Jump to content
Imported Mango

Crazy AFF Plans

Recommended Posts

thats kind of untopical, getting away from the Africa idea and talking more about the existence of God, which you would end up having to prove in order to gain your advantages. And you would also have to prove sin is bad - and that would be a big time suck if the Neg team decided to run it. I'm thinking more along the lines of abstinence preventing AIDS, not helping the church

It would be topical in that it is still a method of preventing AIDS, even though we don't talk about how it helps against AIDS. The plan text is the only thing that has to be topical. Also, we'd kritik T, because talking about God is more important. On the whole "proving God exists" thing, not many people are walking around with evidence saying there is no God, except maybe some Nietzsche, and "There is no God" is not what Nietzsche meant. Once we win "God exists", it's pretty easy to win "sin bad", the Bible is a great source for this. And if they don't like the use of the Bible as a source, too bad, it's the infallible word of God, and any evidence contradicting it is wrong. Also, the impacts could be pretty awesome, seeing that eternal torture in hell outweighs any death impacts, or reasons why religion is bad.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm, teach abstinence... that could work with a Law of God advantage. Sin is running rampant now due to people passing out condoms --> premarital sex = cultral embrace of an abomination to the Lord, abstinence reduces acceptance of sin --> the church gaining more ground and more salvation from the fires of hell. Those cards shouldn't be too hard to find.

 

This aff either doesn't solve because there's sin in 6 other continents where sin would still exist or is inherently racist because it assumes that people in Africa are damned dirty sinners.

 

Not to mention the fact that going around sub-saharan Africa preaching abstinance would be comparative to population control..

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be topical in that it is still a method of preventing AIDS, even though we don't talk about how it helps against AIDS. The plan text is the only thing that has to be topical. Also, we'd kritik T, because talking about God is more important. On the whole "proving God exists" thing, not many people are walking around with evidence saying there is no God, except maybe some Nietzsche, and "There is no God" is not what Nietzsche meant. Once we win "God exists", it's pretty easy to win "sin bad", the Bible is a great source for this. And if they don't like the use of the Bible as a source, too bad, it's the infallible word of God, and any evidence contradicting it is wrong. Also, the impacts could be pretty awesome, seeing that eternal torture in hell outweighs any death impacts, or reasons why religion is bad.

 

I like the idea, it's catchy, and also surprisingly true. God outweighs any Impact card they read, not only because God's word is law, but because Hell outweighs. I'm not sure that the idea of 'Hell' would stand in a round because you would have analysis trying to disprove God's 'all-powerful' nature, because if God was all powerful, and if he solved for everything, why didn't he solve for Hell? God may be the most important thing in a round, but even so, what is he solving for? Because you can't really prove that God is predictable, you can't solve without proving that God would adhere to your ideas, and not just send the apocalpse.

 

This aff either doesn't solve because there's sin in 6 other continents where sin would still exist or is inherently racist because it assumes that people in Africa are damned dirty sinners.

 

Not to mention the fact that going around sub-saharan Africa preaching abstinance would be comparative to population control..

 

This is also true, because God would only solve for those people who are religious ie. Christians. But would he be willing to help people who did not believe in 'Him' and the bible? And you also cannot claim to solve for all 'sin' ie. AIDS, because Sin has always existed and probably always will so long as we are here on earth and human beings, because humans inherently make mistakes. It is also true that it is a lot like population control because by preaching abstinence you are effectively stopping people from reproducing. But this argument is easily bypassed because people would still have sex anyway.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the idea, it's catchy, and also surprisingly true. God outweighs any Impact card they read, not only because God's word is law, but because Hell outweighs. I'm not sure that the idea of 'Hell' would stand in a round because you would have analysis trying to disprove God's 'all-powerful' nature, because if God was all powerful, and if he solved for everything, why didn't he solve for Hell? God may be the most important thing in a round, but even so, what is he solving for? Because you can't really prove that God is predictable, you can't solve without proving that God would adhere to your ideas, and not just send the apocalpse.

God is sovereign - Bible evidence. God has promised so save those who believe in his Son - John 3:16. Why God doesn't solve for all hell is below.

 

This is also true, because God would only solve for those people who are religious ie. Christians. But would he be willing to help people who did not believe in 'Him' and the bible? And you also cannot claim to solve for all 'sin' ie. AIDS, because Sin has always existed and probably always will so long as we are here on earth and human beings, because humans inherently make mistakes. It is also true that it is a lot like population control because by preaching abstinence you are effectively stopping people from reproducing. But this argument is easily bypassed because people would still have sex anyway.

