor, Rimal is a better author.

 

Mandie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its a bad argument very bad. Only reason you would win on it is if the other team doesn't have a clue what their doing

 

No.

 

My partner and I have been successful running it. You can run it as a kritik with the alternative from the Ophuls book (Politics and the Ecology of Scarcity Revisited, I think), which says that metanoia will engender concrete political arrangements which are congruent with an authoritarian government. My sophomore year, we ran it as a counterplan that would have congress pass the plan then the supreme court strike it down citing a broad interpretation of the antiquities act (oceans topic). It wasn't competitive, but I think Stephen Weil was the only one who picked up on that when we ran it against him.

 

The Ophuls and the Ophuls and Boyan evidence is pretty solid, especially since Ophuls basically separates his book into cards. You should also cut the article "Requiem" by Jay Hanson, and various other cards from http://www.dieoff.org. The most common arguments you'll hear are likely that 1) rights outweigh, 2) managed economies are bad, and 3) the crunch isn't coming. So, block out to those.

 

Hope that helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this a kritik again...?

-Ray

 

Oh that's right, it's not.

 

This argument is a DA and you can be very successful with it but it is one of those arguments like Spark or other highly technical arguments. It can very quickly become a card war about inevitability, survivability, etc, and winning the inevitability of the ecological crunch is very crucial to winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. definately not a k..

but rimal is AMAZING. The crunch is quite possibly the hugest impact ever. There are some nice cards out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it can be run as more or less a counter-critique under the consequentialism framework. The affirmative claims a moral obligation to preserve rights (or some other dopey pre-fiat implication), and you as the negative say no, rights are a bad thing because they lead to overconsumption and eventually the collapse of the environment and extinction. The alternative is the status quo or authoritarianism. It can be run as a strait up DA, but it can also function as a counter-critique of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes rimal can function as a counter-kritik but that doesn't change the fact that its a DA not a K. Rimal has uniqueness link and impact. Thats not a k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes rimal can function as a counter-kritik but that doesn't change the fact that its a DA not a K. Rimal has uniqueness link and impact. Thats not a k.

Is a counter-kritik not a kritik? I don't think the difference between a kritik and a DA is uniquness, because a DA can lack uniqueness and a K can have uniqueness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray: How is it not?? See earlier snoozedell post

 

Snoozedell: I'm just saying that its generally set up as a DA. Even though it answers back Ks.. it isnt set up as one. It operates on a policy framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A counter-K is a turn, yes, but a K all the same. The affirmative claims rights should be upheld, the neg says, no that way of thinking, that ideology, that framework (thus a framework kritik), drives the forces of overconsumption. Rights Malthus functions as a critique of rights with policy implications, and an optional non-policy implication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with counter K's, but that sounds wrong, it just seems like a da to rights, because it's still operates in a utilitarian framework, which fundamentally ignores the framework argument that the kritik makes.

-Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler, I have to disagree. It's not a "kritik of rights". I do think you're correct however when you say that is functions as a framework argument as well as a DA. RMAL attempts to under cut all of their rights mumbo-jumbo and get to the cold hard body count. This does not make it a (counter)critique of rights. It's pure consequentialism.

 

The DA just says all of your "rights come first" arguments are bullshit and lives precede rights. And, yes, I know the DA doesn't initiate this direct confrontational issue of framework first, but any smart 2AC will, making it an almost inevitable question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. But I think that you still have to beat them on the framework level for the judge to be able to vote for you which this argument by itself doesn't do, you have to prove that utilitarianism o/w deontology or this argument does you no good.

-Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya'll are missing an important arg that Rights Malthus teams go for - totalitarianism inevitable. That means you can still win within a "rights good" kinda framework because you avoid the possibility of the complete abolition of freedom in a totalitarian system in the future by maintaining a steady state NOW. You can make turns the case arguments about how civil liberties would be completely jacked during the crunch. You can also make arguments as to how the protection of future generations comes first. Etc. You don't just have to advocate straight up utilitarianism, you can do both.

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...