Jump to content
rabbitXcore

Crazy Plans

Recommended Posts

Okay so none of this needs to be taken too seriously but here are a few "fun" cases i've been working on...feel free to add your own crazy ideas...just remember dont get too serious, sometimes it's better to just mess around..espescially 3 months before most of us even start practice on the topic :P

 

#1. Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces; by cloning current members of the program(s) on a volunteer basis.

 

#2. ;By outsourcing membership in the Program(s) to <insert counrtyhere(i like india)>

 

#3. The U.S. supreme court will rule that all mamals currently serving in the program(s) have the status of persons.

 

the third might be something that i develop further, just lemme know what you think.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#3. The U.S. supreme court will rule that all mamals currently serving in the program(s) have the status of persons.

 

the third might be something that i develop further, just lemme know what you think.

i realize you don't want tit to be "serious" but you said let me know what you think so here it is.

 

why would you ever think about "developing" this 3rd option any further, hell why would you even brainstorm this idea. its ridiculous, there is no way you could ever make it topical.

 

oh yeah thiere is already a thread on this in this forum.

 

the otehr 2 would be fun to run if developed right, especially the cloning one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember back in my day we used to go back and forth about these types of case ideas... we used to shoot around in the debate room and .......um.

 

i forgot the rest of the story but your moms a whore

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i realize you don't want tit to be "serious" but you said let me know what you think so here it is.

 

why would you ever think about "developing" this 3rd option any further, hell why would you even brainstorm this idea. its ridiculous, there is no way you could ever make it topical.

 

oh yeah thiere is already a thread on this in this forum.

 

the otehr 2 would be fun to run if developed right, especially the cloning one.

 

why wouldnt it be topical

which word does it violate??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why wouldnt it be topical

which word does it violate??

you're not increasing the number of people, all you're donig is saying that the animals (non humans) are going to be called people; just because you call something a person does not make it a person, this explodes the research burden of the neg, because there is no birghtline as to what could and what could not be caled a person; under the plan's logic why not just call Tanks people too? or how about claymore mines, or maybe even boots.

 

calling something a person doens't make it a person and to try and convince a judge otherwise is going to be EXTREMELY difficult, i don't care how good of a T debater someone is, they will not be able to pull this off 9 times out of 10.

 

and to the original poster:

go ahead and run your anthro, but you're sentimentality to animals ensures there annihilation.

 

besides, running anthro doens't make you topical, prodecurals first, even if you somehow win the anthro argument Topicality is still a prerequisite to the round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a funny little plan i wouldnt mind kicking around next year. Annex all third world countries, enslave all constituents and send them straight into our national service programs. if they resist, they die. that might be extra-t, but im sure the judge wont mind. cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're not increasing the number of people, all you're donig is saying that the animals (non humans) are going to be called people; just because you call something a person does not make it a person, this explodes the research burden of the neg, because there is no birghtline as to what could and what could not be caled a person; under the plan's logic why not just call Tanks people too? or how about claymore mines, or maybe even boots.

 

calling something a person doens't make it a person and to try and convince a judge otherwise is going to be EXTREMELY difficult, i don't care how good of a T debater someone is, they will not be able to pull this off 9 times out of 10.

 

and to the original poster:

go ahead and run your anthro, but you're sentimentality to animals ensures there annihilation.

 

besides, running anthro doens't make you topical, prodecurals first, even if you somehow win the anthro argument Topicality is still a prerequisite to the round

 

uh.... fiat allows plan to be passed, whatever the fuck the judge thinks, you fiat that the government makes animals under the legal term persons. just because case modifies the framework of the resolution, doesn't make it non-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's ridiculous. the proposition must meet the procedural burden prior to implementation. use whatever analysis you please, but the things your interpretation of permissible fiat allows make baby jesus cry. why not call boots persons? there's two on every soldier, and i promise you i can prove that there is reason to believe they meet all six conditions of personhood. your plan can't change the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBS defines chimps as being human.

if GBS jumpred off from a bridge would you jump off a bridge as well?

 

 

wow, i think this is, literaly, the first time Dan and i have ever agreed on something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's ridiculous. the proposition must meet the procedural burden prior to implementation. use whatever analysis you please, but the things your interpretation of permissible fiat allows make baby jesus cry. why not call boots persons? there's two on every soldier, and i promise you i can prove that there is reason to believe they meet all six conditions of personhood. your plan can't change the resolution.

