Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest TheGreatestDebaterEver

New T

Recommended Posts

correction: *the DADT card saying 41000 will join does NOT specify that those are 41000 gays and lesbians. it says 41000 will join. basically if ur aff the card u want would specify that these are not only gays and lesbians but ppl who support homosexuals and refused to previously join because of the military's homophobic policy
U.S. Newsire? it specifies that "41000 lesbian and gay americans may join if the ban were repealed" or something along those lines, but it DOES say lesbian and gay americans(maybe gay and lesbian americans..... w/e)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even need to have a dictionary definition. You can just argue that gay people are not... people... and then argue why that is better for limits, ground, etc. As long as you win that your interpretation is better for the resolution, it doesn't matter how arbitrary it is.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as you win that your interpretation is better for the resolution, it doesn't matter how arbitrary it is.
"Arbitrary" definitions are somehow "better for the resolution"? Good luck with that argument...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I mean a non-dictionary-supported definition of increase meaning 'to add to' would probably be better than some absurd carded definition of increase meaning 'to stuff poultry' or somethign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

way to spread your hate speech... from now on whenever i see you, i will call you bill o'reilly... or sean hannity.... fuckin neo-conservitive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is pretty amazing. The topicality is just bad.

 

Not even looking at the def and violation, the limits and grounds suck. You limit out like 1 effing case. How is that good. I guarantee that their kritical education framework on the DADT will outweigh this.

 

The def. = out of context. It is terrible and completely not true and will in fact link you right back to their case. They will subsequently impact turn the t flow and you will lose.

 

I love the last two posts tho...

 

"Conservative? IDAHO OMGHE" Now that is....

 

If you want to run t on dadt there are sooooo many things you can credibly run and win on. Removing barriers, f/x in general is such a winning arg, (at least for me), even end strengh can be winning if you run the t right. There are sooo many ways to run t, I don't see why you need to use this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all, this is stupid.

 

second, i dont think that is going to stop you from running it, so, cross apply their harms cards saying that gays are treated sub-human/inhumanly, run it with discrimination/bipower good (impact turn the advantages). then if some one argues the context issue, say dictionary.com is calling them "not people," as in, " 'not people' have no rights."

 

still, all of this is a very bad idea, and y would you even question your neg rep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max, all you would have to do is run a Counter Interpretation and any judge who isn't a total ass will vote to the counter interpretation. No judge will vote to that deff., and even if you are winning the T argument the judge will play it off like they don't vote on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Arbitrary" definitions are somehow "better for the resolution"? Good luck with that argument...

 

Thanks. I debate in areas where whoever makes the best arguments wins; I apologize if the framework for evaluating the winner is different where you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. I debate in areas where whoever makes the best arguments wins; I apologize if the framework for evaluating the winner is different where you are.

 

 

hahahaaa no u dont max

 

just imagine running this with kaz as a judge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
U.S. Newsire? it specifies that "41000 lesbian and gay americans may join if the ban were repealed" or something along those lines, but it DOES say lesbian and gay americans(maybe gay and lesbian americans..... w/e)

 

thats a bad card with a skewed interpretation. the original poll from SLDN said "recent studies have indicated the U.S. military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits by repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. I debate in areas where whoever makes the best arguments wins; I apologize if the framework for evaluating the winner is different where you are.

 

some of the judges we have really blow, also the definition is biologically false, gay people are people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats irrelevant though a gay person is still a person, the fact that you are gay doesnt change anything physically about you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats irrelevant though a gay person is still a person, the fact that you are gay doesnt change anything physically about you

 

 

being gay is a preference (according to foucault, who was gay, anyway), no different than a preference of pepsi over coke. thus, being gay is a choice and if being gay is a complete action of freewill it can be justified that a choice is sufficient reason to deny a prson rights. it's the whole idea behind our prison system, chose to murder, lose your rights. if you chose to be gay, you lose your status as person, not as a human (which denies you the biological fallacy argument).

 

as a pre-emptive measure:

no, the fact that the preference may be pre-determined does not answer. one i reference the catholic church, its ok to be homosexual but you cant act on the urges. two, murders may have biological criminal tendencies but we still imprison and/or kill them. the insane may have pre-determined factors incorporated to their illness, but we still institutionalize them.

 

ps:

i still say all of this is a bad idea, but if he is going to do it he should cover all his bases...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually, I think saying that being gay is pre-determined actually strengthens the argument that gay people are not actually people, because then you can claim a biological difference between gay people and straight people.

 

But Kyle's argument is right on, if you say it's a choice.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure i live in idaho, and sure the conservitive mormons that make up 90% of the state keep it about the 3rd most republican state in the nation, but dont hold that against me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we can hold against you the fact that you automatically assume that only a Republican would call a gay person not a person. What Republican do you know that has said something like this? Even Hannity wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we can hold against you the fact that you automatically assume that only a Republican would call a gay person not a person. What Republican do you know that has said something like this? Even Hannity wouldn't.

 

Agreed. It's funny how many CXers think that they know more about politics then they actually do, simply because they've been juiced up by the cards their coach hands them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, but its all irrelevant anyway this violation would be laughed out of any debate, what abuse story will you get, that the affirmative doesnt increase the "Humans" in national service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...