Food Security Update
I know a lot of cases revolve around food security. This article has some interesting answers for harms saying that food security, while still bad, is actually improving. This is good mitigation for their harms scenario – by that I mean, it makes the problem seem not quite so bad. If they say hunger is a huge problem, you can read cards from this article to say that, while hunger is a problem, it’s not that bad. That should help you outweigh on the disadvantages.
Mitigation is often the only real strategy you have against harms. Usually the Affirmative case is well researched and some harm will almost always be present because most people talk about “risks” of impacts. Even if something is highly improbably (such as an asteroid hitting the earth), there is usually some risk of it happening. When you debate harms it’s usually sounds persuasive to a judge to talk about the risk of harms happening versus the risk of your disadvantage happening. If their harms is a very low risk but your disadvantage is a very high risk, it would be prudent to avoid the plan.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.