Jump to content
Guest silvermdc1

Peace Corps Strat

Recommended Posts

i would probably not run militarism with an alt i would probably like i said run it as a case turn (u put militarized people into the pc/makes the pc militaristic turning all ur positive peace good crap)

realism wouldn't answer militarism in this case because i wouldn't be advocating non-violence or even solving for war...i would just b arguing that a violent pc (post plan) is worse than the pc (world of cp/squo)

also when people read hege good as offense against militarism its a da to the alt of non-violence and stuff like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say find a CP like Doctors without Borders or possibly something similar that can solve the case while still deconstructing Peace Corps. You can then run whatever K you want that links to the Peace Corps in general or something as mentioned specific to the Peace Corps attempts at solving structural violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 words 4 u...NOT TOPICAL...last year (national service) it not only is extra topical because no where in the rez does it say to decrease the af or ban the mil...BUT it also decreases in the armed forces dispite the fact that it increases in the pc...next year (africa) the topic says to increase public health assistance...EXTRA T...

also banning the military is hard enough to win on the neg when you have time to answer every argument...but with the 1ar ur gonna b screwed...

THIS WOULD B MY STRAT AGAINST BAN THE MIL AND DIVERT PERSONS/FUNDS TO THE PC

T-extra t

cp-gates fund the pc and increase the number of people in the pc NOT FROM THE MILITARY

tix-plan would MOST LIKELY BE REALLY UNPOPULAR

militarism: military militaristic by putting them into the pc u make the pc militaristic...turns case...

hege good--military key to hege

CASE--REALISM UP THE WAZOO,

! defence

util

 

i think the most strategic way to do that is instead of reading cards that are like nuke war cause structural violence cards that are like nuke war increases poverty...

Lol, we're 8 minutes ahead of you on this debate, hence the whole 1ac.

 

On the extra T -

as long as we defend the plan as a topical action we'll never be extra topical, at the point where you have no definition proving a violation, we prove that we're a topical increase within the peace corps.

ps, the ground we give you with our action is good, predictable ground.

also, we avoid the mandatory vs. volunteer cp debates which can be run everyround and kills education, the plan is simply a third solvency mechanism, which is collapsing organizations.

and, we counter K everything.

 

on the cp-

this bites 100 % of the case offense. Every impact card in the 1ac is now an independent disad to the cp.

levinas says we outweigh too.

 

on the tix net ben -

the whole 1ac is offense to this mindset, "politics is war by other means", the foucault advantage is huge offense against this. at the point where there's no oncase you bare the full weight of this advantage as a kritik to the disad.

 

on the militarism crap...

1. human nature isn't violent

2. it's empirically denied, the armed forces already allows individuals in the armed forces to transfer to the peace corp.

3. this is an idea perpetuated by elites to maximize their control, bites 100 % of case offense

 

amagah, we never predicted heg and realism coming!1! whatever will we do... besides pull the pages and pages of blocks to it...

and again, the 1ac puts us 8 minutes ahead of you on this debate, means you have to dig yourself out a hole.

 

and if you're reading nw impacts, the 1ac solves haha... in multiple ways, through foucault, nonviolence solvency, peace corps solvency and a few other ways...

 

oh, and nice double turn.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the militarism crap...

3. this is an idea perpetuated by elites to maximize their control, bites 100 % of case offense

 

That's a sweet card isn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the aff written by Kearney?

 

In the world of your affirmative, what happens to nuclear weapons and missiles and shit? I know Crews' article for a "nonviolently armed forces" concludes with the need for "weapons have to be taken from all armed countries immediately and simultaneously" but I doubt the affirmative could access that advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument bites the biopower advantage harrrrddd, especially with the impact in the 1ac...

"the atomic situation is now at an end point of these processes"

 

and, the different solvency advocates prove we do. Micheal Nagler is oh so sexy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the adv. is biopower...i thought u said it was ONLY structural violence...O

and dude...

Lol, we're 8 minutes ahead of you on this debate, hence the whole 1ac.