God doesn't solve for everyone going to hell because some have to be punished for God to be glorified. God's main purpose in creating the world was for his own glory, and if we humans have no reason to fear and glorify God (i.e. there's no hell for anyone) then we wouldn't glorify God because there would be nothing to fear. Thus the plan doesn't have to solve for everyone on earth because that's impossible, we solve for a few people or even one, we can outweigh DA impacts because one person's eternal torture is worse than everyone dying immediately. It would work like this: judge votes aff, we teach abstinence, people turn to God, then DA happens, extinction. More people have turned to God than the status quo would have converted. Judge votes neg, people go on living, but # of souls in hell is more than if the judge had voted aff. Thus the aff outweighs. We're also not racists, the church in africa specifically needs the most help because we're passing out condoms and legitimizing premarital sex in the name of AIDS prevention over there. We also only teach premarital abstinence, thus avoiding population control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

God doesn't solve for everyone going to hell because some have to be punished for God to be glorified. God's main purpose in creating the world was for his own glory, and if we humans have no reason to fear and glorify God (i.e. there's no hell for anyone) then we wouldn't glorify God because there would be nothing to fear. Thus the plan doesn't have to solve for everyone on earth because that's impossible, we solve for a few people or even one, we can outweigh DA impacts because one person's eternal torture is worse than everyone dying immediately. It would work like this: judge votes aff, we teach abstinence, people turn to God, then DA happens, extinction. More people have turned to God than the status quo would have converted. Judge votes neg, people go on living, but # of souls in hell is more than if the judge had voted aff. Thus the aff outweighs. We're also not racists, the church in africa specifically needs the most help because we're passing out condoms and legitimizing premarital sex in the name of AIDS prevention over there. We also only teach premarital abstinence, thus avoiding population control.

 

your interpretation of God and the bible is terrible. If the other team knows anything aobut relgion you would get blown out of the water.

 

edit: our school did write a God plan on the mental health case that won a couple of rounds. Its best though, when you save it for private christian schools...make them defend God desn't exist.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're also not racists, the church in africa specifically needs the most help because we're passing out condoms and legitimizing premarital sex in the name of AIDS prevention over there. We also only teach premarital abstinence, thus avoiding population control.

 

But you still assume that everyone in Africa practices the Christian religion. How is your argument any different than missionaries in colonial America forcing people to conform to christianity?

 

There's also the fact that you would have to defend christian ideology as a whole which has caused some pretty shitty things, as well as arguments advocating different religions that aren't based on blind ideological faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow helping people is rooted in the problem/solution mindset in the first place..u guys need to read up on heidugerr before u try to talk about some of this bec he knows and talk alot about africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the fact that you would have to defend christian ideology as a whole which has caused some pretty shitty things, as well as arguments advocating different religions that aren't based on blind ideological faith.

 

thats just a dumb argument. secular ideologies have caused as much shti as religious ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that they haven't...thats just a reason why religion in general has caused bad shit and we shouldn't work towards expanding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont see exaclty whats wrong with problem solution, i mean everything if you think about it, we think about things in a problem solution mindset, what does the affirmative uniquely do to it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really against religion as I am.."sending people to Africa to preach abstinance to save them from their evil ways that will lead to their eternal damnation"

 

And as for the Zeus part...I can't help it I'm greek *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God is sovereign - Bible evidence. God has promised so save those who believe in his Son - John 3:16. Why God doesn't solve for all hell is below.

 

 

God doesn't solve for everyone going to hell because some have to be punished for God to be glorified. God's main purpose in creating the world was for his own glory, and if we humans have no reason to fear and glorify God (i.e. there's no hell for anyone) then we wouldn't glorify God because there would be nothing to fear. Thus the plan doesn't have to solve for everyone on earth because that's impossible, we solve for a few people or even one, we can outweigh DA impacts because one person's eternal torture is worse than everyone dying immediately. It would work like this: judge votes aff, we teach abstinence, people turn to God, then DA happens, extinction. More people have turned to God than the status quo would have converted. Judge votes neg, people go on living, but # of souls in hell is more than if the judge had voted aff. Thus the aff outweighs. We're also not racists, the church in africa specifically needs the most help because we're passing out condoms and legitimizing premarital sex in the name of AIDS prevention over there. We also only teach premarital abstinence, thus avoiding population control.

