Jump to content
ihangfromgallows

[AFF] Water Canal

Recommended Posts

hahah my coach was telling me that in the sixties when he went to nationals, in the final round the aff plan (it was a nuclear weapons topic) wanted to disarm and drop a bunch in the sahara to create a glass water canal.... it ould work for like a clean water case and claim a disarmmerment adv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that we disarm and drop a what(bundle)? So if i'm right they disarm we give them moey to help build a water canal to help fight prevent diseases, if that is it that would be a sweet aff but with probs in terms of XT and maybe a little on the FX side, correct me if i'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... I think he meant drop a bomb...?

 

"bunch" sorry

 

So are you saying that we disarm and drop a what(bundle)? So if i'm right they disarm we give them moey to help build a water canal to help fight prevent diseases, if that is it that would be a sweet aff but with probs in terms of XT and maybe a little on the FX side, correct me if i'm wrong.

 

the united states should use mutual disarmerment to creat a glass saharan water canal...

 

disarmerment adv

no desert spread adv

 

 

and the biggest adv, the AU CAN'T DO IT, they dont have the means and they can't make the us do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"bunch" sorry

and the biggest adv, the AU CAN'T DO IT, they dont have the means and they can't make the us do it

 

But the UN can. So can NATO. And the EU. Heck, I'd probably run a C.I.S counterplan w/ a getting NK to cooperate NB.

 

Anyway --

Interesting idea, but I definantly forsee all kinds of T problems. Thier standards will kill you.

 

In addition, any team who carries backfiles will beat you on disarmment bad. Why? Because it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahah my coach was telling me that in the sixties when he went to nationals, in the final round the aff plan (it was a nuclear weapons topic) wanted to disarm and drop a bunch in the sahara to create a glass water canal.... it ould work for like a clean water case and claim a disarmmerment adv

 

I am just trying to understand this. So, the U.S. drops a bunch of bombs in the sahara, and that creates the glass water canal because it fuses the desert sand into glass? is that right, or does the disarmament cause the african nations to want to build the glass canal??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm....just a thought...if these are NUCLEAR weapons wouldn't the water in that area be tainted by nuclear biproducts and so the water wouldn't necessarily be "clean"....just an idea for thought

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one, the worst case scenberiro is wait what, 35 years,and you could still get access to no desert spread. two, nulear cleanup these days is amazing. and three, the glass wouldn't radiate would it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one, the worst case scenberiro is wait what, 35 years,and you could still get access to no desert spread. two, nulear cleanup these days is amazing. and three, the glass wouldn't radiate would it...

 

One - NO! Plants cant really grow well in radioactive water.

 

Two - not after a couple of megatons get burned in the Sahara. How are you going to get Hazmat workers and cleanups in there. Also - this isn't true. Theres a reason no one lives where Chernobyl used to be and there was a reason we were going to build Yucca Mountain. We can't clean up very well at all.

 

Three - yes! Green glass produced near ground zero of nuclear explosions has extraordinary radioactivity - google it to learn more.

 

 

A silly idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One - NO! Plants cant really grow well in radioactive water.

 

Two - not after a couple of megatons get burned in the Sahara. How are you going to get Hazmat workers and cleanups in there. Also - this isn't true. Theres a reason no one lives where Chernobyl used to be and there was a reason we were going to build Yucca Mountain. We can't clean up very well at all.

 

Three - yes! Green glass produced near ground zero of nuclear explosions has extraordinary radioactivity - google it to learn more.

 

 

A silly idea.

 

 

correct me if i am wrong but this is debate, who cares if it is true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a wise man once said.... good teams don't lose on t

 

A wiser man said good teams can kick your ass on T.

 

Ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
correct me if i am wrong but this is debate, who cares if it is true

 

away from the fact that debate is logical argumentation of true facts....nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the UN can. So can NATO. And the EU. Heck, I'd probably run a C.I.S counterplan w/ a getting NK to cooperate NB.

 

Anyway --

Interesting idea, but I definantly forsee all kinds of T problems. Thier standards will kill you.

 

In addition, any team who carries backfiles will beat you on disarmment bad. Why? Because it is.

 

International actor fiat off the heazy. AU is acceptable if you use it as an inherency test - is outside aid even NEEDED...And CIS CP is as bad theoretically as consult japan.

 

Why are most proposed CPs either useless or theoretically illegitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
away from the fact that debate is logical argumentation of true facts....nobody

 

truth is relative/subjective and is always a belief

two, if that is true why have aff cases that have happened and have had DA's won against them never resulted in nuclear war

three, counterinterp- debate is the intellectual competion of logic between two teams

my interp is better simply because it is REALITY, very little in debate is "true", especially adv's/DA's/K's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truth is relative/subjective and is always a belief

two, if that is true why have aff cases that have happened and have had DA's won against them never resulted in nuclear war

three, counterinterp- debate is the intellectual competion of logic between two teams

my interp is better simply because it is REALITY, very little in debate is "true", especially adv's/DA's/K's.

 

First off- all im saying is that any thing such as DA's or ADV's might in ex. end in nuclear war, but in those DA's ( while we all know that nuke war is rare except in some extreme cases) the things that make up the DA are true facts, such as the links and the uniqueness. so while nuke war may be unlikely, if you have the facts to back it up it is still admissable

 

two-yes, debate is the intellectual competition of logic between two teams, but there is still a foundation in the things that we debate that are facts. basically saying that you use your logic to estimate impacts, and anything else you choose to run in a round. but the foundation is off of facts.

 

finally- i disagree with very little is true in adv's and da's, while there is leaway in where you can go with these if you ring too far from the truth either the opposing team catches it and sucks the life out of it, or the judge basically calls you a moron on the ballot.

 

so while i see your point im just saying that the basis of things we debate about are "true facts" i guess you could put it, but i see what you're saying though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its also VERY FX T and Xtra T

 

 

xtra t sure, but no FX, there isnt a present participle in the rez, so there is no FX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xtra t sure, but no FX, there isnt a present participle in the rez, so there is no FX

 

Silly Zane, you don't have to have a grammatical interpretation to claim FX is abusive. You just have to prove that they take a step.

 

Ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silly Zane, you don't have to have a grammatical interpretation to claim FX is abusive. You just have to prove that they take a step.

 

Ant

 

Not necessarily. FX topicality is usually taking one action that does not on face meet the resolution. (Not saying taking a bunch of steps is wrong, but I don't want novice debaters to start making the argument that 'the aff takes too many steps, thats bad judge')It would be like if the resolution was "The City Government of New York City should substantially increase the number of persons serving on the policy for in New York City" and the affirmative had the city government put drugs on the streets, causing more crime, leading to an increase in policy force. Usually you look at it as "does the plan in a vacuum meet the burdens of topicality."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware. However, I think an abuse claim can be made, without reference to the jurisdictional question.

 

Ant

 

EDIT: Merely remarking that a grammatical interpretation isn't absolutely essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm aware. However, I think an abuse claim can be made, without reference to the jurisdictional question.

 

Ant

 

EDIT: Merely remarking that a grammatical interpretation isn't absolutely essential.

 

 

are you

a. debating at asu?

b. juding next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...