 

On the extra T -

as long as we defend the plan as a topical action we'll never be extra topical, at the point where you have no definition proving a violation, we prove that we're a topical increase within the peace corps.

ps, the ground we give you with our action is good, predictable ground.

also, we avoid the mandatory vs. volunteer cp debates which can be run everyround and kills education, the plan is simply a third solvency mechanism, which is collapsing organizations.

and, we counter K everything.

 

on the cp-

this bites 100 % of the case offense. Every impact card in the 1ac is now an independent disad to the cp.

levinas says we outweigh too.

 

on the tix net ben -

the whole 1ac is offense to this mindset, "politics is war by other means", the foucault advantage is huge offense against this. at the point where there's no oncase you bare the full weight of this advantage as a kritik to the disad.

 

on the militarism crap...

1. human nature isn't violent

2. it's empirically denied, the armed forces already allows individuals in the armed forces to transfer to the peace corp.

3. this is an idea perpetuated by elites to maximize their control, bites 100 % of case offense

 

amagah, we never predicted heg and realism coming!1! whatever will we do... besides pull the pages and pages of blocks to it...

and again, the 1ac puts us 8 minutes ahead of you on this debate, means you have to dig yourself out a hole.

 

and if you're reading nw impacts, the 1ac solves haha... in multiple ways, through foucault, nonviolence solvency, peace corps solvency and a few other ways...

 

oh, and nice double turn.

congrats u have preemps and a 1ac

 

the block is 2nc: cp/tix/realism/militarism turn (NO ALT)/ hege turn 1nr: T

 

cp solves all your pc good shit if we win impact on tix we solve the soonest scenario of extinction vote neg...

 

politics ANSERING KS OF TIX ARE NOT VERY HARD we will win

 

realsim WE WILL WIN 100% OF THE TIME REALISM IS GOOD...its the stronger side of the debate...

 

militarism turn...not a double turnwedont advocate an alt...realism doesnt appply here...and we dont say reject militarism we just sstop the militarisation of the peace corps no way that hege turn applys here...even if people are violent the miltiary is more violent and even if one or 2 people can go in now well win that that u cause more ppl enough to set off somewat of a brink...and plz tell me how this has anything 2 do with ur elites turn

 

hege...we will win 100% of risk of a unique link...if u pic enough on the impact debate...i just wont go for cp...the only way u can really win a good hege debate is if you can provide a NON ISOLATION alternative to hege (multipolarity/osb/buck passing) which can only happen with a militatry...

 

 

T--the fact that the CP does not solve proves that your not topical...we define (person to be humans/public health assistance 2 b___________) your plan BANS THE MILITARY THAT IS NOT IN ANY RESOLUTION...this is completely unpredictable, yada yada give examples very abusive....limits debate, you literally do something int he resolution and something completely un related...you unlimit to people increasing in the armed forces and killing the president, even if you win its justa specification of where you get your people...we'll win thats still abusive...there are A BILLION PLACES YOU CAN GET THEM FROM...ground...we cant generate links off of things that have nothing to do with the resolution...

line by line.

1. even if you defend plan as topical action you still are extra to cross apply from above...

you dont devend the plan as topical...cp cant solve shit...

2. we have a definition its persons/pha...this means you can only do that...

also you cant claify where you get ppl cross apply from above

3. you give us NO GROUND and even if you do its bad ground...it has nothing to do with the topic...depth over breth...and genarics are actully good...ect

4. its not a slovency mech its a bad clarification that is bad 4 debate...ect....

 

basically that in longer words....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cp solves all your pc good shit if we win impact on tix we solve the soonest scenario of extinction vote neg...

... and the warrants spill off the page

and cp still has a huge solvency deficit which proves we outweigh, you conceded this...

 

politics ANSERING KS OF TIX ARE NOT VERY HARD we will win .

i told you the criticism we'd use, answer it...

realsim WE WILL WIN 100% OF THE TIME REALISM IS GOOD...its the stronger side of the debate...

That's quite possibly retarded. The whole 1ac is an indict of realism. Also if it's the stronger side of the debate, why did this aff only drop to realism three times all year?

