Jump to content
ThinkOutsideTheBallot

[Aff] Advanced Alternative Energy Technologies

Recommended Posts

First of all- I recognize that this is my third thread started recently in this section alone, so I'm sorry. Moderators: merge this with thread my Zero Pointer Energy one if you want. Fact is, I found I card that demands an aff (and possibly going down in history since it is damn near incredible in everyway).

 

Advanced Alternative Energy Technologies are cheap, solve the impending ecological and economic crises related to our oil and general energy consumption, eliminate the our need for global hegemony, and by the way the do it all before the worst comes by 2012

 

Major Todd Hathaway, an Army Nuclear & Counterproliferation Officer currently assigned to Advanced Civil Schooling at the University of Maryland, majoring in Nuclear Engineering, Aug 20 2007, http://pesn.com/2007/08/27/9500495_Advanced_Energy_Technology_Colloquium/

 

The difficulties to bring advanced energy technologies to the public have compromised our nation’s ability to liberate itself from our collective dependency on foreign fossil fuels. All hydrocarbon-based energy production devices are obsolete, including hybrid cars, since they have conventional battery banks and high replacement cost. Even the hydrogen cars using the new fuel cell technology fall into the same category, as hydrogen production only shifts the problem around but does not solve the real problem of our dependency on oil -- imported oil to be more precise.

 

Advanced alternative energy technologies have many advantages over fossil fuels and conventional alternative energy technologies. The volume of fossil fuels imported to the United States could be drastically reduced to a level that would eliminate the need for global hegemony in order to protect our energy and material demands by shifting a small fraction of either private or government research and development funding to advanced energy technologies. The economics of advanced alternative energy systems are considerably less expensive then the present multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel based energy and transportation infrastructures. These newly developed advanced alternative energy technologies preserve the integrity of the planet’s ecosystem at the same time.

 

If the advanced alternative energy technologies mentioned in the presentations provided via the link above were adopted worldwide, the impetus for oil wars could be eliminated within the next five years. Every person on the planet could have access to an unlimited supply of electrical energy and the means of producing clean water. All nations could fully embrace the Kyoto Protocols, as these advanced energy technologies minimize environmental pollution.

 

Cost savings is also an attractive feature of these technologies when you consider the total cost of our nation’s dependency on fossil fuels. In effect, we could change the world as we know it by 2012, as energy scarcity would become a thing of the past. The hurdles are many and the technical solutions are by no means simple; however, current research findings have shown that they are all solvable given sufficient time and research funding.

 

Follow-on events are scheduled in Washington D.C. as early as this fall, similar to events listed online at http://www.green-salon.com, to include National Press Club briefings and meetings with members of Congress.

 

Mankind can no longer afford the luxury of maintaining the status quo in the realm of energy consumption. It is time for massive change on a global scale; and supporting advanced energy technology research and development is our last and best hope to avoid a cataclysmic transition to world peace by overcoming energy scarcity scenarios. Failure to do so will inevitably result in regional and world wars within the next five years.

 

 

 

 

In case you are curious as to what advanced alternative energy technologies are, they include: Brown's Gas, zero-point energy, lattice assisted nuclear reactions (which is maybe the same as Infinite Energy Cold Fusion), magnetic power, and maybe a few others (try to decypher what is what on this page if you are desperate to know what all the technologies are: http://www.green-salon.com/presentations.htm).

 

 

Just a few comments. I think this aff has incredible potential- as I'm sure you can estimate from the card above. The way I'd do it (I think), is have a 'we demand' plan text, and have petitions at the ready. The advantages are spelled in the above card- environment, heg is bad, oil wars, and I don't know exactly what on the whole economy/capitalism bit- but you might be able to make this into an anti-cap advantage with the obvious negative effects this would have on the oil/car industry. I think that you can get the anti-cap bit best with a 'we demand' text (which is why i have it there)- the plan is a demand to make current auto and oil industry obsolete, which would probably have a serious negative effect on those evil money grubbing corporate elites. You may even be able to spin in some zizek if that is your desire... heh.

 

 

 

 

 

edit of a major variety: I'm not sure but the advanced alternative energy technologies may just be different approaches to getting zero-point energy. i'm gonna look in to it, but basically- merging this with the zero point thread iitself might be a good idea.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, you helped me, it gave me some great ideas for my case next year, thanx again

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait -- you're actually going to run this seriously? Are you sure you want to lose to the "science" K?

