Jump to content
demonlampshade

Fire Corp

Recommended Posts

SUGGESTION: You should write a CP saying Ban the firecorps and send all members to their respective fire departments. I would send it to you but I don't have it my partner lost her thumb drive. There's a lot of cards saying firedepartments are under staffed. There are also some that say they can do prescribed burns and all the other shit. Besides the plan probably doesn't solve. It should talk about global or north american forest fires but how does a domestic program solve for fires 5,000 miles away. Just an idea dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What perm? We completely ban firecorp, all they have is timeframe but the actual text should say current and future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counterplan is artificially competitive. Might as well run a ban Fire Corps and send those people to save babies.

 

It will always lose to Perm: Do plan and send those people to local fire departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That perm is too easily proven intrinsic, which is illigit. Some theory kicks the perm out of the round (and/or the team) and the CP is still there when the dust settles,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um I stumbled upon stuff while making an enviornmental americorps aff. Americorps actually does prescribed fires, so I guess you all could run prescribed burns through americorps, so people who are argueing about extra t and stuff can't really do anything, and it realy isn't a subset

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That perm is too easily proven intrinsic, which is illigit. Some theory kicks the perm out of the round (and/or the team) and the CP is still there when the dust settles,

Severing out of parts of counterplan is always legit or else all counterplans will be a combination of "Ban Plan + do something else."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severing out of parts of counterplan is always legit or else all counterplans will be a combination of "Ban Plan + do something else."

But thats not severance it's a complete transformation.

 

You go from sending people to Firecorps to sending them to the Fire department, while banning firecorps in the process(exuse my spelling) that sounds like a new policy to me

 

And for the americorps thing I would just read civic society bad and any other americorp bad stuff I feel like reading. The debate becomes centered around americops and we will just see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Plan: USFG subs increase the number of people serving in Fire Corps.

Counterplan: Ban Fire Corps and send those people to local fire departments.

Perm: USFG subs increase the number of people serving in Fire Corps and send those people to local fire departments.

 

&If you read civil society bad against a Americorps case claiming a prescribed fire advantage, you will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude...heres wat you should all know...1. fire corps does not do perscribed burning in the squo...all they do is pack lunches amd clean the cars...they claimt that wat fire corps does makes the fire fighters mor efficient but the fire fighters FIGHT FIRES THATS FUCKING SUPPRESSION...2. if they do make fire corps do percribed burns or make the firefighters do percribed burns they make them literally do the opposite that they do in the sqo...EXTRA T...

the cp that u should do is hav fire fighters do perscribed burns solves all the case...the perm links 2 net benifits

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude...heres wat you should all know...1. fire corps does not do perscribed burning in the squo...all they do is pack lunches amd clean the cars...they claimt that wat fire corps does makes the fire fighters mor efficient but the fire fighters FIGHT FIRES THATS FUCKING SUPPRESSION...2. if they do make fire corps do percribed burns or make the firefighters do percribed burns they make them literally do the opposite that they do in the sqo...EXTRA T...

the cp that u should do is hav fire fighters do perscribed burns solves all the case...the perm links 2 net benifits

 

they claim offsets scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they claim offsets scott

Scott's pretty much right.

 

But if thats the plant text I'm running numbers specifification args. syaing that you say substantial but don't say a number. I'll read sunstantial T and if you say we meet I say it proves abuse on the numbers spec. Plus the perm is still intrinsic because A. You conceed that firecorps is bad by virtually eliminating everyone in it(assuming your inherency is firecorps is understaffed). That means solvency take outs.

 

B. The intrinsicness of this perm is very, VERY, debatable. It is intrinsic and is proven by your contradictory advocation which is basically quietly kicking out of your plan. This proves it's a new policy. The intrinsicness is a toss-up leaning toward the neg. It would all come down to the better debater, but it would be harder for the Aff, especially if my partner spends 2min in her 2nc on point A (which she prolly won't but theoretically) y ur intrinsic and I spend 2 mins on point B. That would have to be a hell of a 1AR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott's pretty much right.

I don't think anyone understands scotty2shoes when he posts and I don't know what sublime_thought means when he says they claim offsets. Because I don't know what Fire Corps does, I'm going to assume it prescribes burns.

But if thats the plant text I'm running numbers specifification args. syaing that you say substantial but don't say a number. I'll read sunstantial T and if you say we meet I say it proves abuse on the numbers spec.

That doesn't make sense. We meeting doesn't prove abuse on the T flow.