And again nice warrants

 

militarism turn...not a double turnwedont advocate an alt...realism doesnt appply here...and we dont say reject militarism we just sstop the militarisation of the peace corps no way that hege turn applys here...even if people are violent the miltiary is more violent and even if one or 2 people can go in now well win that that u cause more ppl enough to set off somewat of a brink...and plz tell me how this has anything 2 do with ur elites turn

It's still a double turn. You say militarism good with heg good and realism good and then say plan is militaristic, that's bad. You'd fuck yourself in the ass. All we'd have to do is say, you're right, the plan is militaristic, and concede your turn and then your heg and realism becomes advantages for us.

Ps. if you did this I'd be pulling Jungian Psychoanalysis in the 2ac and win peace is bad/wont occur.

 

Oh and you still conceded all of my arguments about how it's empirically denied and perpetuates elitist control...bites 100 % of case offense.

 

hege...we will win 100% of risk of a unique link...if u pic enough on the impact debate...i just wont go for cp...the only way u can really win a good hege debate is if you can provide a NON ISOLATION alternative to hege (multipolarity/osb/buck passing) which can only happen with a militatry...

your warrants suck nuts, nuff said.

T--the fact that the CP does not solve proves that your not topical...we define (person to be humans/public health assistance 2 b___________) your plan BANS THE MILITARY THAT IS NOT IN ANY RESOLUTION...this is completely unpredictable, yada yada give examples very abusive....limits debate, you literally do something int he resolution and something completely un related...you unlimit to people increasing in the armed forces and killing the president, even if you win its justa specification of where you get your people...we'll win thats still abusive...there are A BILLION PLACES YOU CAN GET THEM FROM...ground...we cant generate links off of things that have nothing to do with the resolution...

line by line.

1. even if you defend plan as topical action you still are extra to cross apply from above...

you dont devend the plan as topical...cp cant solve shit...

2. we have a definition its persons/pha...this means you can only do that...

also you cant claify where you get ppl cross apply from above

3. you give us NO GROUND and even if you do its bad ground...it has nothing to do with the topic...depth over breth...and genarics are actully good...ect

4. its not a slovency mech its a bad clarification that is bad 4 debate...ect....

 

basically that in longer words....

The cp not solving doesn't prove we aren't topical, it just proves we use a different solvency mechanism which you have failed to prove is outside of the resolution.

We never stated our plan bans the armed forces, we simply state our plan transfers members of the armed forces to the peace corps, and we access no more military through our solvency.

 

Predictability is a bad standard. We don't have to be predictable to be topical. And it's arbitrary, it requires judge intervention to determine what is and isn't predictable

and a turn on the predictability: this is good, as long as we win lit checks abuse, we win we increase education through plan because we don't regurgitate the same boring shit. And there's hella lit too, hence realism, heg good, jung., or even indicts of nonviolence.

 

On your link babble... at the point where you have no violation you never prove we're outside the resolution, the only thing we have to answer is extra T. And since you fail to respond to "as long as we defend the plan as a topical action we'll never be extra topical, at the point where you have no definition proving a violation, we prove that we're a topical increase within the peace corps."

On your # 1, no warrants buddy.

# 2 w/m, we increase persons serving. dee da dee

# 3, all of your arguments on the other flows prove ground, and lit checks abuse.

# 4... yes it is a different solvency mechanism, i'm sorry you don't know what one is.

 

oh and, the counter K on T you conceded will turn back all of your militarism case turns. succkaaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cp not solving doesn't prove we aren't topical, it just proves we use a different solvency mechanism which you have failed to prove is outside of the resolution.

We never stated our plan bans the armed forces, we simply state our plan transfers members of the armed forces to the peace corps, and we access no more military through our solvency.

Predictability is a bad standard. We don't have to be predictable to be topical. And it's arbitrary, it requires judge intervention to determine what is and isn't predictable

and a turn on the predictability: this is good, as long as we win lit checks abuse, we win we increase education through plan because we don't regurgitate the same boring shit. And there's hella lit too, hence realism, heg good, jung., or even indicts of nonviolence.

On your link babble... at the point where you have no violation you never prove we're outside the resolution, the only thing we have to answer is extra T. And since you fail to respond to "as long as we defend the plan as a topical action we'll never be extra topical, at the point where you have no definition proving a violation, we prove that we're a topical increase within the peace corps."