(ie, A. Science is true. B. Science says conservation of energy. C. plan violates conservation of energy. D. YOU LOSE)

Zero point energy? rly? Brown's Gas is electrolyzed water -- costs more energy to make than it gets you when you burn it, plus basically it's a fancy way of saying "hydrogen fuel cell" -- cold fusion doesn't work, etcetera.

Actually, they did an episode of MythBusters on this stuff -- this aff would lose to the MythBusters DA. (Which consists of playing an episode of MythBusters during the 1NC.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say that this is a pretty lame response. I recognize there is serious debate in the scientific community about whether this stuff is real or not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't– zero point energy research is now appearing in peer reviewed journals. Also– look at the instance of Tesla– the entire scientific (and capitalist/investing) community looked at his stuff and acted like it wouldn't work because they new that they couldn't make money off of it, so there actually was a huge conspiracy to keep his research unfunded and unsuccessful. Now consider today– think about the degree to which our society is dependent on our current model for energy production and distribution. Think about the sheer number of people who drive to work everyday on gas powered cars. And think about the fact that the people who run our society all have economic interests, or at the very least political interests, in keeping things as they are for as long as possible (which is why we are doing practically nothing about global warming). So there is no doubt there is motive in this society to make sure that nothing revolutionary gets discovered. So now the only question is, is there something to discover? Well that is debatable, but I think there is enough indication that it could be real that there is pretty much no good reason not to put even a little bit of money into these technologies (which is exactly what the evidence posted is talking about).

 

Not to mention the fact that your science K is ridiculously suseptable to kritiks of dualism, and western thought. And that science has been wrong in the past– just before the Wright brothers took flight someone used science to 'prove' that such a thing was impossible.

The only fact is that science is assumed to be true– science is based on theories which are simply systems humans created to explain the world outside them, and since theories are inevitably incomplete they are never completely true, but rather must always change and grow, which is exactly the history of science– constantly changing theories.

And since when is MythBusters the end all to science, it's a TV show for god's sake. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

 

People's arguments against this aff come down to nothing but a closure on thought, and I think this is should be rejected out of hand. If you want to run your science crap in round, fine, but don't discourage people from thinking differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I gotta say that this is a pretty lame response. I recognize there is serious debate in the scientific community about whether this stuff is real or not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't– zero point energy research is now appearing in peer reviewed journals. Also– look at the instance of Tesla– the entire scientific (and capitalist/investing) community looked at his stuff and acted like it wouldn't work because they new that they couldn't make money off of it, so there actually was a huge conspiracy to keep his research unfunded and unsuccessful. Now consider today– think about the degree to which our society is dependent on our current model for energy production and distribution. Think about the sheer number of people who drive to work everyday on gas powered cars. And think about the fact that the people who run our society all have economic interests, or at the very least political interests, in keeping things as they are for as long as possible (which is why we are doing practically nothing about global warming). So there is no doubt there is motive in this society to make sure that nothing revolutionary gets discovered. So now the only question is, is there something to discover? Well that is debatable, but I think there is enough indication that it could be real that there is pretty much no good reason not to put even a little bit of money into these technologies (which is exactly what the evidence posted is talking about).

 

Not to mention the fact that your science K is ridiculously suseptable to kritiks of dualism, and western thought. And that science has been wrong in the past– just before the Wright brothers took flight someone used science to 'prove' that such a thing was impossible.

The only fact is that science is assumed to be true– science is based on theories which are simply systems humans created to explain the world outside them, and since theories are inevitably incomplete they are never completely true, but rather must always change and grow, which is exactly the history of science– constantly changing theories.

And since when is MythBusters the end all to science, it's a TV show for god's sake. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

 

People's arguments against this aff come down to nothing but a closure on thought, and I think this is should be rejected out of hand. If you want to run your science crap in round, fine, but don't discourage people from thinking differently.

