Jump to content
darkhorsediablo

Rights Malthus

Recommended Posts

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

 

Very true. I think that this argument though makes it a lot easier to win these types of arguments, plus if the 2AC invests most of their time in an initiation of framework, you're more likely to win the inevitability/cardwar issues on the flow, meaning as long as you care take care of framework in the block, this argument can be very devestating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure why you make such a big deal out of this. of course you have to win a utilitarian/consequentialist framework to win a da against a deontology aff. rights malthus isn't unique in that sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rimal is an amazing argument. Most people blow it off b/c they heard someone say it was dumb once and, come on? Authoritarianism good? That must be a joke. This causes people to write amazingly bad blocks. I've had really good teams read blocks with 2 or 3 responsive arguments on them and concede some of the really devestating arguments, like toto. inev. after the crunch.

 

I don't think rimal is K. Its just an impact turn. If you try to think of it as a disad, you'll just confuse yourself. You can force it into some arbitrary catagories but you'll end up with some bizzare classifications (my IL is auth. good? Tech solves is an impact mitigator?). I guess you could spin it as a kritik of the idea of rights, but there isn't really a reason to. You don't have to counterplan in authoritarianism if the aff links. Korematsu is the best example. There are lots of cards saying auth is coming if korematsu isn't overturned. You run into problems if you try to link it to something small, like racial profiling.

 

Rimal authors indict moral claims that ignore the ecological system in which they occur, but I'm not sure these claims really make sense in terms of the debate round. For example, Ophuls would reject a moral framework that called for the automatic rejection of dehumanization if dehum was needed to help the environment. But for Ophuls to care, you have to win that it is needed to help the environment. Otherwise, it seems like a link of omission at best. The easiest way to win that their ethic hurts the environment is to just win a link to rimal. So, I guess I don't see the strategic advantage of running rimal as a K or how the ethical arguments rimal authors make can function independently of their other claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rights Malthus is a disadvantage. Either to the plan or to a critique alternative. It is a good argument. I believe that is all this thread is needed for so I imagine we can close it before someone else loses a little more of their soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rimal is an amazing argument. Most people blow it off b/c they heard someone say it was dumb once and, come on? Authoritarianism good? That must be a joke. This causes people to write amazingly bad blocks. I've had really good teams read blocks with 2 or 3 responsive arguments on them and concede some of the really devestating arguments, like toto. inev. after the crunch.

 

I don't think rimal is K. Its just an impact turn. If you try to think of it as a disad, you'll just confuse yourself. You can force it into some arbitrary catagories but you'll end up with some bizzare classifications (my IL is auth. good? Tech solves is an impact mitigator?). I guess you could spin it as a kritik of the idea of rights, but there isn't really a reason to. You don't have to counterplan in authoritarianism if the aff links. Korematsu is the best example. There are lots of cards saying auth is coming if korematsu isn't overturned. You run into problems if you try to link it to something small, like racial profiling.

 

Rimal authors indict moral claims that ignore the ecological system in which they occur, but I'm not sure these claims really make sense in terms of the debate round. For example, Ophuls would reject a moral framework that called for the automatic rejection of dehumanization if dehum was needed to help the environment. But for Ophuls to care, you have to win that it is needed to help the environment. Otherwise, it seems like a link of omission at best. The easiest way to win that their ethic hurts the environment is to just win a link to rimal. So, I guess I don't see the strategic advantage of running rimal as a K or how the ethical arguments rimal authors make can function independently of their other claims.

John, you clearly forgot to mention the Hoppe cards for the 1NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rights malthus could be used as a impact turn against ks

 

YOU'VE BEEN HIT BY THE

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|

| RETARD__TRUCK | '|""";.., ___.

|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |

"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOU'VE BEEN HIT BY THE

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|

| RETARD__TRUCK | '|""";.., ___.

|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |

"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@

Classy, how many miles does that get per gallon?

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...