On your # 1, no warrants buddy.

# 2 w/m, we increase persons serving. dee da dee

# 3, all of your arguments on the other flows prove ground, and lit checks abuse.

# 4... yes it is a different solvency mechanism, i'm sorry you don't know what one is.

oh and, the counter K on T you conceded will turn back all of your militarism case turns. succkaaa

OVERVIEW

you view this debate in an offense defense paradigm...yada yada

our cp is the resolution...the fact that this does not solve proves in round abuse...our abuse story is not that the plan bans the af either its off of the fact that you clarify where you get the persons that you increase in the af...

go to the predictability debate...1 not our only standard...no you dont have to b predictable to be topical but you do have to win this debate to win your interpretation that extra-t doesnt rly matter...and lit doesnt check ANYTHING AT ALL...just because its in the lit doesnt check back abuse...i can find a card that says that their is a blazed up blind def guy with a 28 IQ that qheres purple pockadot pants doesnt make it not abusive to increase them in the peace corps...the fact that i read links doesnt check that either...just b/c i do nothing but cut links 2 stupid affs like urs doesnt make it topical...

limits debate...we have a violation and a piece of evidence to support it...our interp is that persons are humans...you canNOT clarify your increase...the plan does...you are extra topical due the fact that you clarify...and no we do answer defending plan checks

1. even if you defend plan as topical action you still are extra to cross apply from above...

O AND TALKING ABOUT DROPPING THINGS...you dropped the grounds standard...due to the plans clarification of where the people get from our generic links off of increasing in the peace corps wont b good enough and since dropped that generics are key to indepth debates and depth is key to education...thats one of the voters on T that has been completely dropped

line by line...

1. extended above

2. ok you increase the number of people but you also clarify...extend from the overview why thats abusive

3. just because we have read specific arguments doesnt check abuse...neither does lit...above

4. THANK YOU U GOT DISTRACTED INSULTING ME AND YOU FORGOT 2 ANSWER IT...our entire standards debate is linked off the fact that you clarify where you get the people that go in the peace corps its abusive...

ok jw...b/c i didnt catch this...what is the counter-k and is it discursively based...also...you conceded on the politics flow that if we dont go 4 the argument the K goes away...also if we win that your not topical you shoudnt get to access these arguments...than just read the generic T o/w K crap that we all have heard a million times...i dont have time 2 write them all down...

 

WHOS THE SUKKA NOW!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could care less what your post says, I'm tired of you regurgitating arguments without warrants, and bad arguments at that. Oh, and if you didn't notice "lit checks abuse" = answering your ground argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok most of peace corps affs text are funding based (which is completely topical)

and as 2 the impact of structural violence...THAT IS THE FUCKING IMPACT...its the impact to poverty...and its an oppression level impact most people usually read cuomo construction or martin militarism as terminal impacts...

i think the BEST strat 2 this aff (as most people know) is

1. bill and Melinda gate foundation fund the peace corps CP

2. tix--funding unpop (because thats usually in their inh. ev and the ev is just better on that side) and with a case structured like this i would read some util and a2 threat con in the 1nc

3. inflation

4. LOADS OF CASE some ex.

a. aids turn (peace corps ppl are very horney and skrew people and spread aids) its a quick extinction impact

b. alt causes 2 poverty

c. no ! to structural violence

d. negative peace good/positive peace bad

 

neg block

2nc: CP...TIX

1nr: CASE DEFENCE

 

2nr: CP...TIX

 

 

So you beat us on that strat in sems at Golden Desert. Big whoop.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My strat would be run a disad saying that we are all going to die in 2012 so what does it matter what we do for the next 5 years. So Party Hard and act like every day is your last because one day it may come.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My strat would be run a disad saying that we are all going to die in 2012 so what does it matter what we do for the next 5 years. So Party Hard and act like every day is your last because one day it may come.
yea baby!!!!!!!can any1 say...RAVE ON!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea baby!!!!!!!can any1 say...RAVE ON!!!

 

 

Scott Molliver raves to "Walk It Out". He proved it in that same round lol.