 

It's not just some out-there, untested technology. I would be with you there. However, it's a VIOLATION of the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. One of the MOST central, MOST empirically proven, and MOST logically necessary scientific principles in the entire apparatus of modern thought. There is not debate in the scientific literature about this type of energy. The talk about zero point energy in the scientific literature is about the quantum dynamic concept of zero point energy, aka the lowest energy state available to a particle. The idea that this could get us "free energy from the vacuum," in the words of the infamous Bearden, is limited to the credulous, conspiracy-theory-believing fringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a VIOLATION of the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. One of the MOST central, MOST empirically proven, and MOST logically necessary scientific principles in the entire apparatus of modern thought.

 

And yet a quick wikipedia search shows me that the second law of thermodynamics has been criticized by some through out history.

 

Not to mention, "Theoretical contributions have been done by such pioneers as Nobel laureates Ilya Prigogine, P. A. M. Dirac, John Wheeler, and Julian Schwinger. Prigogine, for example, has shown that the second law of thermodynamics can be expanded to include systems in which order evolves from randomness -- a result also obtained by Puthoff who utilized theories of zero-point energy to obtain an equivalent result.

 

The critical factor here is that linear systems tend toward increasing entropy (i.e. the result of two inputs being the sum of their corresponding outputs), whereas under certain conditions, nonlinear systems have been shown to evolve toward macroscopic order. Such nonlinear systems imply transient or apparently uncontrolled systems, but the reality remains that clever designs can and do provide means to skirt traditional understandings of thermodynamic limitations and literally tap into the surrounding universe for unlimited amounts of useful energy."

 

And that is from here: http://www.halexandria.org/dward154.htm.

 

The flaws of linear approaches to science have been discussed elsewhere and in great amount. I don't much care to talk about that here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, everything has been criticized by some throughout history.

A "quick wikipedia search" indicates that free energy devices are scientifically impossible conspiracy theories.

 

Second, re: that website:

Dude, that's exactly what I'm criticizing. They quote freaking BEARDEN, for crying out loud. This guy believes that the Japanese Yakuza have energy beam weapons to destroy American submarines. (It's in the same article as his econ impact card.) The people behind that website also believe in crop circles and ESP.

I don't think it's worth your time or effort to stake winning a debate round on the truth of these theories. Moreover, I don't think it's worth anyone else's time to have to listen to you debate about this stuff.

 

Additionally, it's ridiculous and insulting to posit that there's some vast conspiracy of scientists, government, and businesses out to protect oil by keeping this from the public. Basic economics says otherwise. Plus, why hasn't the government done anything to silence Bearden et al? The ONLY reason that these theories get no hold in the mainstream is because a. their scientific advocates are too incompetent and/or self-deluding to persuade anyone, and b. they're completely and totally incorrect.

 

Also: I don't know what you're trying to get at with "nonlinear approaches to science" but what your evidence is talking about is the idea that just because a system is nonlinear, it can somehow violate the second law of thermodynamics on an unlimited scale, which is patently ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta admit, that's a pretty damn ridiculous site, and I wouldn't recommend citing it again. The card indeed gives amazing impacts, but it's warrants and author are horrible. Major Todd Hathaway appears to have absolutely no significant recognition outside of that website, he is currently in school, and his only expertise is that he was a nuclear proliferation officer, which doesn't actually imply he knows anything about nuclear physics, let alone zero point energy. The article was written on the "Pure Energy Systems Network, Inc." website, without so much as a single verifiable reference. The only explanation of what he claims comes from another far more ridiculous website, "The Library of Halexandria", which in my mind fits between Time Cube and this (Ok, not that bad, but seriously, read the site).

 

The warrants within the card are also absent. He only reads impacts of these systems if they work, without providing any evidence that they actually do. Perhaps he is right that if they work that's great, but why should they?

 

The bottom line is that basic understanding and research into energy will reveal that this aff can't work out unless you hit a team wholly unprepared to debate actual science, and which has no evidence on such theories as zero point energy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, everything has been criticized by some throughout history.

