Power7762 I get the feeling you dont have the full understanding of LD, or this resolution. The value "Life" is something absurd to run with. Methodologically, the only criteria that will provide the most "Life" is Death, being that one must kill to gain food, therefore life is not upheld. Next, the equal treatment of all life doesnt achieve life, it destroys it. When you eat beef, chicken, or produce items, are you telling me you value your life the same as the organisms you are about to eat? their Death, not life, that you condone in order to provide better for your own well being but lesser for their wellbeing? Life cannot be upheld without anthropocentrism.
Anthropocentrism does NOT say that humans are the highest animal, or than we are superior, and you dont have to prove a single important factor about the human race to win on the affirmative. I have written a case based around this and won every round with it and taken first, second, and third at every invitational tournament i attended. The thesis of the case is not than man is superior, but that man HAS to be anthropocentric. The definition of "Anthropocentrism" is "Interprating or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences"...No inclination of superiority is mentioned. Most helpful in writing this case was a host of assistance my former coach gave me, to which partial credibility goes to for the case. The evidence states that just as man prioritizes itself first, cats do the same, bears do the same, dogs are the same, and plants are the same. Find me one organism that does not, at the end of the day, dedicate all of its works toward survival. not LIFE, but survival. Self-Centredness.
So again, equal treatment of animals is not going to achieve life, in fact, in distorts it. Life and survival are not one in the same. Life comes from survival, but life is also lost in the same process. in order to survive, be it a herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore, some form of life must be taken in order for anothers to be affirmed. i.e. bear eats fox to live. life is affirmed, NOT achieved. consequently, life is also taken.
For the topic, i would recommend running both sides with the criteria of "The quality of life" or "the sanctity of life" as the value. Life itself is absurd to run with.
One thing that has upset me is the ignorant belief that one can write a case stating that the other side will lead to world destruction of life and that ones own side prevents it, and that aff/neg i.e. biocentrism/anthropocentrism is the determinant between life and death of all organisms.
secondly i am upset with the cases that talk about the human brain size, how humanity can think and reason, and the stupid moral agent cases. None of these properly answer the resolution and i have crushed them all for the most part and continue to wonder why they are even let through lips and teeth of potentially excellent debaters who use the bandwagon theories as a crutch.
i recommend that you spend alot of time REALLY studying the underlying logic of the terms and find an innovative V/C and run something someone else isnt. While running those bandwagon theories at invitational tournaments may get you 2-1 and break at quarters, thats about as far youll go without extreme luck or unless you hit someone who is about as mediocrely prepared for the debate as you are. not trying to mount an attack, but i am disappointed with the number of people pretending to be "debaters" who dont really "debate". part of debate is taking time to understand the topic. this doesnt mean define the words and find some synonyms, and then write a case and toss in some cards and be prepared for pre-written CX questions.
I actually pride myself on this year, because i have only lost 2 preliminary rounds for the Spring UIL topic and broke into the top 3 at every tournament, and nearly the same for the previous topic. If you are new to LD, spend time reading baylor briefs. like seriously, read the baylor briefs. then, read other briefs, every time you have a chance, go and print off a 30 page document and just read it. dont take 5 hours a day and hide in a corner, but dont be the guy who writes his cases ON THE WAY to the debate, or the guy who writes his case a week or two before districts. I have 4 cases, the two i ran all season which i was constantly adjusting, and my district cases, yet to be run that i have slowly been compiling since christmas break.
This is the best way to do it IMO. I also have prepared cards and responses for arguements and cards, but im different from most people who do this. most people who do this compile an index and just skid thru when they hear a certain key word that they have tabood in their brain and ears, but rather i have the responses tucked away in my head, and i have the cards in a folder. granted i do keep an index, but i have memorized most of them anyways, and dont really need them. The difference is that i know what im talking about, whereas the other people who do this dont, the just read from the paper and pretend to be smart.
so not trying to wave my own flag, but understanding the topic is the best way to understand LD. and 9 times out of 10, if you walk into a round with only your case, flowpaper, and a notepad, your going to lose. hands down, your either going to lose, your opponent stink, in which case it wasnt a good debate anyways, or your REALLY effing smart. I always have a backpack with a mountain of evidence and analysis and philosophical dictionaries and thesauruses because the worst thing in a round, to me, is to lose not because i didnt debate well, but that I COULDNT debate because i didnt understand what my opponent was talking about, and i wasnt smart enough to study it prior to the debate, or that i was lazy or ignorant and just didnt know. There is alot more to debate than what goes on in the round. there is also what goes on in the mind, and outside of the room.