 

(yay for judges leaving to have a smoke, eh?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Molliver raves to "Walk It Out". He proved it in that same round lol.

 

(yay for judges leaving to have a smoke, eh?)

What Tourney was this? Who was I debating with? And when did I hit you?

Also...NOOOO I white man dance to "Walk It Out" and I RAVE to SANDSTORM baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Tourney was this? Who was I debating with? And when did I hit you?

Also...NOOOO I white man dance to "Walk It Out" and I RAVE to SANDSTORM baby.

 

You and Alex Ades hit my partner and I in semis at Golden Desert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 words 4 u...NOT TOPICAL...last year (national service) it not only is extra topical because no where in the rez does it say to decrease the af or ban the mil...BUT it also decreases in the armed forces dispite the fact that it increases in the pc...next year (africa) the topic says to increase public health assistance...EXTRA T...

also banning the military is hard enough to win on the neg when you have time to answer every argument...but with the 1ar ur gonna b screwed...

THIS WOULD B MY STRAT AGAINST BAN THE MIL AND DIVERT PERSONS/FUNDS TO THE PC

T-extra t

cp-gates fund the pc and increase the number of people in the pc NOT FROM THE MILITARY

tix-plan would MOST LIKELY BE REALLY UNPOPULAR

militarism: military militaristic by putting them into the pc u make the pc militaristic...turns case...

hege good--military key to hege

CASE--REALISM UP THE WAZOO,

! defence

util

 

 

i think the most strategic way to do that is instead of reading cards that are like nuke war cause structural violence cards that are like nuke war increases poverty...

my strat against this case would be:

 

extra-T

cp-divert all funding and personnel from the military into the world health organization, net ben.'s of imperialism, AIDS, and solvency

 

imperialism

crapload of pc bad solvency, another net ben to the cp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case turns imperialism haaaarrrrddd with the spanos advantage. hah. Oh, and the 1ac proves the onnnllllly reason why US imperialism exists is the pax americana creates by the Armed forces.

 

Oh, and the case also solves most of the solvency args because the reason those problems/ineffectiveness occur is because of lack of personnel.

 

I haven't seen the good strat to this case yet. After nats I'll post the strat that annihilates this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Case turns imperialism haaaarrrrddd with the spanos advantage. hah. Oh, and the 1ac proves the onnnllllly reason why US imperialism exists is the pax americana creates by the Armed forces.

 

Oh, and the case also solves most of the solvency args because the reason those problems/ineffectiveness occur is because of lack of personnel.

 

I haven't seen the good strat to this case yet. After nats I'll post the strat that annihilates this case.

 

the cp solves for that though, the cp also bans the military, and if you have a pc is imperialistic link, then it serves as a pretty good net ben.

 

but there's also a card saying expanding the pc would make it less effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my strat against this case would be:

 

extra-T

cp-divert all funding and personnel from the military into the world health organization, net ben.'s of imperialism, AIDS, and solvency

 

imperialism

crapload of pc bad solvency, another net ben to the cp

Dude the thing is with this strat is that cp is meant 2 prove the abuse on the T because at least i knew that was my strat from the beginning. Also the problem with this strat is that you dont have like a BIG THING that you have obviously won on out of the 1NC. Like the way i see this aff is the type of aff that judges want to drop on T. If you dont plan on going for T than you better have a fucking GOOD ASS CP. Like dude if you were planning on not going 4 t here could be a strat.

Extra T (to scare them)

CP (The United States federal government, (if relevant specifically _________) should divert all people from the military to the peace corps and all fund to (ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PEACE CORPS). The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation will fund this increase. Enforcement guaranteed.)

TIX: plan unpop link off of funding

ANOTHER DA THAT IS SOLVED BY GIVING MONEY TO THE OTHER PROGRAM

CASE:

Solvency: Realism/Util

Biopower adv: Dickinson shit

Structual violence adv: simpact takeouts and alt causes/cant solve...other defence

ANYOTHER ADV IMPACT TAKEOUTS

 

2nc: CP/realism/biopower/kick the non tix da 1nr: tix/struc violence

 

2nr: cp/tix and if necessary advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...