 

Granted

 

 

Wow- this is a tautology if I ever saw one. The link you posted is about free energy suppression, the conspiracy theory that suggests that free energy like zero point and others is being suppressed by various powers. No wonder this article is about conspiracy theories! I dare you to find a single warrant that proves that zero point or others free energy sources are 'impossible'. As Godel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates (and Stephen Hawking himself has it's application to physics)- not logical theorem (like the first and second laws of thermodynamics) can ever be complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications). Which means that theories themselves are not absolutely stable ground to eliminate other theories on. Furthermore– although overunity has be shunned by mainstream science there are many theorists who have argued for it. If you care to read more of the page I originally cited: "Experimentally, the emphasis has been to demonstrate an energy device whose power output exceeds the power input as measured through conventional methods. The quest of such a device has been pursued -- with some success -- by dedicated and innovative researchers, including Tesla, Moray, DePalma, Newman, Boyer, Puthoff, Fleischmann, Pons, Bearden, Graneau, Patterson, Ward, and many others. "

 

Just because it hasn't been found yet (or as conspiracies indicate, it has we just don't know about it), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like my Wright bros example- just because science can 'prove' something is impossible, it doesn't mean it is impossible- this is a natural conclusion of Godel's theorem.

 

Second, re: that website:

Dude, that's exactly what I'm criticizing. They quote freaking BEARDEN, for crying out loud. This guy believes that the Japanese Yakuza have energy beam weapons to destroy American submarines. (It's in the same article as his econ impact card.) The people behind that website also believe in crop circles and ESP.

 

I recognize Bearden's lack of accreditation in the scientific community, but as I already explained earlier, there is enormous motive for people like him to be discredited. Given the fact that you never debated my Tesla example, I have to believe you grant me that it happened before, and therefore could happen again. What do you do to undercut support for theories you don't want to gain power? Challenge their author's qualifications. Call them a science conspiracy. Again, all I'm hearing from you is a closure on thought– something I personally believe has no place in the world of debate whose intention is not to create conformity of belief to but educate and teach critical thinking skills. RD Laing's work demonstrates to us all that just because the majority calls someone crazy doesn't mean they are. The majority in fact has been known to commit more insane acts than the so called insane people.

 

Ad homs are not challenges actual argument, and the fact is much of the efforts to discredit zero point energy and alike by the mainstream community amount to more or less 2 points- 1) it's impossible (which as I showed is impossible to prove– you simply cannot show that something cannot happen, just that it hasn't yet; which in this case there is debate on whether it has or hasn't) and 2) you aren't supported by the scientific community so you must be wrong.

 

I don't think it's worth your time or effort to stake winning a debate round on the truth of these theories. Moreover, I don't think it's worth anyone else's time to have to listen to you debate about this stuff.

 

I will decide what I think is worth my time to research, not you, thank you very much. I personally don't think it's worth anyone's time to argue politics disads, but I don't go jumping in on the DA threads and telling people to stop spending time debating that crap. I'm not saying that zero point energy or other technologies are out there or not, I'm just saying that it is something worth considering.

 

Here is a card for why we should talk about stuff like this aff.

 

 

The only hope for the planet is considering technologies we’ve barely imagined

 

Alan Weisman, teaches journalism at the University of Arizona, July 25, 2004, Los Angeles Times, “Mining the Imagination for New Energy; Scientists call for a research blitz targeting extreme possibilities”

 

To allay concerns over dwindling oil and mounting carbon residues, President Bush has proposed relying on "clean" coal, a revived nuclear industry and hydrogen cars, which he says could be widely available by 2040. Critics denounce these ideas as either impractical or environmentally outrageous, calling instead for intensified renewable energy development.

 

Both visions are naive. The dilemma isn't just getting enough clean energy, but getting enough energy, period. As world population quadrupled last century, power consumption increased sixteenfold. With China and India joining the industrialized feeding frenzy, by 2050 our current usage will triple. And neither Bush nor environmentalists know how to meet such demand.

 

To run the world on biomass fuel (a favorite idea of John Kerry's) would require dedicating an area comparable in size to all land now used for human agriculture. Because sun and wind energy aren't constant, tapping them on a massive scale not only means huge arrays of solar panels and turbines but redesigned grids with vast new storage mechanisms. Atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calculates that if we somehow built 900-megawatt, zero-emissions plants each day for the next 50 years, we'd barely double our current output. Even if we embraced universal nuclear power, there's far too little uranium -- unless we again accept breeder reactors, which proliferate weapons-grade fuel.

 

Writing in the journal Science, Caldeira and 17 other eminent American and Canadian scientists conclude that the only hope for solving the world's looming energy shortage is to consider things we've barely imagined. They propose a research blitz of previously unimagined proportions, far beyond what any politician is currently suggesting, in search of entirely new carbon-free technologies.