 

Of course...

Do I really have to cut a Dawkins/Harris K this year, or am I just the only atheist on the forum who would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i actually think that next year's resolution should favor mainstream cases and encourage meaningful specific debate at the core of the resolution.

 

given the general impotence of the current national service resolution, i believe many judges are predisposed towards leaning aff on topicality ever so slightly and willing to accept more radical debate cases and aff frameworks accordingly - because their kids probably do much of the same.

 

however, next year, coming up with rational topical plans with significant and farreaching impacts should not be an exercise in futility. as such, the challenge of affirmative maneuvering is replaced by obvious clash and the judge's desire to seek meaningful clash - clash which does not exist this year.

.

 

 

i love when teams get creative instead of just sticking with mainstream arguments. i think creativity should be rewarded because it encourages debaters to actually think about their arguments (or their responses)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God is sovereign - Bible evidence. God has promised so save those who believe in his Son - John 3:16. Why God doesn't solve for all hell is below.God doesn't solve for everyone going to hell because some have to be punished for God to be glorified. God's main purpose in creating the world was for his own glory, and if we humans have no reason to fear and glorify God (i.e. there's no hell for anyone) then we wouldn't glorify God because there would be nothing to fear. Thus the plan doesn't have to solve for everyone on earth because that's impossible, we solve for a few people or even one, we can outweigh DA impacts because one person's eternal torture is worse than everyone dying immediately. It would work like this: judge votes aff, we teach abstinence, people turn to God, then DA happens, extinction. More people have turned to God than the status quo would have converted. Judge votes neg, people go on living, but # of souls in hell is more than if the judge had voted aff. Thus the aff outweighs. We're also not racists, the church in africa specifically needs the most help because we're passing out condoms and legitimizing premarital sex in the name of AIDS prevention over there. We also only teach premarital abstinence, thus avoiding population control.

 

How would you even go about defending the evidence of the bible? The bible has been warped so many times throughout the vatican, and it's not like the bible fell from the sky anyway, because it was written by MAN. Therefore the bible is already so called 'unclean' anyway, yet humans still believe it. And if God was this 'all-good' God that we make him out to be, he would not want himself glorified by people going to Hell for eternity. if God is 'all-forgiving' he would automatically forgive the sinners anyway, because he CREATED them. Therefore there really is no point of keeping Hell around in the first place if God is all-powerful and can get rid of it anyway. And it doesn't really matter whether or not the sinners want to be forgiven anyway, because God would fix them when they got to heaven and show them the 'error' of their ways. So if God fixes us all in heaven anyway, why would he bother with us on earth? But since he doesn't, you are able to question the idea that God is 'all-powerful'.

 

But you still assume that everyone in Africa practices the Christian religion. How is your argument any different than missionaries in colonial America forcing people to conform to christianity?

 

There's also the fact that you would have to defend christian ideology as a whole which has caused some pretty shitty things, as well as arguments advocating different religions that aren't based on blind ideological faith.

 

If God is truly the 'one god,' he would want us to preach to those who are non-believers so that they would become believers. And christianity as a whole has been deeply warped. You would not teach those living in answer to worship the Christian way, but to worship God through their own hearts in the way they feel is the most worthy, for does God not want the best of us anyway?

 

Of course...

Do I really have to cut a Dawkins/Harris K this year, or am I just the only atheist on the forum who would?

 

Do I believe in God? No. Not in the biblical God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you even go about defending the evidence of the bible? The bible has been warped so many times throughout the vatican, and it's not like the bible fell from the sky anyway, because it was written by MAN. Therefore the bible is already so called 'unclean' anyway, yet humans still believe it. And if God was this 'all-good' God that we make him out to be, he would not want himself glorified by people going to Hell for eternity. if God is 'all-forgiving' he would automatically forgive the sinners anyway, because he CREATED them. Therefore there really is no point of keeping Hell around in the first place if God is all-powerful and can get rid of it anyway. And it doesn't really matter whether or not the sinners want to be forgiven anyway, because God would fix them when they got to heaven and show them the 'error' of their ways. So if God fixes us all in heaven anyway, why would he bother with us on earth? But since he doesn't, you are able to question the idea that God is 'all-powerful'.

 

 

 

If God is truly the 'one god,' he would want us to preach to those who are non-believers so that they would become believers. And christianity as a whole has been deeply warped. You would not teach those living in answer to worship the Christian way, but to worship God through their own hearts in the way they feel is the most worthy, for does God not want the best of us anyway?