 

okay... how is the proposition outside procedural burden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay... how is the proposition outside procedural burden?

i Don't want to steal Dan's argument here so i wil say this, assume it is not outside, you're still exploding the research burden. There is no resonobile reason why a team should have to research neg arguments for plans that call animals people, this is so god damn abusive its not even funny. if you call animals in the armed servies people then logically animals outside should be people too, so why not recruit them and solve for overstrech while your at it.... oh wait because at the end of the day this is still a dumb case. Its not even fun all it does is create a headache for the judge, the neg team, and anyone else flowing the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay... how is the proposition outside procedural burden?

 

because plan isn't topical at presentation, only after implementation.

 

how about an affirmative that clarifies the definition of armed forces to include McDonald's? it's topical, according to your interpretation. after plan, McDonald's is an armed force. your idea is one step below the affirmative on the worldwide pollution resolution that changed the codified definition of pollution in order to reduce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i Don't want to steal Dan's argument here so i wil say this, assume it is not outside, you're still exploding the research burden. There is no resonobile reason why a team should have to research neg arguments for plans that call animals people, this is so god damn abusive its not even funny. if you call animals in the armed servies people then logically animals outside should be people too, so why not recruit them and solve for overstrech while your at it.... oh wait because at the end of the day this is still a dumb case. Its not even fun all it does is create a headache for the judge, the neg team, and anyone else flowing the round.

 

additionally, this argument is retarded because animals is the obvious squirrel every year. i have a topical animal based affirmative for every resolution since i started in 1992. if you think the problem with the case is that it directly increases the burden improperly, then you are wrong, and not well prepared. the problem instead is that the case justifies even more obviously not topical cases based on improper constructions of procedural burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
additionally, this argument is retarded because animals is the obvious squirrel every year. i have a topical animal based affirmative for every resolution since i started in 1992. if you think the problem with the case is that it directly increases the burden improperly, then you are wrong, and not well prepared. the problem instead is that the case justifies even more obviously not topical cases based on improper constructions of procedural burden.

True but just because animals is the obvious squirell aff every year doesn't mean we should have to be prepared to debate about it; yes a well prepared team would forsee this case being ran at somepoint in the year but you still shouldn't have to prepare for it, the negative is only bound to research topical cases, those are the only ones which they should resonably be prepared to debate.

 

Also look at your last post about McDonald's, under their definitions then the negative should be prepared to debate about the pros and cons of McDonald's, if thats not an explosion of the research burden of a negative, i don't know what is.

 

additionaly, the research burden is not the only reason i think this case is ridiculous, but its one of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but just because animals is the obvious squirell aff every year doesn't mean we should have to be prepared to debate about it

 

yes, it does. why would you ever know about an aff and not prep it?

 

Also look at your last post about McDonald's, under their definitions then the negative should be prepared to debate about the pros and cons of McDonald's, if thats not an explosion of the research burden of a negative, i don't know what is.

 

aside from the fact that you should already be carrying evidence for that debate (especially on next year's topic), this is still irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, it does. why would you ever know about an aff and not prep it?

 

 

 

aside from the fact that you should already be carrying evidence for that debate (especially on next year's topic), this is still irrelevant.

eh, i can't logically justify not preping for a case that you know someone will run, so i'll quit while i'm only slightly behind.

 

why does next year's topic make beg for animals to be run more than any other topic in recent years?

 

at the end of the day, this case is still horribly not topical, and pursuading a judge that it isn't probably wouldn't be very hard. Also, i'm still not sure vey many credible authors would advocate this as a good policy option meaning solvency is going to be shady, at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this topic makes no more demand than any other. my comment was referring to the tendency for the beef disad to make appearances when development assistance is potential affirmative ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol... so an abusive case is inherently non-topical. wow, I guess I'm just a complete idiot then.

 

and, yeah, its a dumb case, no one is contesting that. that's why the thread is called "fun case ideas". stop being such a f*ing hardass purple people eater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this topic makes no more demand than any other. my comment was referring to the tendency for the beef disad to make appearances when development assistance is potential affirmative ground.

ic.

 

and to banana,

not neccesarigly, but this case is still not topical, even if it wasn't abusive it would still be non topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
getting your ass kicked is fun?

you didn't know that, wow when was the last time you got you're ass kicked.

 

to keep this relevant, i suppose somehow an amazing team could pull off a win with this case but its very unlikely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...