 

 

I recognize the issue of this aff being its scientific credibility, but the point I'm making and this card does too- is that if we really want to solve the energy crisis crazy shit might need to be done. All I'm saying is that we should invest more in researching advanced alternative energies because ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells and more efficient light bulbs simply won't cut it. The risk of being wrong about zero point energy and the rest is much less than the risk of continued reliance on traditional energy sources, or even so called 'alternative energies' which simply are not a radical enough shift from our current approach.

 

Additionally, it's ridiculous and insulting to posit that there's some vast conspiracy of scientists, government, and businesses out to protect oil by keeping this from the public. Basic economics says otherwise. Plus, why hasn't the government done anything to silence Bearden et al? The ONLY reason that these theories get no hold in the mainstream is because a. their scientific advocates are too incompetent and/or self-deluding to persuade anyone, and b. they're completely and totally incorrect.

 

I made no truth claims here, so excuse me. All I said was there there is the motive for a conspiracy to exist. And how exactly does basic economics say otherwise? Do you deny that we are a nation addicted to oil, and that Exxon/Mobil is making a ridiculous amount of money on it? The very nature of free energy is a serious challenge to our current economic system! It's why JP Morgan pulled the plug on Tesla's research- because he knew that if Tesla was successful, that would be the end of the money making. If ZPE is for real, then it means that energy corporations are out of luck, because we don't need them any more if energy is all around us!

You say it is ridiculous and insulting to defend conspiracy theories. Well I say it is ridiculous and wrong to so willingly let politicians and capitalists who run the world be above challenge by dissenting voices. Because that is what your argument amounts to, that it is insulting to challenge dominant view points. In fact I think what you are arguing is more than insulting- it is grounded in genocidal politics. Santos for you: "Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion that is manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present−day reality and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of

development to its ultimate consequences." Thats from here: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-03-26-santos-en.html

And it is obvious why the government hasn't 'done anything' to silence 'Bearden et al'- because we live in a so called democracy where you can't just go imprisoning scientists for no reason. We have developed a much more effective way to make sure their voices don't get heard- discredit them.

 

And if the ZPE science is such bullshit, why is it that the American government has the Army investigating it for them, instead of publicly funding open efforts? It was upon reviewing "the U.S. Army National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on zero point energy research" that Major Hathaway decided to learn more.

 

Also: I don't know what you're trying to get at with "nonlinear approaches to science" but what your evidence is talking about is the idea that just because a system is nonlinear, it can somehow violate the second law of thermodynamics on an unlimited scale, which is patently ridiculous.

 

I'm sorry I thought you were a fan of qualification wars, is the fact that the research was done by 4 Nobel Laureates what convinces you that the claim: "the second law of thermodynamics can be expanded to include systems in which order evolves from randomness" is patently ridiculous? I didn't realize that you were more qualified on this issue than lya Prigogine, P. A. M. Dirac, John Wheeler, or Julian Schwinger...

 

Inconsistent much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just thought I would give my two cents here.

 

First off. Free energy? prolly not. Those Nobel laureates are talking about something tangentially related... not trying to prove free energy.

 

Second. This is strategically unsound water. you read cards by crackpots and are ready to defend against the neg calling you out. what you are not ready for is for the neg to go crackpot-ier then you. You say that cold fusion works? I say the Illuminati are trying to trick us into designing cold fusion so that they can rule the world. This sounds retarded. Fair. However, if a central defense of your 1AC involves rejecting standards of proof and basic laws of thermodynamics as well as western science then you will have to contradict yourself when you get timecubed. Are you really going to design an aff on the hopes that you can outbluff the neg team that your unqualified crackpots are somehow better then the other team's unqualified crackpots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can outbluff the neg team that your unqualified crackpots are somehow better then the other team's unqualified crackpots?

 

lol...

 

basically, zero-point energy is one of those things we would eventually love to fuel everything with, but i'm sure its not gonna reach potential until 30-50 years.... its just like how we want to eventually colonize the moon, be able to travel at warp speed, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me that

1. If you advocate the need for all of these techs, the PIC is pretty tempting

2. Hege good. The card says that it eleminacts the need for a hegemon, but we exercise leadership to do much more than secure oil (depending on who you ask, maybe not...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off. Free energy? prolly not. Those Nobel laureates are talking about something tangentially related... not trying to prove free energy.