 

 

 

Do I believe in God? No. Not in the biblical God.

 

you may want to study up a bit on theology and christianity before you try and attack it...your arguments are pitful...they don't even make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with Mr. Silvernail on this own. I'd suggest checking out Catholic Idealogy to start with... Fundamentalism as well.... you're making accusations that Christian author after author has already answered, and more effectively then you seem to assume. Any devout Christian in a debate round would know exactly how to run circles around arguments like that... and in the mean time you'd be losing the substance of the debate because the other team is taking you in directions you can't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd have to agree with Mr. Silvernail on this own. I'd suggest checking out Catholic Idealogy to start with... Fundamentalism as well.... you're making accusations that Christian author after author has already answered, and more effectively then you seem to assume. Any devout Christian in a debate round would know exactly how to run circles around arguments like that... and in the mean time you'd be losing the substance of the debate because the other team is taking you in directions you can't win.

way to be depressing guys...

don't think I'm ignoring good advice, because I'm not, but we are escaping the point of this thread.

 

what are some good impact scenarios besides usuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your interpretation of God and the bible is terrible. If the other team knows anything aobut relgion you would get blown out of the water.

 

edit: our school did write a God plan on the mental health case that won a couple of rounds. Its best though, when you save it for private christian schools...make them defend God desn't exist.

could you please explain where my explanation goes wrong? I based my interpretation of why some go to hell off of Paul's "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" statement. I do agree that the doctrine of election is somewhat contradictory to this aff, thus I might not want to run it against diehard Christians. I am Presbyterian myself, so when I hear someone saying my interp of the Bible is messed up, I'm listening.

 

I'm not really against religion as I am.."sending people to Africa to preach abstinance to save them from their evil ways that will lead to their eternal damnation"

 

That's not what the aff does. We teach abstinence b/c the church in Africa is disliked because of its policy on premarital sex, people passing out condoms only furthers the acceptance of premarital sex and the dislike of the Church. Teaching abstinence gets rid of this stigma against the Church because premarital sex is no longer portrayed as OK. Teaching abstinence helps the church progress, and the church converts ppl to Christianity.

 

EDIT: Evidently someone thinks that arguments that involve religion have no place in debate, and those who would even throw the idea out for consideration on a debate forum (in the CRAZY Aff plans thread, no less) deserve to be shot. If you hate the argument so much, give logical reasons why it's a bad argument, not just "you can't say that, go die in the woods". Like this Dawkins K. It sounds like a logical position, and I'm glad that some people actually want to debate the idea on its merits. I believe in God, but whenever I hear Nietzsche, I don't say "you're imposing your antireligious views on me, shut up."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could you please explain where my explanation goes wrong? I based my interpretation of why some go to hell off of Paul's "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" statement. I do agree that the doctrine of election is somewhat contradictory to this aff, thus I might not want to run it against diehard Christians. I am Presbyterian myself, so when I hear someone saying my interp of the Bible is messed up, I'm listening.

 

well, i am non-denominational, i was raised presbyterian but i find that when you look to a denomination to tell you how to interpret the bible, things go wrong. Case in point: puritans. i know thats an old school example but its a sound one. Most sects are created because they don't like the way another sect interprets the bible, so thye break away to interpret it differently.

 

i find the idea that people have to be punished for God to be glorified is repugnant (no offense.) God sent his son to die so that EVERYONE who is willig to accept him can have eternal salvation.

 

My problem with your interpretation is that you present a more violent negative interpretation of God.

 

also, imported mango yes God could cure it, but thats not how he rolls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once we win "God exists", it's pretty easy to win "sin bad", the Bible is a great source for this. And if they don't like the use of the Bible as a source, too bad, it's the infallible word of God, and any evidence contradicting it is wrong.

 

In-round, this argument is approximately as legitimate as "Consult Chuck Norris, our evidence says he knows everything so if the plan's a bad idea he'll reject it." You don't need cards to negate that, just halfway decent analytics.

 

Seriously. The cite on your evidence is "Some Guy Named John, 200 A.D." No judge is gonna buy that unless he's coming into the round with some serious bias.

 

I'd probably just run Threat Con and negate God/hell. Pretty much any Christian will tell you that religion is based off faith, and faith won't win you debate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an idea of a Get the Hell Out of Iraq plan, but it was called extratopical by most (using Iraq funds for feeding the starving Africans), so I'm still looking for ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...