The quote above this paragraph shows a quiet moment where Swift drops his satirical mask and gives the reader a sense that this text not just about eating babies, although he does make them sound quite delicious. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account.
Notify me of new comments via email. A copy of the original print. A little humour never hurt anyone. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email required Address never made public.
We could then gather the world's armies including China's, whose armies are not unfamiliar gunning down civilians and lock down the east Coast of China and begin the world wide hunger games!
Conclusion Johnathan Swift's Modest proposal will not work considering the rate at which the poor reproduce and the invisbility of most of the poor. My proposal will work because it annihilates the poor once and for all and even has a plan in case they return! I shall be defending the motion that Jonathan Swift was right!
Let them eat babies! For my opening statement, I shall present my plan, and then I shall respond to Con's rebuttal and counterplan. But first a quick note: This will ensure that we both have an equal number of speeches with which to make our respective cases. Okay, on to the arguments! I will also attempt to demonstrate that eating babies will help solve for world hunger, but, as the resolution states, I ONLY have to show that it is a solution for overpopulation; any benefits regarding world hunger are ancillary, and I have no obligation to prove or uphold these ancillary benefits.
Presentation of the thesis. Thus, I assert that cannibalizing babies is the solution to overpopulation. Is overpopulation a problem? Firstly, I will establish that overpopulation is, in fact, a problem. While this seems fairly obvious when taken on face value, there are several factors to consider.
How many people can the Earth support? When will growth rates begin to slow and approach the statistically inevitable zero? What is the timeline for all of this? There seems to be little consensus within the scientific community regarding how many people the Earth is capable of supporting. This is all relative the our technological capacities as well as the functionality of our economies. Yet, most scientist to acknowledge that there will come a time, probably within the next century , in which the Earth will be too small for the number of humans living on it.
The UN projects the global population to reach in excess of billion people by far more that can be managed . The UN asserts that this increase is near inevitable if birth rates remain the same. Now, statistically, it is also inevitable that growth will approach zero--in other words, the exponential growth will flatten out at some, undefined point in the future.
But, there is again no consensus on when this stabilization will occur. In fact, it is likely, according to Malthus and other theorists, to occur just as food resource begin to strain to support them. Basically, when we start to starve, we'll stop reproducing. This could lead to a variety of problems, ranging from poor living conditions due to rapid growth to starvation and poor quality of life due to the strain on resources.
From this it is not ridiculous to hypothesize that nations will fight over remaining resources. So, in order to correct for 1 a lack of resources both natural and man-made , 2 the risk of war, and 2 a simple lack of space, something must be done to solve for overpopulation.
Moreover, Con never disagrees that a solution to overpopulation must be found; he just disputes what solution we should employ. That leads me into the final point of my case.
This would not only have a significant population-stabilizing impact billion children are born into poverty --but they could also be used to feed the hungry around the world. That would essential cut humanity's growth rate in half , because one of every 2 children could be used for food.
I'll take 'em one at a time. Moreover, abortions for the poor are unsafe, because the poor are less likely to have adequate care facilities . Therefore, it is actually safe to carry the child to term and then to kill it.
The goal is feeding the population. Obviously, not everyone can eat smoked salmon, but they do need to be fed.
Also, I am not out to eliminate poverty, because people can always fall into poverty from higher social stations. So, I'm not concerned with the beautifying the poor--I am more concerned with feeding people and saving the planet from the pains of population growth.
If I have 10 people who each progressively make more money, and I kill person 1, then person 2 is the next poorest. This second person becomes the new impoverished class. And, while Con says he responds to the hypothetical objections he raised, he never explains how we could reach criteria for his plan. Also, keep in mind that there is a significant risk of spillover violence, especially when we consider that billions of people live in poverty.
How could we control a hunger games of billions of armed an angry poor people. Therefore, we should all prefer my plan to Con's counterplan. Report this Argument Con The modest proposal will not work The modest proposal of devouring the children of the poor is not going to work still based on the rate of reproduction and hsi source http: So this argument still stands as valid.
My counter-plan My counter plan would still work because it would get rid of what he describes as the poor class and leaving only the people making more than 1. Also, we would not be overrun if we did it by a region by region basis.
If this ever seemed to be a problem, it would be very easy to destroy them with our non-radioactive weapons. A new world order would arise for the rich. My arguments still stand unrefuted. Killing them off is much better than eating them! So, I'll defend my case, address my opponent's case, and summarize why I am winning.
Use it to evaluate the round. Con agrees that overpopulation is a problem. Therefore, whoever solves it best wins. Con never addresses that eating the poor's babies would cut the population's growth rate in half. Thus, I am solving for overpopulation. I'll go over my round two arguments against him, and then address his round three points. We agree here 2. Okay, so even if abortions are going up, Con utterly DROPS that abortions for the poor are unsafe, and should therefore be discouraged.
Note: Jonathan Swift (), author and satirist, famous for Gulliver's Travels () and A Modest Proposal (). This proposal, where he suggests that the Irish eat their own children, is one of his most drastic pieces.
In this satirical essay, Swift offers up one solution to Ireland's devastating food shortage: eating babies. The full title of the essay, An Introduction to Satire: A Modest Proposal - The Write Practice Here's the definition of satire according to Google: The use of humor, irony, by Swift is that poor families should sell their newborn babies to rich families to .
A Modest Proposal has become one of the most imitated and cited of all satirical essays to this day. Unfortunately, thousands of writers title their straightforward ideas “modest proposals,” without any apparent irony, indicating a . The actual issues are addressed in a serious undertone beneath the outlandish proposals and considerations of eating Irish babies in this funny yet serious, satirical essay by Swift. Popular Essays The barber's Trade union Summary.
When the reader encounters the "unless," the reader might think that the writer is about to acknowledge that, after all, the idea of eating babies is morally wrong. Swift subverts this expectation by continuing the satire, naming the unexpected objection of . Jul 25, · A Modest Proposal Satire Essay. A Modest Proposal Essay. Words | 5 Pages. In Jonathan Swift’s satire, “A Modest Proposal”, Swift writes about the starving people of Ireland in the early ’s. He makes a wild and absurd proposal to help remedy the problems of overpopulation and poverty. He only uses eating babies in his essay.