 

I agree that they were not trying to prove free energy. What they did prove is something contrary to the usual, linear understanding of the second law of thermodynamics- that something (order) cannot come from nothing (randomness). One of the typical claims of scientists against free energy is that it is theortically impossible on those previously stated grounds. And as the quote explains, and I'll use it again in case that is unclear, "Theoretical contributions have been done by such pioneers as Nobel laureates Ilya Prigogine, P. A. M. Dirac, John Wheeler, and Julian Schwinger. Prigogine, for example, has shown that the second law of thermodynamics can be expanded to include systems in which order evolves from randomness -- a result also obtained by Puthoff who utilized theories of zero-point energy to obtain an equivalent result." Which means- those Nobel winners say order can come from randomness (which means ZPE is theoritcally possible), and that a ZPE researcher named Puthoff used ZPE theories to come to the same conclusion about order being able to come from randomness.

 

Second. This is strategically unsound water. you read cards by crackpots and are ready to defend against the neg calling you out. what you are not ready for is for the neg to go crackpot-ier then you. You say that cold fusion works? I say the Illuminati are trying to trick us into designing cold fusion so that they can rule the world. This sounds retarded. Fair. However, if a central defense of your 1AC involves rejecting standards of proof and basic laws of thermodynamics as well as western science then you will have to contradict yourself when you get timecubed. Are you really going to design an aff on the hopes that you can outbluff the neg team that your unqualified crackpots are somehow better then the other team's unqualified crackpots

 

You are missing the point here. The issue is not who can come up with the craziest conspiracy theory, but rather, we just don't know whether conspiracy theories are true or not. Other people may run this aff differently, but my intention is that this aff is not so much based on the absolute claim that advanced alternative energies are real, although I will read evidence by people who claim it is, but rather- there is just no way to resolve the truth of it. Which is unimportant for two reasons- 1) we need to try new things to do something about the energy crisis (evidence above), and there is no doubt that being successful is worth it; 2) the mere presence of conspiracy theories in round is a valuable challenge to power (and in this case particularly against capitalism, which will be a significant element of the 1ac).

 

So no, there will be no contradiction when arguments about the Illuminati and Timecube come up- because that is where the metaargument comes into play. We don't know whether the aff is true or the neg is true or both maybe too, which means there is no way to resolve the arguments at hand in a regular way. But, since truth is not the important thing here- it is the challenge to dominant powers- then both aff and neg do that, which is to say, the negative is not competetive, because they do the same thing as us. And I'll just run a Bleiker perm to show how both viewpoints are important and useful.

 

The argument against 'standards of proof and basic laws of thermodynamics as well as western science' rely not on "actually all of that is a lie", but rather, "we don't know all of that is more true than what we are saying". So like I've been saying- this aff is about and opening up to thought, not about closing it out. The point is questioning qualifications and 'truth' in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You are missing the point here. The issue is not who can come up with the craziest conspiracy theory, but rather, we just don't know whether conspiracy theories are true or not.

 

if it's true - it's not a theory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not about to erage about this so all I have to say is that "presumption goes neg" solves all your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Second. This is strategically unsound water. you read cards by crackpots and are ready to defend against the neg calling you out. what you are not ready for is for the neg to go crackpot-ier then you. You say that cold fusion works? I say the Illuminati are trying to trick us into designing cold fusion so that they can rule the world. This sounds retarded. Fair. However, if a central defense of your 1AC involves rejecting standards of proof and basic laws of thermodynamics as well as western science then you will have to contradict yourself when you get timecubed. Are you really going to design an aff on the hopes that you can outbluff the neg team that your unqualified crackpots are somehow better then the other team's unqualified crackpots?

 

Time to bust out the Consult the New World Order CP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time to bust out the Consult the New World Order CP?

 

 

exactly, although consulting them might be asinine, since all those cards say new world order evil. But... I mean... no reason to split hairs lawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Julian:

 

1. I understand you intend to spin this as a straight up K aff, that should be fun with some anti-cap/anti-fascism (Deleuze and Guattari maybe?).

2. Do you see any avenues for spinning this aff in a more policy manner.

3. Hit me up on AIM : iyenobaseki, i might lend a hand with this aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...