Plus the perm is still intrinsic because

No.

A. You conceed that firecorps is bad by virtually eliminating everyone in it(assuming your inherency is firecorps is understaffed).

Eliminating Fire Corps doesn't mean that the plan is bad, just that the counterplan is better, but the perm solves.

That means solvency take outs.
.

It doesn't take out the plan solvency. It means counterplan solves better. But the perm captures it with the net benefit of more people.

B. The intrinsicness of this perm is very, VERY, debatable. It is intrinsic and is proven by your contradictory advocation which is basically quietly kicking out of your plan. This proves it's a new policy. The intrinsicness is a toss-up leaning toward the neg. It would all come down to the better debater, but it would be harder for the Aff, especially if my partner spends 2min in her 2nc on point A (which she prolly won't but theoretically) y ur intrinsic and I spend 2 mins on point B. That would have to be a hell of a 1AR.

Intrinsic perms mean part of the perm is neither in the plan nor the counterplan. What you're talking about isn't intrinsicness, it's severance. But the perm still defends the entirety of the plan. Your counterplan justifies every "Ban Plan and Do Something Else."

 

&If the perm is a "new policy" and must be rejected, then all permutations are illegitimate.

 

I don't feel like arguing about this anymore. You're obviously not getting it. Come back when you understand theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That perm is too easily proven intrinsic, which is illigit. Some theory kicks the perm out of the round (and/or the team) and the CP is still there when the dust settles,

 

dude theory is what is going to rape this cp in the first place....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott's pretty much right.

 

no he's not. they claim (and have decent ev) saying that increase firecorps members allows increase perscribed burnings because in the squo, perscribed burners are doing the bitch work i.e. cleaning desks, packing lunches etc. and post plan thoes people get to burn baby burn because the desk work is now being done by other people

 

no definitional support for specing a number - rez basis key to predictability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: USFG subs increase the number of people serving in Fire Corps.

Counterplan: Ban Fire Corps and send those people to local fire departments.

Perm: USFG subs increase the number of people serving in Fire Corps and send those people to local fire departments.

 

theory rape this counterplan? the perm isnt intrsinc. it defends all of the aff and all of the counterplan except for the timeframe. a legitimate perm is all of the plan and part or all of the counterplan. the aff defends the entirety of their plan text which saying that they should increase in fire corps. perm do the plan and then the counterplan is legit because you're not severing out of the plan, you're severing out of the counterplan timeframe, which is legit, becuase you dont need to defend the entirety of the counterplan, just the entirety of the plan. timeframe perms refer to severing out of the timeframe of the affirmative in order to artificially disprove the competition subpoint of the counterplan. the above perm is functionally and textually legit...

 

ha i can see why mybloodyvalentine got a little testy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok my argument is that liteally this should b the strat not wat anwer is to offsets but wat ur answer should b 2 this case b/c it solves NOTHING AT ALL...

1. subsets

2. substantial

3. extra t (they dont do perscribed burning in the squo)

4. cp: have the states increase fire corps, and mandate that firefighters do persscribed burns

5. tix

6. spending

7. case:1. fire corps only frees up fire fighters (b/c thats wat they do)

2. fire fighters FIGHT FIRES DO SUPRESSION (this makes almost the entire 1ac offence against the aff)

3. biodiversity alt causes...

4. biodi impact take outs

 

 

literally they would b fucked b/c here are the net benifits

to the cp, the adv, tix, spending, any perm links 2 tix and spending b/c they still would use the usfg...

on case it should b easy extend their card that they probably read that ppl are only doing 2% of perscribed burn...literally look at their solvency evidence they dont change that % they just increase the total number of ppl working so post plan instead of 100 ppl working with 98% doing supression and 2% doing perscribed burning there willbe 100 ppl efficiently doing 98% supression and 2% perscribed burning and if they do claim that they change that percent they are liers and you beat them on extra t...seriously this is not a hard case 2 fuck up...they dont solve anything...at all...and some ppl like 2 read we outwiegh nwar in their 1ac at least with palmetto in the st. marks case book

 

and 4 every1 banning a program and doing something else is not mutually exclusive its fakely exclusive, the perm 2 do the plan and something else is still possible...its like the cp ban the mil and nuke the moon if all of ur net benifit solvency is off of nuking the moon the perm to do the plan and nuke the moon would probably solve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and 4 every1 banning a program and doing something else is not mutually exclusive its fakely exclusive

That's going on the top of all of my perm blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...