Re animal rights topic paper

[JKM1993@aol.com]

There are few limits on the scope of this resolution. 

The topic paper makes the claim that the issues of environmental reforms and
deep ecology are implicated in "animal rights". Indeed, other topics
(specifically, the other topics yet supported by topic papers) are mere
subsets of this proposition.

In addition, the topic paper notes few limits on the policy actions of the
affirmative: agent of action, in the United States, and burdens of solvency.
In other words, any workable policy, authorized by the USFG, that increases
"rights" of non-human animals in the United States, regardless of the
locality for policy implementation (national or international) is acceptable.
What might those "rights" be?

This issue is skirted somewhat in the topic paper. The definition for "right"
in the topic paper, from the American Heritage Dictionary, is an
understanding of the word, "right", as meaning "correct" (i.e., "One plus one
equals two...That's _right_"; or, "Genocide is an evil...That's
_right_.")...How this definition fits the context of the resolution advocated
by the topic paper is beyond my ken...

I presumed that an understanding of the term "rights" in the resolution
referred to a legally enforceable claim, rather than a notion of correctness.
This former understanding is consistent with agency in the resolution and the
policy literature noted in the topic paper and bibliography. It is also
available in the American Heritage Dictionary.

If the resolution supports any legally enforceable claim for non-human
animals, what policies are excluded by the language of this resolution? For
example, isn't it arguable that non-human animals, like their human
counterparts, have rights to preservation that ought to include the
destruction/disarmament of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, the
installation of ballistic missile defense, etc.? Isn't it arguable that
non-human animals have rights to liberty that are threatened by any land-use
policy? Isn't it arguable that non-human animals deserve a right to reside
within territorial boundaries that respect humans, opening argument from any
other traditional policy proposition focusing on problem areas that primarily
affect human beings?...The topic paper, in evidence from Benton,even supports
these and other new constructions...

I do not mind a concept of debate that erases artificial limits on argument
creativity and construction. In fact, I have supported experimentation in
debate that includes decentralization of the topic selection process and
suspension of formal topics. While I support topic-centered debate, I also
see the dynamic, political, and strategic possibilities of policy debate
without a formal topic. As a consequence, I could support this resolution,
which incorporates the possibilities for many, many entire debate
propositions. (Although I am reasonably sure that there isn't much community
sentiment for such ideas at this time).

What I do mind is the 'busyness' of the language of this proposition. If the
resolution is to be a "no-thing" resolution, I prefer my minimalist vision,
which excludes terms in the resolution. (I have contrasted the benefits of a
"no-thing" resolution with even extraordinarily broad propositions before; I
won't repeat the ideas here). I'd prefer a resolution without terms, rather
than a resolution with so many terms, to accomplish that similar end...

John Meany
Claremont Colleges

---

• Prev by Date: kicking Rodger's ass
• Next by Date: Reply to Hoe re regulatory reform
• Prev by thread: Re: kicking Rodger's assans Tucker and Gehrke
• Next by thread: Reply to Hoe re regulatory reform
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page